|
Replies: 12
| visibility 3,386
|
Orange Blooded [4095]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5215
Joined: 10/23/10
|
High "Class Ranking" Is Overrated...
Dec 16, 2012, 8:10 PM
|
|
Look at the following chart ....
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/classrankings/_/class/2013/date/20121214
Many top recruits go to programs that are best, average ...
There are other schools, that get average/better then average recruits and do very well ie Stanford, Michigan State
Thus, what is better, having a group of INDIVIDUAL great athletes ... or a TEAM of GOOD athletes?
I say, give me a TEAM of GOOD Athletes any day ... how many of you played with "great" athletes that overall, hurt the team? aka the prima donna player, the highlight reel player, the guy who would do stupid stuff at the most important part of the game?
|
|
|
|
 |
Zealot [868]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 1261
Joined: 1/29/10
|
Re: High "Class Ranking" Is Overrated...
Dec 16, 2012, 8:17 PM
|
|
The same teams you see in the top 5-10 of the recruiting rankings every year are the same ones you see competing for national titles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 22551
Joined: 5/14/03
|
its overrated when your ranking suck, it isn't when its good***
Dec 16, 2012, 8:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
From a short-term perspective of fans, yes ... but
Dec 17, 2012, 11:18 AM
|
|
Bottom line ... the recruits have to produce on the field, or the court, or the diamond.
Their recruiting rankings go out the window as soon as the get to campus and have to prove their worth.
Before that time, no one can produce reliable "rankings" that accurately predict if or when that will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [158]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 290
Joined: 7/20/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
What is the chart supposed to show?
Dec 16, 2012, 8:19 PM
|
|
Recruiting is an imperfect science, but if you charted it over a ten year period or so, teams that win big would be closer to the top than teams that do not.
Looking at one year really doesn't mean anything with all of the factors that affect who and how a team recruits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I'm not 100% positive what it is you are trying to say, but
Dec 16, 2012, 8:47 PM
|
|
I think you are saying you'd rather have a bunch of "good" players as opposed to a bunch of "great" players. If I understand correctly, your reasoning is that great players don't play together as a team or give the effort or are as coachable as players who are not great, but are only "good".
I don't agree with that, and I don't think any football coaches do either. I don't think you can assume that "great" players are selfish, uncoachable prima-donnas. Some of them are for sure, but you try to figure that out in the recruiting process, before you make an offer or accept a commitment, then you take your chances. Your odds of being successful are much greater with a team full of studs than with a team full of "good" players, all else being equal. Yes, some coaches have had remarkable success with "good", not so highly regarded players, but rest assured, that wasn't by design; they would have had a team full of studs if they could have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [176]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 422
Joined: 8/22/01
|
Your point has some merit
Dec 17, 2012, 6:34 AM
|
|
Oregon is an even better example of having a top notch program with less talent. Auburn this season was the opposite of that. Coaching and player development is as, or probably even more, important as talent. The ideal scenario however is to recruit top level talent, coach them well, and get them to buy into a "team first" mentality...ie Alabama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10354]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 11/9/04
|
it is when you're trying to justify a very low ranking
Dec 16, 2012, 10:18 PM
|
|
good try, but just face it..........our recruiting isn't going the way it should be
no it's not NSD yet, but there's lots of FIRMING up AND big gets that MUST be had in order to pull this class up to what people "expected" it to be about 4-5 months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [65]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 404
Joined: 10/6/12
|
Re: High "Class Ranking" Is Overrated...
Dec 16, 2012, 10:44 PM
|
|
To me talent and meeting needs stomps the star rating thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3706]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2272
Joined: 9/28/08
|
that's why college coaches make big money.
Dec 17, 2012, 6:55 AM
|
|
The ones that can take the players and turn them into a team, are the consistent winners. I can't stand Saban, but he has made all of his college stops into winners. His teams play as one, cohesive unit, not a bunch of individuals. (it also doesn't hurt that he has some of the top recruiting classes)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
All rankings are over-rated ...
Dec 17, 2012, 8:27 AM
|
|
Individual star rankings for specific recrutis ... team recruiting rankings ... weekly AP/Coaches polls ... best tailgate, loudest stadium, most good looking cheerleaders, most obnoxious fans ...
They're fun to contemplate, exciting to read, valuable for so-called "bragging rights", but in the end, they mean very little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4308
Joined: 8/30/08
|
While I do may not agree about the prima dona aspect
Dec 22, 2012, 12:17 AM
|
|
of top recruits, your point is somewhat valid in having a bunch of good players in a class as opposed to 1 or 2 great players.
If you get 2 five stars but the remainder of your class is 2 and 3 stars your class may be rated higher than a class that got 6 four stars and the rest 3 stars and a few 2 stars.
There is no denying the fact that the teams that are consistenly in the top 10 in recruiting are the ones competing for the NC on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 3,386
|
|
|
50
