ESPN's C. Low on Recruiting

[spursc]

Low on question about recruiting . Must read last Sentence !
Concerned Gamecock in Chicago writes: How does Clemson consistently have a higher ranked recruiting class that SC? Is this evidence of a flawed ranking system?

Chris Low: Recruiting rankings are nothing more than a gauge. When you think about it, what's really the difference in the 12th ranked class nationally and the 22nd ranked class? We're talking maybe two players, and you never know how those players are going to develop, adjust to college life, etc. The most successful coaches will always tell you that you have to have a good base of talent to win in this league, but it's always more important what you do with them once you get them on your campus than it is getting them to your campus.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/b...e=sec&id=60027

[cockypanther]

And developing players is what USC owns Clemmy at. They can get all the stars they want, but it doesn't matter bc some of them have bad attitudes and defect from the program.

[Skeeter3]

People love to downplay recruiting rankings but its not a coincidence that the teams you see in top 5 of the recruiting rankings year in and year out are the same ones competing for national titles.

[Skeeter3]

I agree that there's not a big difference in say a 15th ranked class and a 20th. But you see Alabama, Florida, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, those teams consistently in the top 10 of the recruiting rankings and those are the teams playing for national titles.

[cockybusiness2]

Believe what you want. But USC... The USC will contend this yaer

[JDRAY^#]

It's actually about coaches developing talent, which the taters don't understand.

[GarnetBlack&Blue]

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

People love to downplay recruiting rankings but its not a coincidence that the teams you see in top 5 of the recruiting rankings year in and year out are the same ones competing for national titles.

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

I agree that there's not a big difference in say a 15th ranked class and a 20th. But you see Alabama, Florida, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, those teams consistently in the top 10 of the recruiting rankings and those are the teams playing for national titles.

you can jump on him for being a Clemson fan all you want, but he's right...

it takes solid development to be successful, but to win big you have to have elite talent all over the field.


(not to mention, he never put Clemson being in that class)

[GamecockInHell]

It makes a difference when you have 5-star talent 3-deep at all the positions. You migh miss on a couple, but you have enough to take up the slack.

[JDRAY^#]

Originally Posted by GarnetBlack&Blue

you can jump on him for being a Clemson fan all you want, but he's right...

it takes solid development to be successful, but to win big you have to have elite talent all over the field.


(not to mention, he never put Clemson being in that class)

Any team with a top 20-25 recruiting class can play in the NC. In the end it comes down to coaching, development, and S&C

[GTjacketcock]

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

People love to downplay recruiting rankings but its not a coincidence that the teams you see in top 5 of the recruiting rankings year in and year out are the same ones competing for national titles.

If that was the case, Texas would be in a BCS bowl every year. They've been in the top 5 of recruiting almost every year and yet haven't been to a BCS bowl since losing the national championship to Alabama a few years ago, and that includes a 5-7 record the next season.

Also, Clemson has out-recruited Georgia Tech since forever, but Tech is 7-3 in the last 10 meetings. Additionally, Demaryius Thomas, the top receiver taken in the 2010 NFL Draft, was a middle of the road 3 star coming out of high school.

It's not how you start, it's how you finish, and I would much rather start with someone lowly ranked and develop them into a great player than get a 5 star who peaked in high school and won't be a strong contributor.

[Smashies_AC30]

Originally Posted by JDRAY^#

It's actually about coaches developing talent, which the taters don't understand.

True. They don't even know how to lift.

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/20...ms-with-batson

At least someone in their own fan-base appreciates self-awareness and evaluation. That's a key to development.

[SwimCock]

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

People love to downplay recruiting rankings but its not a coincidence that the teams you see in top 5 of the recruiting rankings year in and year out are the same ones competing for national titles.

Yes, and Clemsux has not been in the top 5 or in the top 10 much, if at all, in the last several years (only 1 poll in 2013). Heck, Clemsux has had trouble staying in the top 20-25 for a while. Those teams that have consistently been in the top 10, which now includes The USC, have coaches that can develop talent as well as recruit at a high level. Low is correct.

[spursc]

Quote from From Feb 2012 :
2006-10, Florida State landed four recruiting classes ranked among the top 10 in the nation. But over the past five seasons, the Seminoles haven't finished a season higher than 17th in the polls and twice finished unranked. According to Gene Williams, publisher of Warchant.com, the team was targeting the wrong type of players.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz2JsmeuJTK

[Smashies_AC30]

Originally Posted by SwimCock

Yes, and Clemsux has not been in the top 5 or in the top 10 much, if at all, in the last several years (only 1 poll in 2013). Heck, Clemsux has had trouble staying in the top 20-25 for a while. Those teams that have consistently been in the top 10, which now includes The USC, have coaches that can develop talent as well as recruit at a high level. Low is correct.

Agreed. Except for one thing. I fear that referring to Gamecocks as "The USC" makes us sound like "THE Ohio State University," and that makes me, and I imagine most Charleston and lowcountry natives, want to vom.

Thankfully, I'm in a "holier" city, evidenced by the fact that I-26 doesn't pass through my town.

GBTOh.

Kidding Ohio. All in good fun.

[Skeeter3]

Originally Posted by GTjacketcock

If that was the case, Texas would be in a BCS bowl every year. They've been in the top 5 of recruiting almost every year and yet haven't been to a BCS bowl since losing the national championship to Alabama a few years ago, and that includes a 5-7 record the next season.

Also, Clemson has out-recruited Georgia Tech since forever, but Tech is 7-3 in the last 10 meetings. Additionally, Demaryius Thomas, the top receiver taken in the 2010 NFL Draft, was a middle of the road 3 star coming out of high school.

It's not how you start, it's how you finish, and I would much rather start with someone lowly ranked and develop them into a great player than get a 5 star who peaked in high school and won't be a strong contributor.

But Texas did play for a national title 4 years ago and won one in the last decade. Everybody has down years.

I don't think any player "peaks" as an 18 year old. Their body isn't even fully developed yet. There are kids that come in and get distracted with college life and become a bust but that's the exception, not the rule.

[ConwayGamecock]

The way I look at it, the best recipe is a 50-50 mix of both: if you have a great coaching staff but mediocre to solid talent base, then you'll often have teams that over-achieve from what they should be expected to accomplish on the field. But it will be difficult to reach those highest achievements: titles and championships...

If you have outstanding talent annually but mediocre coaching and development, then you have to hope that those elite players find their own way, come together and have a special season, but it probably won't be consistent, and they probably won't have much success on the occasions that they actually play against another team that's on their talent level but has better coaching...

IMO you should always want to have a solid-to-great coaching staff that knows how to coach fundamentals and build offensive and defensive units, but THEN also try to bring in the best prep talent you can. The combination of excellent coaching and excellent talent will usually make championship-caliber programs: those "elite" programs that are ranked in the top 10 annually but struggle to have better than 7 or 8-win seasons usually are because of poor coaching or poor character within the roster (which can also point to poor coaching). There are also the occasions of plagues of injuries that cut potential great seasons at the knees, but those rarely happen more than one season per program, and it would have to be colossal losses if the program has truly great depth.....

[henmania]

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

I agree that there's not a big difference in say a 15th ranked class and a 20th. But you see Alabama, Florida, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, those teams consistently in the top 10 of the recruiting rankings and those are the teams playing for national titles.

Funny how that hasn't worked for UGa though.

[i29gman]

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

Doubt it. USC laid a huge egg last year and lost their bowl game to GT. I expect them to struggle again this year.

Yeah, and the real Tigers from the real Death Valley laid a huge egg last year and lost their bowl game in Atlanta, but I expect them to be contenders again next season.

[carolinacoast]

Originally Posted by Skeeter3

I agree that there's not a big difference in say a 15th ranked class and a 20th. But you see Alabama, Florida, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, those teams consistently in the top 10 of the recruiting rankings and those are the teams playing for national titles.

All of those teams have won national titles, and have been relevant most years for quite awhile. However, they all face down years(some occurring their probation periods.) What you fail to mention is the top ten recruiting teams who fail.

[spursc]

1. Boise State Broncos
Average program recruiting rank: 77th
Three-year record as less talented team: 14-2 (.875)
Boise State is the nation's best mid-major program, consistently ranking among the top 20 teams in the country without being able to recruit like a top-20 program.
2. Stanford Cardinal
Average program recruiting rank: 38th
Three-year record as less talented team: 19-4 (.826)

3. Northern Illinois Huskies
Average program recruiting rank: 102nd
Three-year record as less talented team: 20-7 (.741)
4. TCU Horned Frogs
Average program recruiting rank: 58th
Three-year record as less talented team: 11-5 (.688)
5. South Carolina Gamecocks
Average program recruiting rank: 16th
Three-year record as less talented team: 12-6 (.667)
The Gamecocks aren't an obvious candidate to be called an overachiever since Steve Spurrier has been consistently signing top-25 classes since 2009. But six other SEC teams rank ahead of South Carolina in our program recruiting ratings, and annual rival Clemson has a recruiting profile edge, as well. That adds up to 18 games played in the past three seasons in which the Gamecocks lined up against a more talented team, and they've been winning the majority of those showdowns.