Clemson - Holy Recruits

[elfiii]

And if kids went purely for championships, Tennessee wouldn't have a team

They don't have a team.

 

[mguthrie]

They don't have a team.

 

[James12]

98>80

But yea, they’re behind now.

 

[BamaGeorgialine]

They don't have a team.

I guess you're right. I was thinking that they just had a really bad team. Same thing I reckon

 

[KyDawg]

I guess you're right. I was thinking that they just had a really bad team. Same thing I reckon

They do have a really bad team, and they are not making much headway in getting much better.

 

[TinKnocker]

that part about Saban's staff turnover is in my opinion the number one example of why he's such a great coach - that he keeps the ship producing even with the turnover.

Agreed. This is what makes Saban great. Yeah, his recruiting is top notch, but his ability to successfully select coaches is beyond real.

 

[DannyW]

This is a short sighted view that lacks context. Many of their players stay the full 4 years so often times their scholarships are more limited and they take smaller class sizes. Whan you can only take 15-20 players and other teams are taking 23-28 players, it is hard to finish top 10. The key is to focus on their player average. Not the total score that the rankings above are based on.

Hmmm...this theory has some merit. Not sure I totally agree but when I get some time I am going to run the numbers to see if it proves true.

The danger is, if it proves true, that the overall rankings are not nearly as important as they would seem. Lot's of folks consider the overall rankings to be the holy grail of measuring recruiting success. Much boasting is done right here on this board. But if it turns out that the quality of players signed is a better indicator of future (read national championship) success, then we can kind of throw out overall rankings as the most meaningful statistic.

 

[TinKnocker]

Hmmm...this theory has some merit. Not sure I totally agree but when I get some time I am going to run the numbers to see if it proves true.

The danger is, if it proves true, that the overall rankings are not nearly as important as they would seem. Lot's of folks consider the overall rankings to be the holy grail of measuring recruiting success. Much boasting is done right here on this board. But if it turns out that the quality of players signed is a better indicator of future (read national championship) success, then we can kind of throw out overall rankings as the most meaningful statistic.

Not exactly true, the teams landing the top 3 classes regularly are still averaging 93-94. The point was Clemson also averages 93-94 but just signs fewer players. They’re getting quality but not quantity. Bama has been getting quality AND quantity. But the quantity was due to Bama sending so many juniors to the NFL and having extra scholarships each year.

 

[joepuppy]

They do have a really bad team, and they are not making much headway in getting much better.

Keep believing that. Nobody pumping sunshine around here but certain dawg fans. We know we are behind, we also know we are getting better. Go join one of the many "Our recruiting Is The Best" threads and don't worry about us Vols. Most of the dawg fans around here can't make it a day without referencing Tennessee. I guess if it makes you feel better, go ahead.

 

[joepuppy]

They don't have a team.

The statement was in reference to kids deciding a school over championships. Clearly we would have the same team as your dawgs. Even 1998 is ancient history as far as we are concerned.

 

[BamaGeorgialine]

I think you absolutely have to get the best kids year in and year out to win multiple championships. Depth is HUGE. Auburn a few years ago is the perfect example. When their running back( forgot his name) was really banged up and struggling, the Dawgs smoked them in the SEC championship game. When he was healthy, they smoked the Dawgs during the regular season. Were the Dawgs better that year? In my opinion they weren't. Auburn was as good as anyone that year but, they weren't very deep enough to sustain a major player not being 100 percent. And I know at that point in the season no one is but, it affects you more when you aren't three deep like some teams are. Like I say, the best starting team doesn't always win the championship

 

[BamaGeorgialine]

Side note. Auburn sucks regardless!

 

[TinKnocker]

Side note. Auburn sucks regardless!

It's always great when opposing fans can find common ground to agree on.

 

[BuckNasty83]

What an asinine post. They most definitely commit to schools based on relationships with staff.

I didn't say that. I said that the lack of turnover is not why Clempson is getting these guys. Bama always has turnovers. Rarely do commits follow coaches to other schools.

 

[TinKnocker]

I didn't say that. I said that the lack of turnover is not why Clempson is getting these guys. Bama always has turnovers. Rarely do commits follow coaches to other schools.

LOLWUT? It's like you don't even read your own posts.................

Guys are going there because they can beat Bama (win NC) Not to hold hands and sing kumbaya with the staff

 

[BuckNasty83]

If they was the case, they would have never went to Clemson in the first place. Bama does lose four or five assistants a year. That's what makes Saban the best in my opinion. I don't think anyone else could overcome that big of a turnover year in and year out. Also, although it pains me to say this but, I think that you're finally starting to see the cracks. And if kids went purely for championships, Tennessee wouldn't have a team

If relationships was that big of a deal, you'd see Pruitt pulling in all these kids he's been recruiting for Bama, FSU,UGA over all this time. I'm not saying relationships don't matter. Of course they do, but I don't think it's the main draw. Playing time, championships, development for the NFL is more appealing. Don't forget girls and $1k handshakes. Cars, parents getting jobs etc all play a factor too

 

[BuckNasty83]

LOLWUT? It's like you don't even read your own posts.................

Or you've been knocking your head instead of tin?

You said Clemson is recruiting well because they have minimal staff turnover. That's not the reason. The reason is because they are winning at a high level and kids are attracted to that. They was not recruiting this well before the Nattys.

 

[BamaGeorgialine]

If relationships was that big of a deal, you'd see Pruitt pulling in all these kids he's been recruiting for Bama, FSU,UGA over all this time. I'm not dying relationships don't matter. Of course they do, but I don't think it's the main draw. Playing time, championships, development for the NFL is more appealing. Don't forget girls and $1k handshakes. Cars, parents getting jobs etc all play a factor too

I would say playing time is the number one draw. What I mean by player/ coach relationships is that if the player is pretty sure that his recruiting coach is more than likely leaving, the next coach might have his guy he's been recruiting coming in. Or maybe bring in a completely different scheme. Maybe not as big as it used to be because now if you commit to a team that seems to always have a chance at a championship and it happens to not work out, transfer on out and move along

 

[TinKnocker]

Or you've been knocking your head instead of tin?

You said Clemson is recruiting well because they have minimal staff turnover.

No. I didn’t. I think it’s you who has hit their head.

 

[DannyW]

Think of it this way, they have signed 52 players in the last 3 cycles. 34 of those were either 4 or 5 star recruits. Sometimes total points don't tell the whole story.

Yeah...but...over the same period Alabama has signed 56 4/5 star players. OSU has signed 60 4/5 star's, and Georgia has signed 56 4/5 stars.

Versus Clemson's 34 4/5 star players.

So...your theory doesn't pan out here. Clemson has done more with less. A lot less.