|
|
Post by OCEOTL on Jun 17, 2013 16:12:51 GMT -8
Aren't we going to be ranked WAY low simply due to the fact that we have so few scholarships to offer this year?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2013 16:49:03 GMT -8
Aren't we going to be ranked WAY low simply due to the fact that we have so few scholarships to offer this year? That's a good point. I'll leave it to Bill to un-skew the rankings for us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 10:00:50 GMT -8
This list has no credibility with me. It's simply implausible, for example, that Western Michigan has (or will EVER have) a better recruiting class than the following: Wisconsin USC Oregon South Carolina TCU Boise State ...and that's just for starters. The same goes for North Carolina (unless I clicked the wrong link and we're actually talking about basketball). They have UNC ahead of Oklahoma and Michigan State. L. O. L. NO it means little actually it is just entertainment. It is not just the talent but the coaching and the way it wais used TCU for years was crap and I suspect the Chippewas had a few classes as good or better. Recruiting is about finding players who can play in your scheme. These services do not take that into any consideration. NOr do they intelligence. Offering is a good measure except when it comes ot early commits that refuse to take visits then you philosophy falls apart. you only have 56 officials not going to waste them on guys who want to go elsewhere but like to party. Also we play in the MW not the Pac 12,the players are sufficient to win the MW. TCU and Boise were never near the top forty in the services. The service do not even agree on size and weight,nor who has offered a kid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 11:19:31 GMT -8
The rankings are one among a number of ways to assess the quality of a recruiting class. The JYP "question" is another. Reviewing film and measurables are others. They aren't mutually exclusive but all have some potential value.
As to Western Michigan, just like us, they will slip down by February. However, WMU has a young stud HC who probably won't be around long but who has upgraded recruiting tremendously. Also, their ranking is skewed by getting a solid verbal from a QB who has turned down, among others, Illinois and Wisconsin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 11:23:27 GMT -8
JFTHOI, I checked 247 and Scout going back to when 247 began and here are their final rankings for our classes. Year 247 Scout2010 68 77 2011 78 93 2012 75 72 2013 73 67 Right now with the admittedly skewed system the two use, we're at 42 with 247 and 54 with Scout. So we should be realistic that if in February we are better than 68th and 67th in those rankings, we will have had what the professionals think is our best job of recruiting since Tom Craft's two illusory classes a decade ago. FWIW, I got my annual copy of Phil Steele's mag today. His recruiting class summary is based on six rating services rather than just four as is the case with 247Sports' cumulative rating and Steele's rating makes quantity irrelevant while giving extra weight to the top five and top ten rated signees on the theory they have the greatest and second greatest likelihoods of eventually seeing the field. Here are SDSU's ratings the last four years by that measure: 2010 - no national ranking but outside the top 75 (5th in the MWC just behind UNM, which was also outside the top 75) 2011 - no national ranking but outside the top 75 (4th in the MWC just behind CSU, which was 70th nationally) 2012 - 73rd nationally (2nd in the MWC immediately behind Boise) 2013 - 71st nationally (2nd in the MWC immediately behind Boise) Many folks on this board are still quite skeptical about Aztecs football and I remain a bit skeptical myself, for instance about underachievement on the national stage in bowl games and an annual tendency to blow a fourth quarter lead at home to a less talented opponent. However, in combination with how our 2014 class is shaping up, the figures above confirm we are making steady progress in recruiting and that's huge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 12:45:00 GMT -8
We are much more talented and physical now. A g few years ago we had a Dline that was mostly walkons. This year we have a line that was mostly three stars. WE are getting much better at size and athleticism at linebacker as well. Unfortunately we are only now getting corners that have size and talent and that might cost us. The other big thing is Quarterback. We had two QBs that had zip experience actually playing in our offense in games and three hobbled wide recievers. Those fourth quarter losses all come with pass defense break downs,not enough rush poor tackling etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jun 23, 2013 16:29:39 GMT -8
No reason UNC can't be ahead of Mich. State. They have been putting a lot of kids in the NFL the last few years and recruits have taken notice. They had a few 4 star recruits in the last class and guys that could have gone pretty much anywhere. I was talking to some of them last week and they were quick to point out how many players have been drafted from here in recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jun 26, 2013 6:12:14 GMT -8
If you compare our commits' offers vs. teams like Boise, we are doing better. Good sign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 11:44:27 GMT -8
Because we play in a horsecrap conference first place in which doesn't impress anybody, Boise's status as THE non-Power5 football school depends on gaining big OOC wins - JUST AS OURS DOES (but I digress). In 2012, Boise edged mediocre Washington in the LV Bowl by just two points and lost its big game of the year on primetime national TV to less than stellar Michigan State.
Let's hope that Boise figures out quick that, just as we do, they need to get out of the Molehill West and into the best viable non-P5 conference that can be created. The extra few hundred thousand bucks they will earn from the majority of the MWC bending over for them won't be worth not being in the same conference with the likes of BYU and Houston and instead being partnered with the likes of USU and Wyoming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 13:15:27 GMT -8
In 1975 or so, we went independent so that we could wait for the next best option while avoiding the stigma of the PCAA. While some things have certainly changed, the law of supply and demand hasn't. I don't see how going indy could be any worse than what we're looking at right now. Same goes double for Boise. SGF, you refer to Boise's status as "THE non power five school," but I've got news: Unless Boise goes on a 24-game winning streak starting now, that school will be BYU (unless you count ND) because an 8-4 BYU is more valuable than a 10-2 Boise. Agree completely about BYU overtaking Boise as the big dog among non-P5 schools if Boise starts going even 10-2 every year in our lousy conference. It's a bit ironic you should mention it since there's a thread on the MWC board today about BYU getting a 2-for-1 with USC. Just as the fans of the football nonentities were dissing SDSU for wanting to go to the BE, they dissed BYU for going indy, saying the Borg would be starving to fill out their schedule. Well, that isn't happening. In fact, after a pretty lousy bunch of opponents last year, they're picking things up considerably. I wasn't at SDSU yet in 1975 so don't know the specifics about how and why we went indy but is there a chance we could actually pull it off again? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 14:03:26 GMT -8
I disagree on joining the WAC. BYU won a NC as a member of that conference, tainted though it was, and the WAC champion annually hosted the Holiday Bowl, which most years had the most exciting game of all the bowls. Then in the early nineties ESPN televised a decent amount of WAC games in evening primetime. The problem was the WAC letting the dregs of the SWC in after it fell apart. That was the dumbest move in the history of conferences and I still don't really know who was to blame. Although some folks on the MWC board have said Fresno was among the instigators, that makes no sense to me since Fresno didn't join the WAC itself until 1992. So most likely it was the front rangers. Their opinion of how to put together a conference is always minor league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 14:15:42 GMT -8
Really John? Those schools were regarded as garbage way back when: triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/college/s_756924.html#axzz2XMaKbxkHI never searched for this stuff before but it's obvious that BYU and Utah didn't support adding the SWC schools before or after they came. Good on them. Rice was and is useless and SMU was then useless and is still of limited value. And the WAC was too dumb to offer Houston rather than one of those two. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 26, 2013 14:59:28 GMT -8
Agree completely about BYU overtaking Boise as the big dog among non-P5 schools if Boise starts going even 10-2 every year in our lousy conference. It's a bit ironic you should mention it since there's a thread on the MWC board today about BYU getting a 2-for-1 with USC. Just as the fans of the football nonentities were dissing SDSU for wanting to go to the BE, they dissed BYU for going indy, saying the Borg would be starving to fill out their schedule. Well, that isn't happening. In fact, after a pretty lousy bunch of opponents last year, they're picking things up considerably. I wasn't at SDSU yet in 1975 so don't know the specifics about how and why we went indy but is there a chance we could actually pull it off again? If BYU can do it, why the hell couldn't we? If BYU can get home games in f'ing Provo, we can get them here. I can't imagine a lousier bunch of opponents than those we'll be facing from here on out. Retired Aztec won't like reading this, but I firmly believe we are in the the very worst of all the so-called "DI" leagues. Although I wasn't a student in 75, I was already an avid fan. We had been kicking ass for eight years or so in the PCAA and found that it didn't seem to matter to anyone. (That's probably because beating other Cal State teams didn't matter. It still doesn't.) We therefore went indy, playing teams from the WAC, MAC, and PCAA as well as a few "BCS" teams. We got a little more exposure---when we had good seasons, we'd show up in Sports Illustrated and the Sporting News. We started showing up on ABC regional telecasts (usually, if I recall right, against Arizona). All the while, our AD (along with the Greater San Diego Sports Association) tried like hell to get us into the Pac 8, which wasn't gonna happen for the same reasons it'll never happen. Having failed at that, we slid "up" into the WAC, but not until it had lost two of its only viable members to the Pac Ten. It was like signing up for a Toyota and then driving off in a Kia. Absolutely nothing about that league (except playing BYU, which we'd already been doing) was appealing. Fans didn't like it then and they never liked it. (However, it was a pretty good basketball league with BYU, Utah, Wyoming, and occasionally UTEP.) We never should have joined the WAC, and we never should have rejoined the PCAA. Well SGF and JYP, to do that would require dynamic leadership and a real marketing department at SDSU. Sadly and pathetically, we neither have none of those. |
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jun 28, 2013 7:44:01 GMT -8
SDSU, 12 commits
Fresno, 0 commits
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 8:02:58 GMT -8
The article you cite doesn't say that at all. What it says is that some schools didn't want 16 teams. It doesn't say which ones they shouldn't have brought aboard. I inadvertently deleted a second article from the SLC paper which poked major fun at the WAC for having added TCU, which had managed its first winning season in three years by defeating three opponents which had won just one game, SMU, which was still reeling from the death penalty, and Rice, which had a decent football team because they were then coached by former AFA coach Ken Hatfield but which still wasn't drawing flies to their huge stadium. And, of course, the WAC didn't take or didn't get the best of the lot, Houston. BTW, John, your enmity toward Fresno is the strongest on the board. Granted, that city is a dump, but CSU Fresno has a strong football program relative to almost anybody else who would deign to share a conference with us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 8:08:38 GMT -8
SDSU, 12 commits Fresno, 0 commits Somebody linked to the MWC board an article from the Fresno paper or Fresno Rivals site which mentioned a couple alleged JUCO studs who were seriously considering the Bulldogs. It's crystal clear DeRuyter's plan is to load up on experienced players to try to get to a BCS bowl and then take the money offered him by a P5 school and run - as fast as he can out of town, without a concern in the world for what a mess of a roster he will leave his successor. So I'll predict this. A year or two from now, CSUF will have a magical season and once again become the media darlings they were for a year under Pat Hill. However, within two years of that, the house of cards will come crashing down upon them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 15:37:25 GMT -8
SDSU won't be confused with UCSD any time soon, but it's the academic and athletic flagship of the California State Univeristy. It isn't THE academic flagship any longer. Cal Poly SLO is held in at least the same regard. Which is why it would behoove both universities to become the charter members of a third system of higher education in California as some have advocated. We would have to surrender about half the state funds we now get and substantially increase tuition to make up for it but, to me, it's the natural order of things since the educational quality and difficulty in gaining admission to both already considerably separate themselves from the vast majority of the other 21 CSU campuses. Edit: BTW, to its credit, Rice absolutely refuses to lower its admission standards to improve its football and hoops teams. However, the SEC isn't clearly numero uno in football because of the academic standards of its members, if you get my drift. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 15:42:51 GMT -8
CPSLO is UC of the CSU's. Yep. If the UC system wasn't so GD elitist, it would allow CPSLO to become one of its members. Hell, SLO already has a better academic rep than UCR, UCM and UCSC. "But Cal Poly doesn't have a law school or a med school" say the detractors. As if adding an effing law school would be some BFD. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 15:45:38 GMT -8
It kinda goes... CPSLO SDSU SFstate everyone else is tied for 16th Actually, there are now 23 CSU campuses and I would put Long Beach State fourth and say that a few schools like Bakersfield, San Bernardino, Stanislaus and Dominguez Hills are toward the low end of the scale. |
|
|
|
Post by pdraztec on Jun 29, 2013 7:50:43 GMT -8
2 kids (0ne girl and one guy) from a couple of our friends were Frosh at CPSLO last year. Our friends, from different cities, both said that neither of the kids could get into SDSU....they tried.
|
|
