For the eternal legion of the miserable

[SmokeyJoe]

Let us discuss. Did the previous recruiting thread get deleted??? Somebody a little thensitive today? Anyway here is an article on the star ranking of the two super bowl teams.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-super-bowl-how-falcons-patriots-starters-were-rated-as-high-school-recruits/amp/?client=ms-android-americamovil-us

Read it and weep for those eternally negative fans.   8)

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[SmokeyJoe]

I'll be shocked if georgia lives up to its #3 ranking, same for Michigan. The current exceptions appear to be turd & questionably the buckeyes in terms of living up to recruiting rankings.

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[BanditVol]

Boom!

[Creek Walker]

I'm not sure what the NFL has to do with college football. The fact is that the teams dominating the SEC are the teams that dominate in recruiting. You can try to spin it however you like it, but the proof is in the pudding.

Besides, Butch Jones is no Gary Pinkel.

[SmokeyJoe]

I'm not sure what the NFL has to do with college football. The fact is that the teams dominating the SEC are the teams that dominate in recruiting. You can try to spin it however you like it, but the proof is in the pudding.

Besides, Butch Jones is no Gary Pinkel.

Clemson. Nebraska in their heyday. And NOBODY is dominating the SEC other than bama. Washington made the playoffs. How was oregons ratings in their heyday. I think there is plenty of valid spin.

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[SmokeyJoe]

Furthermore, the point was "stars" clearly do not matter as much as some think. Are NFL rosters not comprised of former college players?

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[SmokeyJoe]

I'll give you bama & the buckeyes... Otherwise it is a crapshoot. I'll bet you $100 that jawga never lives up to this classes ranking!

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[LouisVOL]

I don't see domination in the SEC except bama.  And I attribute that to Saban, not stars.  Like the Bear said, He'll take his'n and beat your'n, or your'n and beat his'n. 

Now I fully realize you gotta have the horses, but talent evaluation and coaching are huge, and there are many teams that prove that year in and year out.  Unfortunately, CBJ has yet to impress in those two categories.  Jury is still out in my opinion, but not yet. 

I'm not sure what the NFL has to do with college football. The fact is that the teams dominating the SEC are the teams that dominate in recruiting. You can try to spin it however you like it, but the proof is in the pudding.

Besides, Butch Jones is no Gary Pinkel.

[Tnphil]

Probably has to do with the numbers in each star category....I saw this posted on another site pertaining to this same article in the OP. These numbers were averaged around a 10 year period in college D1.

39- 5 Stars (average per year)
334- 4 Stars (average per year)
917- 3 Stars (average per year)
470- 2 Stars (average per year)

[Creek Walker]

Probably has to do with the numbers in each star category....I saw this posted on another site pertaining to this same article in the OP. These numbers were averaged around a 10 year period in college D1.

39- 5 Stars (average per year)
334- 4 Stars (average per year)
917- 3 Stars (average per year)
470- 2 Stars (average per year)

The sheer number of athletes that the NFL franchises have to choose from is astounding. Those 2-star and 3-star guys who make it big in the NFL are anomalies at the college level, scattered among many teams. Most of those guys did not play for great college teams...meaning you're always going to have a 2-star or 3-star prep prospect here and there who's going to turn into starters at the professional level, but you rarely see college teams full of 2-star and 3-star guys who succeed at the high level.

Trying to use an article about how Super Bowl starters ranked in high school to put a positive spin on UT's recruiting class is futile.

[BGHarper]

I don't see domination in the SEC except bama.  And I attribute that to Saban, not stars.  Like the Bear said, He'll take his'n and beat your'n, or your'n and beat his'n.  

Now I fully realize you gotta have the horses, but talent evaluation and coaching are huge, and there are many teams that prove that year in and year out.  Unfortunately, CBJ has yet to impress in those two categories.  Jury is still out in my opinion, but not yet.  

Actually it was Clemson's coach Frank Howard who said that about Bryant.

BG

Edited to say we were both wrong. I double checked and it was a quote from Houston Oilers coach Bum Phillips about Bryant.

BG

[BanditVol]

Borrowing from mathematics, recruiting is essential but not sufficient.  It also takes coaching. Plenty of examples of recruiting not panning out.

Having said that, when the gap is as large as it is at bammer, coaching is less important.  I think even Dooley could go 10-2 with Saban's players, and with a little luck 11-1 and make the playoffs.

[BGHarper]

Borrowing from mathematics, recruiting is essential but not sufficient.  It also takes coaching. Plenty of examples of recruiting not panning out.

Having said that, when the gap is as large as it is at bammer, coaching is less important.  I think even Dooley could go 10-2 with Saban's players, and with a little luck 11-1 and make the playoffs.

Maybe Dooley could do that for one lone season but not year end and year out.

BG

 

[ReVOLver]

Seeing what's plainly in front of one's face is not being the LOM. Butch sucks, thumbs his nose at the fan base, recruited like shizzle this year, and has tiny feet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReVOLver]

Using Clemson and 90s Nebraska and Washington as examples of why recruiting stars aren't important is either ignorant or stupid... Not sure which. Put any of those teams except 95 Nebraska in our league and they don't go to the playoff. Forget national class rankings and focus on conference rankings.

Also mentioning Nebraska as part of this argument is dumb as hell since the star system didn't evolve until the mid 90s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmokeyJoe]

Using Clemson and 90s Nebraska and Washington as examples of why recruiting stars aren't important is either ignorant or stupid... Not sure which. Put any of those teams except 95 Nebraska in our league and they don't go to the playoff. Forget national class rankings and focus on conference rankings.

Also mentioning Nebraska as part of this argument is dumb as hell since the star system didn't evolve until the mid 90s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well aren't you in a dandy mood. Bama lost to a team in national champ that had an average recruiting ranking of about 12 in 4 years preceding this year. Denial of this is either stupid, or ignorant. Not sure which 😎

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[ReVOLver]

Well aren't you in a dandy mood. Bama lost to a team in national champ that had an average recruiting ranking of about 12 in 4 years preceding this year. Denial of this is either stupid, or ignorant. Not sure which 😎

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

Their first 22 -35 players are really good. Put them in the sec and they don't make it out alive due to depth. Not surprised you missed the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmokeyJoe]

But they beat bama. Until Saban is gone dont see them dropping off... Still they do get beat.

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[SmokeyJoe]

Their first 22 -35 players are really good. Put them in the sec and they don't make it out alive due to depth. Not surprised you missed the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really the only class I am sure is rock solid top to bottom is bama. I'll believe georgia when I see it. OSU plays a shizzle schedule year in an year out. After that 5-20 or so is strictly guessing from pencil necks that likely never played the game.

Sent from my LGL82VL using Tapatalk

[73Volgrad]

Stars are an indicator of perceived talent and skill. Winning consistently is a product of coaching. Saban at Alabama succeeds due to coaching up a large crop of highly skilled players. It is the coaching they receive that results in success. Even then, a team loaded with stars can lose. Clemson won this year over Bama because they exploited there weakness on defense: lack of pass rush and small CBs. When Bama's only RB went down, they forced the QB to beat them and he could not. Until the SEC teams line up against Bama and think they can win, they will keep losing. As soon as LSU develops an offense, look for them to win the SEC West.

[BGHarper]

Stars are an indicator of perceived talent and skill. Winning consistently is a product of coaching. Saban at Alabama succeeds due to coaching up a large crop of highly skilled players. It is the coaching they receive that results in success. Even then, a team loaded with stars can lose. Clemson won this year over Bama because they exploited there weakness on defense: lack of pass rush and small CBs. When Bama's only RB went down, they forced the QB to beat them and he could not. Until the SEC teams line up against Bama and think they can win, they will keep losing. As soon as LSU develops an offense, look for them to win the SEC West.

Bama doesnt have short corners---all are at least 6 feet and Humphrey is 6'1. You mentioned another weakness was the Bama defense doesn't have a pass rush---Alabama finished third in the nation in sacks. There was a lack of a pass rush in the fourth quarter as Clemson wore down that rush by forcing so many three and outs so perhaps that's what you're referring to.


BG

[BanditVol]

Stars are an indicator of perceived talent and skill. Winning consistently is a product of coaching. Saban at Alabama succeeds due to coaching up a large crop of highly skilled players. It is the coaching they receive that results in success. Even then, a team loaded with stars can lose. Clemson won this year over Bama because they exploited there weakness on defense: lack of pass rush and small CBs. When Bama's only RB went down, they forced the QB to beat them and he could not. Until the SEC teams line up against Bama and think they can win, they will keep losing. As soon as LSU develops an offense, look for them to win the SEC West.

I'm going to keep harping on this....when the talent gap is SO LARGE as the one between bammer and everyone else, coaching matters less.  Period.  Saban was a lot more mortal at LSU, where he won the MNC and then had a record about like most other teams in the upper half of the SEC.