Two-Deep Talent/Recruiting Comparison: Clemson and USF

[CPR]

I agree with Smaaza with the more talented remark. The Bulls beating Miami was an exception, there are always upsets. The key word that Smazza used was "usually".

[Reliable Source]

I agree with Smaaza with the more talented remark. The Bulls beating Miami was an exception, there are always upsets. The key word that Smazza used was "usually".

You know you are in trouble when the first 4 words of your post are "I agree with Smazza....". The argument really has nothing to do with talent on the field. USF's 1st team has been quite talented for a while. The reason we have been fading midseason is that we don't have the depth of some of our more tenured opponents. They tend to pick up local talent in 2 or 3rd positions that is nearly, if not , equal to the 1st team squad. Ratings and  Rankings are ridiculous. They are adjusted according to the size of the paid subscription  fan base by the ranking agents. They are being compiled by a bunch of quasi-journalists who call themselves "Recruiting Analysts" and they really have little to do with a realistic evaluation of these kids talents. Even for the schools that are recruiting(and much more qualified) it is a bit of a crap  shoot. They are looking at film and a few limited performances by a lot of these recruits. The reason why some schools draw talent over and over again, is the depth of their recruiting efforts. More manpower, more game real time evaluations and more in depth looks at these potential recruits, is what separates the men from the boys. Until you have the budget and the booster base to find these kids, you aren't yet in the game.

[Jihme]

not everyone plays attheir peak week in and week out, so lots of talent can help to compensate for dips in performance.  it's plain as that when it comes to getting talent in your depth.