View Single Post
Old 08-31-2014, 09:15 PM   #2
Blue Chip
sunbeam's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: blahtown
Posts: 668
CockyCash: 500
sunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPitsunbeam rules the CockPit
Default Re: Gamecock football Long Term Future and the SEC

Just when you think you won't post for a while. But I'll do it anyway.

We are in a pickle honestly. Our state really isn't bad at putting out Div I players, but the problem is that our neighbors are the top 10, barring California, Ohio, Texas, and maybe Pennsylvania, though that isn't what it used to be.

We are one of the smaller population southern states. Mississippi, Kentucky, and Arkansas are the only ones with a smaller population if you want to say Arkansas is southern. That said I've seen tons of different breakdowns on this, but Louisiana and Mississippi generally wind up producing more NFL players per capita when you use that for a proxy for how much talent you are putting out.

Now our state puts out more talent than Kentucky and Arkansas, but we usually wind up losing some players to the school up the road.

The biggest advantage we have recruiting wise is how close we are to Georgia and metro Atlanta. And Auburn does that one better (Clemson too honestly).

We have no national presence in recruiting. Never have, unless a guy like Holtz or Spurrier drags in a guy like Brewer or the like by his rep. We don't have an offense that has an identity and makes guys in Texas say "Man I have to play in that. They offer me a visit and I am going."

Plus I think people need to face facts. Columbia just isn't that attractive to a lot of recruits. Be honest about it, wine and cheese cracks aside. Would you rather go to school in the Triangle area if you have no connections to Columbia, or Columbia?

You can rinse and repeat for a number of other locations nationally, and in the SEC.

Things aren't like they used to be either. Whether they can take their programs to where they want to go or not, all this new money is bringing in a new breed of coach. Stoops and Jones are both doing a bang up job recruiting all things considered.

We may be spending money on facilities, but other teams are too. And the only schools that are less well heeled than us, even in the SEC are the Mississippi schools. Tennessee budget crisis is a blip in the bigger picture, they still make considerably more revenue than we do. The other schools... as a rule of thumb the farther north you go the more money there is. Then there A&M's oil lease money, Arkansas' chicken/walmart/even oil money, and other places that are just in states that there is more money floating around in like Florida and Georgia, and it just floats in somehow. Not that their athletic department revenue is poor to begin with.

In the end we will always have lesser facilities than most of the SEC schools. If it is effective, they will just plain have more money to throw at it.

I'm going to cut this short. But the next guy we hire after Spurrier is maybe the most important one we ever make. They are going to have to guess right. I really don't think their is another name like Spurrier or Holtz that is going to be looking when that does happen.

We are going to have to get one of these young guys that lives and dies by recruiting. Whether you hate him or not, James Franklin would have been ideal for us.

Of course he has other fish to fry.

Right now I think we get recruits more from Spurrier's reputation, and the fact that he is constantly in the media's eye. If he wasn't in that any more than say Dan Mullen, we wouldn't recruit nearly as well.

That is a long winded way to say that regardless of this season, competitiveness or even winning seasons aren't a given, despite our recent run.

We could do very well in a number of conferences across the country with players we recruit. But our neighborhood is some kind of Hobessian war zone.

A lot of our problems would go away if we could get Clemson to drop football. Of course they could say the same. Their situation isn't as bad because there are only a couple of team in the ACC (FSU, Miami) that are just inherently better, and only a few that really should be better (UNC). But whether they come out and say it or even think it, they have some of the same problems we do in regards to getting the kind of players to win the national championship.

I mean look at yesterday. Maybe Danny recruited better a year or two, but this is the best recruiting run they have ever had the past few years. And even if it stayed close on the field for a half, the eyeball test and score did not lie.
sunbeam is offline   Reply With Quote