but our recruiting looks fairly consistent. Other than the celebrated year when we cracked the top 25 we have been somewhere around 40-60. I don't think you can make that big a deal between the #40 and #60 recruiting class. In that range you are hoping for players like Hoff.

I am absolutely correct about missions. With returning missionaries we only have 15 scholarships available this year or something like that. Missions (and returning early) are what kept us from getting Star and Murphy for a couple of recent examples. It is hard to have a top recruiting class when you have 10 less scholarships than everyone else.

Non skill players make up over 1/2 of the players on the field - so having them account for less than 1/2 in the rankings kind of proves my point.

The truth is I don't put a ton of stock in the recruiting numbers because it is a inaccurate science. If they meant as much as some people want to believe then teams like ND and Michigan would never have bad seasons. One thing that I think is true is that BYU is thrilled to get a top player - but when he doesn't pan our like Heaps or Olsen it is hard to find a replacement. A team like Alabama has a quality replacement sitting on the bench. In essence I think the rankings have more to do with depth at every position than skill of the starters.

Finally - why did you use Rivals instead of Scout as your evidence? It smacks of Yewtishness to use the recruiting service that gives BYU the worst rankings. At least Jkamp showed both.