|
Replies: 13
| visibility 3018
|
Clemson Sports Icon [58446]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 44869
Joined: 2003
|
I was just reading a post on another site and somebody was belittling our
8
8
Feb 5, 2025, 9:50 PM
|
|
recruiting ranking for this year...BUT...BUT...I seem to remember a few years back when another coach responding to complaints about a poor class said,"Hey, we FILLED our needs". Well, we had two big needs this year....a stud tailback...and a stud Dlineman. WE GOT BOTH. If the rest of them can contribute in time, we are at least good to go this year.JMHO
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Conqueror [11309]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 13298
Joined: 2014
|
Preach it Spud...and we may have had a low "ranking" but, our average
6
6
Feb 5, 2025, 9:58 PM
|
|
per player was still very high! The "rankings" still put too much weight on the total number of players you sign!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13186]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
Yeah it wasnt that high; if you rank it by player average we were 16th
4
Feb 5, 2025, 10:23 PM
|
|
By any measure this is the least accretive class we’ve signed since Dabo’s Dandy Dozen in his first year. One off class doesn’t mean the program is crumbling, but at the same time an attempt to laud this class is just spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [101219]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98791
Joined: 2009
|
If you ignore the fact that we didn't ship half a dozen starters off to the...
2
Feb 6, 2025, 5:32 AM
|
|
portal so we could portal in half a dozen starters who were ranking higher, yeah, you're right.
If that's the way you do business then best of luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13186]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
Which has always been the case yet this class is lower ranked than any other
2
Feb 6, 2025, 7:03 AM
|
|
Class in the portal era. It was a down recruiting year no level of spin is gonna change that fact.
Also the elite teams are turning the bottom portion of their rosters; shipping out non-contributors in the portal a whole lot more often than they're losing starters; so, if you wanna bring up the portal that puts us even further behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14750]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 15452
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [101219]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98791
Joined: 2009
|
I hope you told them we lost less than a handful of starters, Spud.
3
Feb 6, 2025, 5:28 AM
|
|
We lost no talent to the portal so we weren't going to have a super great recruiting class. You might have added that historically we haven't had one and duns here and we met what most fans considered our needs.
The recruiting rankings depend heavily upon raw numbers of players and their ratings. Any smaller number of players is going to be considered falling short but Clemson is the one school in the land that doesn't have to bid against others for players.
So far there is no evidence that Clemson 'trades up,' by sending players away and bidding on others to replace them. It's become clear that if we invite a recruit to come to Clemson and he commits and signs with us we commit to give him a good education and provide everything he needs to be the best football player he may become.
The NIL/Portal has been around long enough for these kids to see that transferring from one college to another isn't all it was thought to be a few years ago. They see the hundreds of kids sign and get fat stacks then end up in the limbo called the portal. The wiser recruits see how dangerous it is to sell themselves to the highest bidder when money is only thing to influence their choices.
They see Clemson doesn't lose players to the portal and we don't kick kids to the curb because we recruit carelessly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13186]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
We were 38th in transfer portal rankings by On3
2
Feb 6, 2025, 7:09 AM
|
|
Which measures additions and subtraction and 29th total in 247 combined rankings. We won't win at the level we want if that becomes the norm. But hey spin away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmaker [356]
TigerPulse: 100%
16
|
Re: We were 38th in transfer portal rankings by On3
Feb 6, 2025, 10:04 AM
|
|
Those rankings are meaningless, if you do not consider who stayed, that was supposed to be leaving.
DeMonte Capehart
A super senior defensive tackle who had one year of eligibility remaining
Blake Miller
A junior offensive tackle who had one year of eligibility remaining
Antonio Williams
That is like picking up a minimum of three 4 stars, that you were not expecting. You slso need
to think about what you got for your needs as opposed to numbers and stars. We did great in that category both in recruiting and in the portal. So, I say to you naysayers, wait and see, because if you are really a Clemson fan, you may be very pleasently surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13186]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
Because none of the other elite teams retain players who coulda gone pro
Feb 6, 2025, 10:09 AM
|
|
0310 state had 3 or 4 players on their defense alone that came back last year to help them win a natty.
The point is the differences between teams at the highest level are so razor thin that if you aren't utilizing every avenue of roster building to the fullest it's gonna be difficult to win the highest prize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12380]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10215
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Because none of the other elite teams retain players who coulda gone pro
Feb 6, 2025, 12:29 PM
|
|
Do you consider "roster building" as getting rid of a lot of scholarship layers who may not be playing much so you can give our 25 scholarships rather than 15 so our recruiting ranking will be higher? I don't. I had rather have 15 players with a 3.6 star rating than 25 with a 3.1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11513]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 12358
Joined: 2003
|
Re: I was just reading a post on another site and somebody was belittling our
3
Feb 6, 2025, 6:12 AM
|
|
I remember several years ago when the coots signed a bunch of three stars and proclaimed they were all hidden gems, diamonds in the rough and under rated. We laughed at them knowing it was unlikely….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [43315]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11561
Joined: 2015
|
Re: I was just reading a post on another site and somebody was belittling our
2
Feb 6, 2025, 7:04 AM
|
|
Ranking was fine with the numbers we signed. If we did not fill our needs then that would be my only concern.
Folks need to realize the current culture at Clemson is not going to afford huge numbers because not as many enter the portal. Times have changed. When we start losing 20-25 to the portal I would think we would be much higher in the recruiting rankings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12380]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10215
Joined: 2006
|
Re: I was just reading a post on another site and somebody was belittling our
Feb 6, 2025, 12:30 PM
|
|
Correct, and we don't run off players so we can give have larger recruiting class ....as per SEC style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 3018
|
|
|
50
