big east rankings

[Joe]

^^^^ agreed.

[bulls96go]

I will agree with that... and I think that is basically how I felt even before you wrote it.  But my point was mainly pointed at the constant barrage(sp?) of posts by Smazz aimed at us getting outrecruited by Rutgers/UL/WVU.

They do have some good recruits... but if you swapped their class with ours, giving them our entire class, and us taking their entire class (either of the 3), i think you see the same results in the rankings.  It is more that we don't have the name than anything else.  

i would not switch rutgers class for ours nor pitt, wvu, or ul for that matter.

now usc or fl...let's deal

[HarveyGlass]

All you have to do is look at how inaccurate those folks are when it comes to basketball recruits.  After the first dozen or so, it's all a crapshoot.  In hoops, where there are only 15 players on a team.

Now take the number of kids and mulitply it by a gazillion and there is no way on Earth those things can ever be realistic indicators of anything on the field.  If for no other reason than the fact that there just isn't enough manpower to cover literally thousands of kids in-depth.

I know I'm not accurate, but I swear, it seems like a full third of the NFL went to small colleges or DivII schools, or weak programs.

Louisville was as good as anyone in the country last year with supposedly weak recruits.  USC was not very good last year, IMO.

[Joe]

 USC was not very good last year, IMO.

If not very good is 11-2, one last weekend of the season win away from going to the National Title game with the 2nd hardest schedule in the country (Out of conference Nebraska, Arkansas, and ND), after losing 2 Heisman winners and 9 other NFL draft picks...sign me up.

[Mama_Bull]

I don't know if we are going to be concerned with USC's recruiting class in a bit, if the investigation into Reggie and the new allegation prove to have validity.  Personally, I am only concerned with what USF does and how that relates in to our play in conference.

[JoeB]

All you have to do is look at how inaccurate those folks are when it comes to basketball recruits.  After the first dozen or so, it's all a crapshoot.  In hoops, where there are only 15 players on a team.

Now take the number of kids and mulitply it by a gazillion and there is no way on Earth those things can ever be realistic indicators of anything on the field.  If for no other reason than the fact that there just isn't enough manpower to cover literally thousands of kids in-depth.

I know I'm not accurate, but I swear, it seems like a full third of the NFL went to small colleges or DivII schools, or weak programs.

Louisville was as good as anyone in the country last year with supposedly weak recruits.  USC was not very good last year, IMO.

USC was not very good??  Are you kidding me?  Maybe they weren't as good as the past three years, but they were a very good team.  Harvey, you just lost alot of credibility.

[HarveyGlass]

lol

Thanks for keeping my credibility updated, JoeB, I'll need a reference later.

I guess I shouldn't have said they weren't very good, just not as good, or that they were very disappointing.  Certainly not as good as their recruiting should have left them.

They had some nice wins, but their losses were to two unranked mediocre teams, yet those losses didn't affect their rankings in the slightest.  Two bad losses and you're still ranked 4th?

;D Sour grapes I guess.

In any case, take Georgia, or Tennessee, or Notre Dame and replace USC with them.  Those schools all supposedly get fantastic recruiting classes year in and year out, but the results don't materialize.

I can't believe I'm talking about football in February anyway.

[nukebull]

Considering that Pitt has had some of the best recruiting classes the last couple of years, they don't have much to show for it. What was their record last year? Oh yeah 6-6 and no bowl.

The game is played on the field, not on the dotted line.

They had top ranked recruiting classes in 2006 and this year, I wouldn't count them out as a contender for the BE in 2008 when a lot of that talent matures.

Their 2003-2004 classes were aweful and in 2005 did decent with several of the bigger guys they got taking redshirts.

Not saying the coaching is good or that they will be better than us to any extent, I just think it's premature to say the talent hasn't worked out.

As for the ESPN rankings, by far the worst out there. No offense, I know they look great for us, but anyone who uses the average grade of the players in your class to rank is a lil funny. I'd just ignore anything outside the top 10 in most rankings, it's just too hard to honestly rank the teams without some voodoo math.

Finally, Smazza, sorry but you're completely wrong. We've done out fair share of competing the last few years, why couldn't we win the BE?

Joe

The rankings for Pitt I have seen showed top 30 in 2003 and top 35 in 2004 so if that is awful I will take it. As far as the rankings go NC had a great class 2 years ago and sucked out loud last year. Miami and FSU have been in the top 20 for the past 5 years and both had less than stellar seasons.

IMO it is easy to look at teams that are perennial powerhouses and give them high recruiting grades, the percentages would be on your side most of the time. USC is going to compete in the PAC 10 every year so they will have crack at BCS bowl every year. It is then easy to say USC did great recruiting and wait a couple years and look like a genius.

[smazza]

"Finally, Smazza, sorry but you're completely wrong. We've done out fair share of competing the last few years, why couldn't we win the BE?"

USF HASNT COMPETED  for big east title in past and isnt expected to do so next year

[smazza]

All you have to do is look at how inaccurate those folks are when it comes to basketball recruits.  After the first dozen or so, it's all a crapshoot.  In hoops, where there are only 15 players on a team.

Now take the number of kids and mulitply it by a gazillion and there is no way on Earth those things can ever be realistic indicators of anything on the field.  If for no other reason than the fact that there just isn't enough manpower to cover literally thousands of kids in-depth.

I know I'm not accurate, but I swear, it seems like a full third of the NFL went to small colleges or DivII schools, or weak programs.

Louisville was as good as anyone in the country last year with supposedly weak recruits.  USC was not very good last year, IMO.

USC was not very good??  Are you kidding me?  Maybe they weren't as good as the past three years, but they were a very good team.  Harvey, you just lost alot of credibility.

what made usc's season so great was all the players and starters they lost to nfl

what a program?