LSU Football: Tigers Recruits Not Represented in 2013 ESPNU Top 150 List
ESPNU released its annual Top 150 rankings for the football class of 2013 this week, and much to the surprise of many LSU fans, there isn't a single LSU commitment who appears on the list.
After signing what many experts considered to be an "average" recruiting class this past season for LSU standards, Les Miles and his coaching staff made it a point to get an early jump on the 2013 class. Up to this point, the Tigers have already received nine verbal commitments in their 2013 class, all of which are from the state of Louisiana.
After missing out on Landon Collins and several other big-time in-state prospects over the years, Miles has made it a point to lock up all the talent in the state of Louisiana in 2013.
Of LSU's nine commitments, four of them are listed as 4-star prospects, according to rivals.com. That includes Neville High School product John Diarse, who is listed as the No. 3-ranked athlete in the country by rivals.com, yet somehow he is not listed in ESPNU's Top 150 players in the country.
Not only is LSU represented poorly in these rankings, but so is the entire state of Louisiana. Only five in-state prospects are listed on the Top 150 list, which is rare to see considering how much talent consistently comes from that state.
Of those five players, four are still uncommitted at this point, and all are considering LSU, which is good news for Miles and his staff.
Kendell Beckwith is the state's top prospect and the No. 1-ranked athlete in the country, according to ESPNU. LSU is among his finalists, along with Ole Miss, Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi State and Tennessee.
The other in-state prospects that appear on the Top 150 list are: Tim Williams (33), Standish Dobard (131), DeSean Smith (137) and Christopher Taylor (139).
Miles would love to put a wall around the state of Louisiana and bring in all five of those recruits, but with where LSU's 2013 class is at right now, there shouldn't be any worries in Tiger country.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?