Hey, did you ever take that trip to Iceland? If not, I hear it's beautiful there this time of year.
4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
4 said:
Hey, did you ever take that trip to Iceland? If not, I hear it's beautiful there this time of year.
Aggiejackie said:
Smart Chibuzo is solid to A&M... supoosedly Aki likes our new OL coach. They have not met in person yet but they talk over the phone. I ain't scared...
GoodAg Paulie said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
Two of our most successful players the past 7 years were 3 star recruits......manziel and Evans. Also plenty of time for our 3 star recruits to rank up. Pretty sure Baylor Cupp was a 3 star when he committed before his sr season. Relax.....its early!!
4 said:GoodAg Paulie said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
Two of our most successful players the past 7 years were 3 star recruits......manziel and Evans. Also plenty of time for our 3 star recruits to rank up. Pretty sure Baylor Cupp was a 3 star when he committed before his sr season. Relax.....its early!!
None of this has anything to do with my statement. I can think of all kinds of 3 star players that ended up being good, doesn't change the validity of my point.
amercer said:
The pundits are right.
4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
Bill Superman said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
I can point at just one team to prove you wrong
4 said:Bill Superman said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
I can point at just one team to prove you wrong
Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.
A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.
4 said:
No. You are not grasping the point.
maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.
This sounds like an argument/insult from flat-earther peopleBill Superman said:4 said:
No. You are not grasping the point.
maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.
You're time has been wasted being a sheep your whole life
Folks like you will never get it
AggieTravis12 said:This sounds like an argument/insult from flat-earther peopleBill Superman said:4 said:
No. You are not grasping the point.
maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.
You're time has been wasted being a sheep your whole life
Folks like you will never get it
4 said:Bill Superman said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
I can point at just one team to prove you wrong
Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.
A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.
Don't be fooled by the rankings of Clemson's classes. They have partly been ranked lower than reality due to most being fairly small in size. If you look at their average player rating, they come out much better in quality. Their worst class (#16) had an average player rating of 92.10.Kill Switch said:4 said:Bill Superman said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
I can point at just one team to prove you wrong
Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.
A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.
There are exceptions to this rule.
Coaches that have the ability to coach up an athlete can get good results without great recruiting classes. Dabo Sweeney's last 5 recruiting classes have been ranked
10
7
16
11
9
I believe his finishes in that time frame have not been outside the top 5 each year with two national titles.
Now I know you will probably say they are the exception not the rule, however the same can be said for a few teams not just Clemson. TCU, NCSU, BYU, MSU, Tech tards, Missouri and KSU are all schools that are known for doing more with less.
Emilio Fantastico said:Don't be fooled by the rankings of Clemson's classes. They have partly been ranked lower than reality due to most being fairly small in size. If you look at their average player rating, they come out much better in quality. Their worst class (#16) had an average player rating of 92.10.Kill Switch said:4 said:Bill Superman said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
I can point at just one team to prove you wrong
Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.
A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.
There are exceptions to this rule.
Coaches that have the ability to coach up an athlete can get good results without great recruiting classes. Dabo Sweeney's last 5 recruiting classes have been ranked
10
7
16
11
9
I believe his finishes in that time frame have not been outside the top 5 each year with two national titles.
Now I know you will probably say they are the exception not the rule, however the same can be said for a few teams not just Clemson. TCU, NCSU, BYU, MSU, Tech tards, Missouri and KSU are all schools that are known for doing more with less.
Either way, they pretty much average a Top 10 class regardless of numbers.
The thing Clemson has done is develop players and get them to stick around (hence the smaller classes) so that they usually have experience and continuity across the position groups. Couple this with their outstanding coaching and you have them performing "slightly" above their talent level (Top 5 vs Top 10). The other thing Dabo has achieved through building their program is consistency. He not making the playoffs one year and then finishing barely in the Top 25 the next. He is maintaining Top 5 seasons.
4 said:Charlie Conway said:
You remind me of somebody
You're probably thinking of Gene Gene the Dancing Machine from The Gong show.
Bill Superman said:4 said:
Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.
I can point at just one team to prove you wrong