I wouldn't jump up and down about moving up 5 spots,but I guess it's better than going down 5 spots.Baby steps.Big improvement from last year
I wouldn't jump up and down about moving up 5 spots,but I guess it's better than going down 5 spots.Baby steps.
I wouldn't jump up and down about moving up 5 spots,but I guess it's better than going down 5 spots.Baby steps.
Obviously, recruits perceive the conference better than most of us do.In case you don't understand, we just went 5-7, our conference is in the crapper and we have been winning recruiting battles against some major programs. No. We should all be dancing right now.
slow dancingIn case you don't understand, we just went 5-7, our conference is in the crapper and we have been winning recruiting battles against some major programs. No. We should all be dancing right now.
Obviously, recruits perceive the conference better than most of us do.
Can care less what the ranking is. Tell me how it is in 5 years.
Don't disagree @ all but how many years did we get whacked around for piss poor recruiting classes. On February 7th - the rankings from 5 years ago don't come out, talking heads will be looking @ this year and it's a perception thingy.
... and BC is #81
I hear you on the perception thing, but as a fan, I honestly don't care about it. Every year we heard about how putrid our recruiting was and we won two BE titles. And we all know all of the 2 star players we got that are playing on Sundays now.
Temple has 1 less 3-star recruit than we do.I think that most recruits are told that expansion is far form over, I think we'll be in a new conference, but that perception can trump reality, this recent success should be celebrated.
Husky, would you rather have 10 two star recruits or 10 four star recruits? It does matter, we need to win battles against top programs, it shows that kids want to come here, to get a good degree and a shot to play on sundays. If you want to live on winning under the radar types, some of those kids may not pan out over time.
that's a false choice. we'd all rather have 10 four star recruits, but we're getting all 2 and 3 star recruits. based on the other offers, i agree recruiting is improving, but the overall class ranking, IMO, is meaningless, it's heavily weighted by the name on the front of the jersey.
The ranking don't mean jack.
Temple has 1 less 3-star recruit than we do.
The ranking don't mean jack.
Sure there is. If you're compare 1-30 to 75-120, I'm sure you'll find a very strong correlation.Somewhere down the line there must be a positive correlation between class rank and success on the field.
Sure there is. If you're compare 1-30 to 75-120, I'm sure you'll find a very strong correlation.
However, when you compare #40 to #60, I think that talent gap shrinks considerably, and solid talent development and coaching can make up for a difference in talent. The closer you get to the middle of the pack teams (61 is firmly in the middle) the smaller the talent gap. The difference between #95 and #115 is so insignificant they are hardly worth ranking at that point.
It's the same with players. If 2,000 players are eligible and seen on tape, but only 1,000 are going to get invited to camps and get scholarships. Picking the top 100 of 2,000 is much easier than picking numbers 900-1,000 out of 2,000. By the time you get to 900-1,000 those players are so evenly matched that coaching and intangibles like heart, desire, and chemistry are going to play larger roles. Well when you're ranking teams 80-120, you're looking at that bottom group of players and ranking them. Pretty much a waste of time, IMO.
This is all pure speculation and opinion based on experience, I can't prove any of it, so don't take my difference of opinion as something it's not.