|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 10, 2015 12:33:07 GMT -8
Once again back to reality: We recruit in the 60's and 70's and that has become roughly where where Rocky has taken us in the polls after 5 years of his stagnation. Maybe you've missed several previous posts already referencing this, but recruiting in the 60's & 70's overall is where the top 5-10 G5 schools are recruiting! Other than a BSU, BYU & a rare outlier, that's the TOP end of G5 recruiting PERIOD. There wasn't ONE SINGLE G5 school ranked in the top 50 last year per 24/7, including BSU & BYU, and our class was rated on par with BYU in 2015. ESPN did have BYU at #50, but no other G5 school higher than 65. It's reality. It has nothing to do with Rocky; it has everything to do with the disparity between P5 & G5 schools in recruiting these days, given the financial gap. It's about bells & whistles the PROGRAM offers. Our recruiting staff is pretty damn good. PS. Prior to Rocky, Hoke's last 2 classes were ranked in the mid to high 70s. Hoke had only 1 full year of recruiting and was gone. In that short time, he managed to pull our team up to the Top 25 (26th or 27th). Since then, Rocky has pulled us further and further away. So again, coaching helps level the playing field. Rocky tips it in the wrong direction. |
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Oct 10, 2015 13:12:26 GMT -8
I am surprised we can get any 3's or better as negative this board is at times Just hope they don't read what these idiots have to say |
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Oct 10, 2015 13:35:45 GMT -8
Our team is full of 2 stars and we are not any good
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 11, 2015 8:34:01 GMT -8
Maybe you've missed several previous posts already referencing this, but recruiting in the 60's & 70's overall is where the top 5-10 G5 schools are recruiting! Other than a BSU, BYU & a rare outlier, that's the TOP end of G5 recruiting PERIOD. There wasn't ONE SINGLE G5 school ranked in the top 50 last year per 24/7, including BSU & BYU, and our class was rated on par with BYU in 2015. ESPN did have BYU at #50, but no other G5 school higher than 65. It's reality. It has nothing to do with Rocky; it has everything to do with the disparity between P5 & G5 schools in recruiting these days, given the financial gap. It's about bells & whistles the PROGRAM offers. Our recruiting staff is pretty damn good. PS. Prior to Rocky, Hoke's last 2 classes were ranked in the mid to high 70s. Hoke had only 1 full year of recruiting and was gone. In that short time, he managed to pull our team up to the Top 25 (26th or 27th). Since then, Rocky has pulled us further and further away. So again, coaching helps level the playing field. Rocky tips it in the wrong direction. Ok, so to summarize you're saying Hoke never proved himself as a recruiter at SDSU and instead took mostly Chuck Long recruits behind Borges on O and ROCKY LONGs D to a 5-3 conference record while never actually being ranked in the top 25. He then bolted, only to fail at michigan despite that program being a talent magnet. His replacement has now taken what little success Hoke had with his recruits, especially on D, and has them among the best in the nation. We are finally in agreement about something! Getting near the top 25 for 1 week before going on a 3 game losing streak doesn't define a program. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 11, 2015 8:44:15 GMT -8
Our team is full of 2 stars and we are not any good Yet We have recruited more 3-4 star talent than any other team in our conference except BSU over the past few years. Interesting how our "fans" get off on diminishing reality. |
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 11, 2015 16:16:45 GMT -8
Our team is full of 2 stars and we are not any good Yet We have recruited more 3-4 star talent than any other team in our conference except BSU over the past few years. Interesting how our "fans" get off on diminishing reality. If we want to pull off what Utah did we are going to need far better than BSU recruiting.I think the fans deserve better. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 12, 2015 23:06:07 GMT -8
Yet We have recruited more 3-4 star talent than any other team in our conference except BSU over the past few years. Interesting how our "fans" get off on diminishing reality. If we want to pull off what Utah did we are going to need far better than BSU recruiting.I think the fans deserve better. No G5 school is going to get "far better than BSU recruiting" without far better facilities and far more money. Not happening. Get in touch with reality. Utah is in the P12 because it's in Salt Lake city. |
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 6:55:19 GMT -8
If we want to pull off what Utah did we are going to need far better than BSU recruiting.I think the fans deserve better. No G5 school is going to get "far better than BSU recruiting" without far better facilities and far more money. Not happening. Get in touch with reality. Utah is in the P12 because it's in Salt Lake city. Utah went out and got excellent recruiting classes,beat Alabama or some team like that in a bowl game and went undefeated or one loss a few seasons in a row and when the pack 10 expanded they were invited to a p5 conference.Utah is a horribly boring place and they still pulled it off.This is what SDSU needs to pull off to get out of this conference.Where were you five years ago and why am I having to explain something over and over that basically just happened? |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 13, 2015 8:54:02 GMT -8
No G5 school is going to get "far better than BSU recruiting" without far better facilities and far more money. Not happening. Get in touch with reality. Utah is in the P12 because it's in Salt Lake city. Utah went out and got excellent recruiting classes,beat Alabama or some team like that in a bowl game and went undefeated or one loss a few seasons in a row and when the pack 10 expanded they were invited to a p5 conference.Utah is a horribly boring place and they still pulled it off.This is what SDSU needs to pull off to get out of this conference.Where were you five years ago and why am I having to explain something over and over that basically just happened? Again, Utah wasn't added due to their football prowess or even the fact they had one great season. They were added to the Pac 10 because they brought eyeballs & expanded their footprint into a new & good market, have a solid & good athletic department across all sports, and their location made them a good travel partner for Colorado, who they had already added & is a critical factor in their selection process. They needed a 12th for a playoff game and to improve negotiations with the networks, and Salt Lake City was seen as a prime location to go with Denver/Boulder.
If you actually followed the Pac 10 you'd have known that.
The perception that you need to have an exceptional football program to get added to a conference is false. It doesn't hurt, but it's not the driving factor. They want you to be competitive, but they also realize it's more about what you can do once you join the league (w/ the additional revenue streams).
The entire landscape of college football has changed drastically since 2010. Night & day. In 2010 there were 3 G5 teams in the top 11; in 2014 there was 1 in the top 20 (BSU).
"Excellent recruiting classes"? The bedrock of Utah's 2010 team (last as a G5) consisted of the '06, '07 & '08 recruiting classes, which ranked 55th, 60th & 58th respectively. And since I know you're obsessed with it, 27 of their 47 '06 & '07 recruits were 2-stars.
If you want to step back to their '08 undefeated team you'd add in their '04 & '05 recruiting classes which ranked 61st & 56th respectively, where 31 of 42 recruits were 2-stars. So their '04-'07 recruiting classes, which represented most of their undefeated roster consisted of 58 out of 89 who were 2-star recruits. If you want to step back further to '03 they ranked 75th, with 11 of 18 being 2-stars. But those never pay off, right?
BTW, in '04 & '05 SDSU actually had significantly better recruiting classes that Utah.
PS. Utah's current 5-0 squad's core is the '11 & '12 recruiting classes, which ranked 40th & 37th respectively. They saw an uptick in recruiting after they jumped up, as would every G5 team, but "excellent"?
|
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 9:11:33 GMT -8
Utah went out and got excellent recruiting classes,beat Alabama or some team like that in a bowl game and went undefeated or one loss a few seasons in a row and when the pack 10 expanded they were invited to a p5 conference.Utah is a horribly boring place and they still pulled it off.This is what SDSU needs to pull off to get out of this conference.Where were you five years ago and why am I having to explain something over and over that basically just happened? Again, Utah wasn't added due to their football prowess or even the fact they had one great season. They were added to the Pac 10 because they brought eyeballs & expanded their footprint into a new & good market, have a solid & good athletic department across all sports, and their location made them a good travel partner for Colorado, who they had already added & is a critical factor in their selection process. They needed a 12th for a playoff game and to improve negotiations with the networks, and Salt Lake City was seen as a prime location to go with Denver/Boulder.
If you actually followed the Pac 10 you'd have known that.
The perception that you need to have an exceptional football program to get added to a conference is false. It doesn't hurt, but it's not the driving factor. They want you to be competitive, but they also realize it's more about what you can do once you join the league (w/ the additional revenue streams).
The entire landscape of college football has changed drastically since 2010. Night & day. In 2010 there were 3 G5 teams in the top 11; in 2014 there was 1 in the top 20 (BSU).
"Excellent recruiting classes"? The bedrock of Utah's 2010 team (last as a G5) consisted of the '06, '07 & '08 recruiting classes, which ranked 55th, 60th & 58th respectively. And since I know you're obsessed with it, 27 of their 47 '06 & '07 recruits were 2-stars.
If you want to step back to their '08 undefeated team you'd add in their '04 & '05 recruiting classes which ranked 61st & 56th respectively, where 31 of 42 recruits were 2-stars. So their '04-'07 recruiting classes, which represented most of their undefeated roster consisted of 58 out of 89 who were 2-star recruits. If you want to step back further to '03 they ranked 75th, with 11 of 18 being 2-stars. But those never pay off, right?
BTW, in '04 & '05 SDSU actually had significantly better recruiting classes that Utah.
PS. Utah's current 5-0 squad's core is the '11 & '12 recruiting classes, which ranked 40th & 37th respectively. They saw an uptick in recruiting after they jumped up, as would every G5 team, but "excellent"?
If we can get fifty something in recruiting that would be considered excellent and would be #1 in the conference by far and would improve our record to ten wins or more per year and as a result put more people in the stands which the bigger confrences would take notice and we can move the football program forward.The recruiting classes they brought in were maybe better than their rankings due to rivals inaccuracies back then.Those were the days where a player is recruited by a mountain west team and he was a two star decommits to a pac 10 school and he is all of a sudden three star. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Oct 13, 2015 9:20:40 GMT -8
Our recruiting isn't the problem. It's more about coaching. SDSU has always brought solid talent in, we just can never coach it
|
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 9:25:34 GMT -8
Our recruiting isn't the problem. It's more about coaching. SDSU has always brought solid talent in, we just can never coach it Seventy something in recruiting will never get it done.You find me an example from the past where that has worked and I might believe your post. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 13, 2015 10:32:19 GMT -8
Again, Utah wasn't added due to their football prowess or even the fact they had one great season. They were added to the Pac 10 because they brought eyeballs & expanded their footprint into a new & good market, have a solid & good athletic department across all sports, and their location made them a good travel partner for Colorado, who they had already added & is a critical factor in their selection process. They needed a 12th for a playoff game and to improve negotiations with the networks, and Salt Lake City was seen as a prime location to go with Denver/Boulder.
If you actually followed the Pac 10 you'd have known that.
The perception that you need to have an exceptional football program to get added to a conference is false. It doesn't hurt, but it's not the driving factor. They want you to be competitive, but they also realize it's more about what you can do once you join the league (w/ the additional revenue streams).
The entire landscape of college football has changed drastically since 2010. Night & day. In 2010 there were 3 G5 teams in the top 11; in 2014 there was 1 in the top 20 (BSU).
"Excellent recruiting classes"? The bedrock of Utah's 2010 team (last as a G5) consisted of the '06, '07 & '08 recruiting classes, which ranked 55th, 60th & 58th respectively. And since I know you're obsessed with it, 27 of their 47 '06 & '07 recruits were 2-stars.
If you want to step back to their '08 undefeated team you'd add in their '04 & '05 recruiting classes which ranked 61st & 56th respectively, where 31 of 42 recruits were 2-stars. So their '04-'07 recruiting classes, which represented most of their undefeated roster consisted of 58 out of 89 who were 2-star recruits. If you want to step back further to '03 they ranked 75th, with 11 of 18 being 2-stars. But those never pay off, right?
BTW, in '04 & '05 SDSU actually had significantly better recruiting classes that Utah.
PS. Utah's current 5-0 squad's core is the '11 & '12 recruiting classes, which ranked 40th & 37th respectively. They saw an uptick in recruiting after they jumped up, as would every G5 team, but "excellent"?
If we can get fifty something in recruiting that would be considered excellent and would be #1 in the conference by far and would improve our record to ten wins or more per year and as a result put more people in the stands which the bigger confrences would take notice and we can move the football program forward.The recruiting classes they brought in were maybe better than their rankings due to rivals inaccuracies back then.Those were the days where a player is recruited by a mountain west team and he was a two star decommits to a pac 10 school and he is all of a sudden three star. No, 50-something in recruiting would not necessarily guarantee you 10 wins or more per year. If you're Marshall last year & didn't play a P5 team all year, maybe, but not if you're SDSU & you played 2 quality P5 teams ON THE ROAD, and play 2 quality P5 teams in most years moving forward. You also don't assume an undefeated conference schedule, as BSU proved last year.
Have noted multiple times, but is worth repeating - there were only 2 G5 teams in the nation last year rated in the 50's - BSU (#56) & SJSU (#58). BYU was right behind, and SDSU right behind them (#64 & #67). The gap between 56 & 67 is negligible, but the gap between the G5's & P5's is more concrete.
Also, the "errors" associated with these recruiting sites today aren't much different than they were in 5 years ago, and that's not how it works. They don't assign stars based on offers. If a player is seen once & graded lowly (e.g. 2-star) & then gets an offer from a more elite program (e.g. USC, Oregon, Stanford now, etc.) the analyst may question what he didn't see & then re-evaluate the player & decide if he's worthy of a higher grade. Most players get re-graded anyway these days.
Bottom line - Utah didn't attract the elite talents then, and that definitely didn't raise them into the P10. And again, their football record wasn't why they were added.
Also not sure why you think we should be a top 50 recruiting program, especially as a G5, when it simply rarely happens ANYWHERE these days? It's not like we have anything special to offer, and others have more money & better facilities. You don't snap your fingers & get elite athletes to come here. Recruiting is about bells & whistles these days. We are among the better recruiting programs in the conference as it is, and over the past 5 years one of the most consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 11:36:39 GMT -8
Maybe you've missed several previous posts already referencing this, but recruiting in the 60's & 70's overall is where the top 5-10 G5 schools are recruiting! Other than a BSU, BYU & a rare outlier, that's the TOP end of G5 recruiting PERIOD. There wasn't ONE SINGLE G5 school ranked in the top 50 last year per 24/7, including BSU & BYU, and our class was rated on par with BYU in 2015. ESPN did have BYU at #50, but no other G5 school higher than 65. It's reality. It has nothing to do with Rocky; it has everything to do with the disparity between P5 & G5 schools in recruiting these days, given the financial gap. It's about bells & whistles the PROGRAM offers. Our recruiting staff is pretty damn good. PS. Prior to Rocky, Hoke's last 2 classes were ranked in the mid to high 70s. Hoke had only 1 full year of recruiting and was gone. In that short time, he managed to pull our team up to the Top 25 (26th or 27th). Since then, Rocky has pulled us further and further away. So again, coaching helps level the playing field. Rocky tips it in the wrong direction. You are forgetting one thing that we had Lindley that year plus Vincent Brown,Demarco Sampson,Ronnie Hillman,Gavin Escobar basically one of the best O's ever here at State.We were ranked between 30 and 35 that year at one point as I remember.So in reality I put Hoke as a slight improvement over Long. |
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 11:42:36 GMT -8
If we can get fifty something in recruiting that would be considered excellent and would be #1 in the conference by far and would improve our record to ten wins or more per year and as a result put more people in the stands which the bigger confrences would take notice and we can move the football program forward.The recruiting classes they brought in were maybe better than their rankings due to rivals inaccuracies back then.Those were the days where a player is recruited by a mountain west team and he was a two star decommits to a pac 10 school and he is all of a sudden three star. No, 50-something in recruiting would not necessarily guarantee you 10 wins or more per year. If you're Marshall last year & didn't play a P5 team all year, maybe, but not if you're SDSU & you played 2 quality P5 teams ON THE ROAD, and play 2 quality P5 teams in most years moving forward. You also don't assume an undefeated conference schedule, as BSU proved last year.
Have noted multiple times, but is worth repeating - there were only 2 G5 teams in the nation last year rated in the 50's - BSU (#56) & SJSU (#58). BYU was right behind, and SDSU right behind them (#64 & #67). The gap between 56 & 67 is negligible, but the gap between the G5's & P5's is more concrete.
Also, the "errors" associated with these recruiting sites today aren't much different than they were in 5 years ago, and that's not how it works. They don't assign stars based on offers. If a player is seen once & graded lowly (e.g. 2-star) & then gets an offer from a more elite program (e.g. USC, Oregon, Stanford now, etc.) the analyst may question what he didn't see & then re-evaluate the player & decide if he's worthy of a higher grade. Most players get re-graded anyway these days.
Bottom line - Utah didn't attract the elite talents then, and that definitely didn't raise them into the P10. And again, their football record wasn't why they were added.
Also not sure why you think we should be a top 50 recruiting program, especially as a G5, when it simply rarely happens ANYWHERE these days? It's not like we have anything special to offer, and others have more money & better facilities. You don't snap your fingers & get elite athletes to come here. Recruiting is about bells & whistles these days. We are among the better recruiting programs in the conference as it is, and over the past 5 years one of the most consistent.
Not guarantee 10 wins but more than we have now.The star level is usually based on stats,40 time and all the drills the NFL combine uses to evaluate players not how many offers.I have worked for such services. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Oct 13, 2015 11:43:59 GMT -8
think it shows if you have a decent QB you may always be in the game - even Lindley showed we had an opportunity to win with his decent WR's . Last few years we have had a high level of RB's but no championships . It is QB game . You either spend major effort recruiting them and more important developing them or realize you have very difficult time winning quality games.
|
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 11:49:37 GMT -8
So to sum this one up it is Rocky Longs recruiting that is hurting us not the coaching.If we had a QB,wide recievers,TE we would be at the ten win level.Our running backs are fantastic we are just missing a few pieces to the puzzle.
|
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 11:51:36 GMT -8
think it shows if you have a decent QB you may always be in the game - even Lindley showed we had an opportunity to win with his decent WR's . Last few years we have had a high level of RB's but no championships . It is QB game . You either spend major effort recruiting them and more important developing them or realize you have very difficult time winning quality games. Absolutely right |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 13, 2015 12:00:11 GMT -8
Hoke had only 1 full year of recruiting and was gone. In that short time, he managed to pull our team up to the Top 25 (26th or 27th). Since then, Rocky has pulled us further and further away. So again, coaching helps level the playing field. Rocky tips it in the wrong direction. You are forgetting one thing that we had Lindley that year plus Vincent Brown,Demarco Sampson,Ronnie Hillman,Gavin Escobar basically one of the best O's ever here at State.We were ranked between 30 and 35 that year at one point as I remember.So in reality I put Hoke as a slight improvement over Long. I believe that the final poll after the win over Navy, put us at 27. Hoke brought the program from near collapse, to 27th in the nation in two years. He energized the base and the community. Rocky Long has only dreamed about those polling numbers and in the process put the alumni, the administration, the students, and the community at large, into a coma. |
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 12:05:15 GMT -8
You are forgetting one thing that we had Lindley that year plus Vincent Brown,Demarco Sampson,Ronnie Hillman,Gavin Escobar basically one of the best O's ever here at State.We were ranked between 30 and 35 that year at one point as I remember.So in reality I put Hoke as a slight improvement over Long. I believe that the final poll after the win over Navy, put us at 27. Hoke brought the program from near collapse, to 27th in the nation in two years. He energized the base and the community. Rocky Long has only dreamed about those polling numbers and in the process put the alumni, the administration, the students, and the community at large, into a coma. OK that makes sence @ 27.Don't get me wrong I like Hoke more than Rocky and do think he is a better coach but I think he is slightly better.Hoke's first recruiting class he brought in 30 players! |
|
