@jaybird2585 Wisconsin can easily be considered for honorable mention. I only added #6-10 for that, but the Badgers are rated #12 on my list for offensive talent. There is actually not much of a drop-off or difference at all between Nebraska (#6) and Auburn (#15) on this specific list.

It's flawed, because you are now assuming that the way they played in High School will translate to the same success in college. That isn't always the case and I would be willing to bet that it's not even close to being the case most of the time.

The best way would be to look at how the team did offensively last year and see how many starters they have. Of course, you would have to take into account the defenses they went against as well.

Talent is never a good measure to rank teams. Look at the Philadelphia Eagles last year. :/

@PioneerRaptor I think you're projecting my list into a "best teams" type of category. I completely agree with you that recruiting rankings are not sure-fire ways to assess future success, but generally they are very good. In my formula I give much higher points for awards and all-conference, etc. -- in comparison to recruit rankings.

I also agree that talent isn't a good measure alone to rank teams, but that's not what I'm doing. Recruit rankings are tangible numbers (while their merit is of course debatable) and so are awards and other recognition. I'm simply saying, "Team 'X' has the most highly rated recruits on their team combined with on-field accolades." I'm not projecting wins or assigning value based on this.

I'm presenting information from raw data that I've synthesized into what I feel is something meaningful that fosters a unique discussion. Instead of someone saying "Why isn't 'Team X' on the list?" perhaps they should be saying "Wow, with all those top recruits and returning guys with accolades, why isn't 'Team X' having a better year."

It's a way to check talent-accountability (and yes, I just made that up).

And lucky for you -- or unlucky, depending on how you look at it -- I also have separate rankings that emphasize returning starters. Not only that, but my win-projection model that emphasizes talent is heavily influenced by returning key starters.

i hope the irish start golson at qb this year. if we had stability at that position theres no telling where we wouldve ended up last year. i'd say this is a very reasonable list; look at it this way, these are teams that are going to bring in some of the best recruits in the nation, year in and year out. sure it doesnt guaruntee success, but its a great place to start. and why is everyone whining about west virginia? yea your offense was real talented...in the big east. you played a garbage schedule, and a meltdown like clemsons in a bowl game is not something i could see happening too often. when wvu has success in the big 12 then theyll get credit, until then just stick to bein a party school.

Recruit rankings (which are usually bonk anyways) over actual on the field performance and returning starting stars?

lol

Top 5 "explosive" offenses in football for 2012 season:

1. USC
2. WVU
3. Clemson
4. Oregon
5. Arkansas

There ya go

@gameface1324 Recruit rankings are usually "bonk"? Then why do the teams that load up on top recruits win more?

And if you read through the article thoroughly you would notice I take into account on-field performance (accolades). In fact, they weigh more heavily on the rankings than do the recruit rankings.

As for returning stars or starters, that's a different list. However, I do incorporate the talent rankings with returning starters to help generate one of my win-prediction models. But again, that's for another day.

I'm not quite sure if you're upset with the teams on the list, or with the fact it wasn't about what you wanted it to be about. It's like reading an article about the top ten action movies and commenting by saying "this list sucks...but here are my top ten comedy flicks."