Mike White

[Who'sYourData?]

I guess things aren't as bad as I thought.  There are eight or ten teams performing worse given their recruiting classes over the last few years.

 

Colorado and Kansas are really bad.

 

Let's all be excited about our recruiting!

 

[GaUSFBull]

^^^ I'll bet we move closer to the diagonal line and higher by the time the year is over.

[Bull94]

I guess things aren't as bad as I thought.  There are eight or ten teams performing worse given their recruiting classes over the last few years.

 

Colorado and Kansas are really bad.

 

Let's all be excited about our recruiting!

 

recruiting rankings are dumb. it doesn't take into account positions of need. you could sign 10 5 star receivers and rank near the top of recruiting rankings even if you don't sign any QBs linemen etc.

 

Holtz signed one shcolarship QB in 3 years that stuck. he eventually transfered when he lost his job to a walk-on.

[Who'sYourData?]

 

Let's see.  In one thread someone is all excited that a former four star recruit is coming to USF and convinced that even though said player has never even stepped foot on the practice field that our offense will dominate, because after all four star athletes are clearly better than two star athletes.

 

Then one thread over, same person is saying that recruiting rankings are dumb and mean nothing.

 

And they say I'm irrational.

[raptorcj]

Well, O line is definitely a "position of need" for us, so getting talent there will definitely help our O and the rankings at the same time. Now, if we just landed a 5-star punter, that would do less for our team but would up our stock at recruiting.
Think that's closer to what 94 was saying with the two different quotes.

[Who'sYourData?]

Well, O line is definitely a "position of need" for us, so getting talent there will definitely help our O and the rankings at the same time. Now, if we just landed a 5-star punter, that would do less for our team but would up our stock at recruiting.

Think that's closer to what 94 was saying with the two different quotes.

 

Sure.  But if recruiting rankings are as accurate as he says, then five years worth of recruiting is well over 100 players.  That is going to be pretty darn representative of the type of talent you have at your school.  I haven't seen any school sign 10 5 star punters over a five year period.  

 

Any way you slice it, we get "better" recruits than NIU and they would beat the snot out of us on the field.  This leads to two inescapable conclusions:

 

1.  Getting one single recruit of any quality means diddly. 

2.  We have gotten very little out of our recruits overall.

[NewEnglandBull]

Well, O line is definitely a "position of need" for us, so getting talent there will definitely help our O and the rankings at the same time. Now, if we just landed a 5-star punter, that would do less for our team but would up our stock at recruiting.

Think that's closer to what 94 was saying with the two different quotes.

Sure. But if recruiting rankings are as accurate as he says, then five years worth of recruiting is well over 100 players. That is going to be pretty darn representative of the type of talent you have at your school. I haven't seen any school sign 10 5 star punters over a five year period.

Any way you slice it, we get "better" recruits than NIU and they would beat the snot out of us on the field. This leads to two inescapable conclusions:

1. Getting one single recruit of any quality means diddly.

2. We have gotten very little out of our recruits overall.

I disagree,

Signed

Mr. Mack

[feardabull]

Anyone have an update on his non throwing arm?

Last I heard he still had one

Will it be good to go by ECU?

[Who'sYourData?]

 

 

Well, O line is definitely a "position of need" for us, so getting talent there will definitely help our O and the rankings at the same time. Now, if we just landed a 5-star punter, that would do less for our team but would up our stock at recruiting.

Think that's closer to what 94 was saying with the two different quotes.

Sure. But if recruiting rankings are as accurate as he says, then five years worth of recruiting is well over 100 players. That is going to be pretty darn representative of the type of talent you have at your school. I haven't seen any school sign 10 5 star punters over a five year period.

Any way you slice it, we get "better" recruits than NIU and they would beat the snot out of us on the field. This leads to two inescapable conclusions:

1. Getting one single recruit of any quality means diddly.

2. We have gotten very little out of our recruits overall.

I disagree,

Signed

Mr. Mack

 

 

Huh?

[zarnozdabull]

 

 

Well, O line is definitely a "position of need" for us, so getting talent there will definitely help our O and the rankings at the same time. Now, if we just landed a 5-star punter, that would do less for our team but would up our stock at recruiting.

Think that's closer to what 94 was saying with the two different quotes.

Sure. But if recruiting rankings are as accurate as he says, then five years worth of recruiting is well over 100 players. That is going to be pretty darn representative of the type of talent you have at your school. I haven't seen any school sign 10 5 star punters over a five year period.

Any way you slice it, we get "better" recruits than NIU and they would beat the snot out of us on the field. This leads to two inescapable conclusions:

1. Getting one single recruit of any quality means diddly.

2. We have gotten very little out of our recruits overall.

I disagree,

Signed

Mr. Mack

 

 

+1