USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:14 pm

No, because they don't produce the same profit. If a kid purchases a Percy Harvin jersey, Tebow doesn't get a cut, and vice versa.

The monthly stipend, that's a different issue. There, yes, all the full scholarship members on the team, all the guys who are not allowed by the NCAA to work, they should get an equal monthly stipend.

Merchandising sales are above and beyond the monthly stipend.

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Sat May 09, 2009 3:39 am

So Van, you're telling me Tom Tolbert's parents didn't have enough money to send him so he could buy a pizza? Are you also saying that these kids who probably had cars while in high school all of a sudden don't have them in college? That's such a bunch of bullshit. When I was in college just about every athlete had their own car and money from their parents. shit, what about having buddies buy you lunch or dinner. Fuck with women's rights have her pay for the movie and pizza.

I just don't buy it that once these kids who have tons of material things at home all of a sudden become destitute once they hit the college campus.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat May 09, 2009 4:16 am

Laxplayer wrote:So Van, you're telling me Tom Tolbert's parents didn't have enough money to send him so he could buy a pizza?

Nope. I'm saying he said they didn't send him money. Obviously, Tolbert's family had money. Doesn't mean they were willing to give it to him. He claims that he was forever broke when he was in college. He specifically mentions not even being able to afford to take a girl out for a movie and pizza.

He did have a car, though. It was some embarrassing P.O.S., but it got him around.

On the local sports station up here I hear Tolbert all the time, since he co-hosts the show, and he's often spoken of how stupidly broke ass poor everyone was in college. He's a strong proponent of athletes receiving some sort of monthly stipend, due to the NCAA forbidding them from holding jobs.

Like I said, I've heard Lincoln Kennedy and quite a few others say basically the same thing, relating basically the same stories.

Hell, I grew up in a middle/lower middle class family. I wasn't nearly as disadvantaged as many kids are, but we weren't wealthy either. My dad died when I was in high school, and there went our only income. I was offered a partial ride to USC, but we couldn't swing the difference. Had it been a full ride, I would've definitely jumped on it. Had I gone, I wouldn't have gotten much of anything in terms of financial help from home, simply because my mom had nothing left to give. I might've been able to avail myself to the training table food of which Lefty spoke, but it's not like it's available 24/7, or even convenient all the time, and that's just food. How would I have afforded everything else? I wouldn't have been allowed to work, to earn extra money. The commute from my house to USC would've been hellacious, and expensive as hell, but it would've been more do-able than living on campus, in some dorm, with no money at all.

You don't think kids from broken families all over Mississippi and Bama aren't dealing with the same things, and much worse?

Look at the crap Dwayne Jarrett ran into, when his wealthier friend/teammate tried to put him up in his place.

Lax, for many people this shit is not some crazy fantasy world issue. It's real.

Are you also saying that these kids who probably had cars while in high school all of a sudden don't have them in college?

Not all these kids had cars in high school. They didn't all grow up in affluent SoCal/LoCal households. Many of these dirt poor kids from broken families absolutely never had a car in high school. Then, in college, they're forbidden to work, and their family is still broke dick poor.

Some high school kids just borrow their parents' cars, and that opportunity dries up once they go away to college.

Then there's the cost of maintaining the car, including gas, upkeep and insurance. These kids aren't allowed to work, they have no income, so even keeping gas in the car is a bitch.

This is reality, for some kids.

That's such a bunch of bullshit.

Maybe for you and your experience, but not for plenty of dirt poor kids. Hell, come to think of it, neither of my two older brothers had cars when they were in high school.

When I was in college just about every athlete had their own car and money from their parents.

Great. What about those who don't?

What college did you go to, anyway? Notre Dame? That's not exactly a school which caters to dirt poor kids. Even their athletes tend to come from better families.

shit, what about having buddies buy you lunch or dinner. Fuck with women's rights have her pay for the movie and pizza.

Fuck, what about getting just a tiny slice of that giant merchandizing pie, and buying your own pizza?

I just don't buy it that once these kids who have tons of material things at home all of a sudden become destitute once they hit the college campus.

They don't all have tons of material things at home, and they don't all get to retain that lifestyle anyway, once they're out on their own.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat May 09, 2009 4:32 am

Same with Tolbert. It's not that their families had no money, it's that they had no money, in college. Or, so they claim.

Also, I went to a rich kid's high school. We scraped by, until we couldn't. By the time college arrived, uh, nope.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat May 09, 2009 4:35 am

See, so he wouldn't have gotten Tebow merchandising money.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:26 pm

How bout a cost of living/housing stipend based on the cost of living/housing in the city the school is in? A 800 a month rent stipend will go a hell of a lot farther in Norman, Starkville, Lincoln, Birmingham, Athens... than it will in Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Irvine/Newport Beach, Malibu... If rent and car insurance costs are 3 to 4 times higher in certain cities, the student athletes stipend should be 3 to 4 times higher in those cities to match.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun May 10, 2009 6:18 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:How bout a cost of living/housing stipend based on the cost of living/housing in the city the school is in? A 800 a month rent stipend will go a hell of a lot farther in Norman, Starkville, Lincoln, Birmingham, Athens... than it will in Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Irvine/Newport Beach, Malibu... If rent and car insurance costs are 3 to 4 times higher in certain cities, the student athletes stipend should be 3 to 4 times higher in those cities to match.

I know I'll catch some shit for this, but I never had a car back when I was in college. I really don't see where a car, or any related expenses for that matter, is/are necessary for a college student, let alone a scholarship athlete on a full scholarship which likely includes free room and board in on-campus housing. By and large, we're talking about kids who are 17-22 or 23 years old, not 35-, or even 25-year-olds coming back to school after a few years on their own in the real world, particularly when scholarship athletes are the topic of conversation.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun May 10, 2009 6:37 am

when you grow up where there is no public transportation, you get a car, I got my first car 3 months before 16th birthday, knew people when I was at USC who got their license and started driving at 14

Terry in Crapchester · Sun May 10, 2009 6:47 am

Where i grew up, public transportation left a lot to be desired. But my parents made it clear that my own car while I was in high school wasn't happening. Best I was gonna do was borrow their car (when they felt like letting me have it, that is), and of course, even that opportunity dried up when I went to college.

Personally, I never owned a car I didn't pay for myself. And I'm struggling with the idea that a car would be a high-priority purchase for a kid who grows up in near-poverty, as many high profile recruits do.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun May 10, 2009 7:08 am

One big problem is peer pressure, and wanting to keep up with the Joneses. Your'e a kid in college, a stud athlete, and everyone else is driving around and living it up, enjoying the fruits of the college experience. Then there's you, and you're dirt poor, with no car and no pocket money.

There's a lot of temptation there. Temptation gets kids, and programs, into trouble.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:38 am

Especially at a school full of trust fund babies

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:00 am

Laxplayer wrote:Fuck with women's rights have her pay for the movie and pizza

RACK the fuck out of LAX. That's some bedrock fundamental shit right there. A lesson well taught to all the young gents out there.

"I couldn't even afford to take a bitch out for pizza and a movie." Fucking bonus, dude! More money in your pocket never sucks.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:34 am

Van wrote: In case you haven't noticed, Sam and I are board "friends." He and I often tend to go on singularly directed tangents, as do Terry and I. I tend to post directly to Sam, ribbing him about things, and vice versa, regardless of what else is going on in a thread.

Sam posted about the women, so I posted to Sam about Sam and the women. That's what we do.

Also, S_M made a ridiculous claim, similar to the one he made about Miss California, and that also prompted me to respond. It's an ongoing silly discussion.

So, yeah, it made perfect sense for me to respond in the way I did. Talking about these guys claiming they wouldn't fuck Kim Kardashian is way more fun than once again re-hashing the "USC football are cheaters!" argument...especially when the evidence this time is that USC hoops passed on a shady kid.

The agenda of the author of the thread was clearly implicit, right there in the title of the thread.

So, excuse me, if I rather preferred to joke around with Sam and S_M, about fun stuff.

i don't care who plans the circle jerks. i think your point here is that i'm right.

He was never ineligible. Show me where the NCAA ever ruled him ineligible. It's been five years; by now, you ought to have a fuckload of edifying links.

didn't you accuse me of banging the tooth fairy here? ja, he was never never ruled ineligible even though his family was accepting benefits from an agent. also, oj didn't murder that chick because he was never ruled guilty.

but i doubt this conversation ever took place between, say, a coach and his star player:

-hey reggie, how's your family?

-uh... they good, living in the hillz and shit.

it's really not that hard to send some entry-level administrative asst. on a paper chase to investigate these things. not a lot of magnum, p.i. goes into:

-hey, drive by this address and tell me what sort of palace those poor people can all of a sudden afford now that their son is an amateur athlete.
You really do still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Change You Can Believe In, don't you?

huh? you're alluding to a time of naive innocence, which characterizes your thoughts here more than mine. i asked a friend about this who used to work extremely high in the michigan ad:

you need to show due diligence. A school can't know everything but can ensure steps that cover the basics. This includes obtaining copies of apartment leases, car registrations, etc. Harder to police families but if you become aware of a situation, the AD should look in to it as much as possible. Michigan would sometimes take pictures of people outside of the locker room, scope outside apartments, etc. Not everyone does the cloak and dagger stuff. Depends how much they want to put in to rules compliance.

so basically, your tooth fairy analysis is to help explain why lebron james' high school is more proactive in these matters than usc. i get it.

Keep it up and we'll, umm, send you to wenst you came.

hahahaha, pacedog 2.0. what, you're going to "run" me?

Right. Reportedly, in an effort to entice the kid to leave USC early, some jackass agent preys on the family of one of USC's established star players, and because of this USC should be forced to forfeit two years.

the poor family was attacked by the agent's big house! and he even raped the tooth fairy!

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon May 11, 2009 4:32 am

M Club wrote:i don't care who plans the circle jerks. i think your point here is that i'm right.

No, my points here were very clear...

-These guys here who say they wouldn't fuck KK are delusional.

-You believe in the Tooth Fairy, if you think some school's rinky dink Compliance Department actually has the wherewithal to track down financial info on the extended families of players, especially when those family members wish to keep their financial info a secret.

He was never ineligible. Show me where the NCAA ever ruled him ineligible. It's been five years; by now, you ought to have a fuckload of edifying links.
didn't you accuse me of banging the tooth fairy here?

Yes. Now, try to connect to dots.

ja, he was never never ruled ineligible even though his family was accepting benefits from an agent.

Nothing has been proven, and the NVCAA has had five years to find USC in violation. Nothing has happened. So, you can keep saying it as if it's fact, and if that works for you, great. Talk yourself into "knowing" it to be true. It doesn't work for the people who matter. Allegations require proof and guilt requires a finding of guilt.

also, oj didn't murder that chick because he was never ruled guilty.

Non sequitur. Besides, OJ was found guilty (or liable) in civil court.

i asked a friend about this who used to work extremely high in the michigan ad:
you need to show due diligence. A school can't know everything but can ensure steps that cover the basics. This includes obtaining copies of apartment leases, car registrations, etc. Harder to police families but if you become aware of a situation, the AD should look in to it as much as possible. Michigan would sometimes take pictures of people outside of the locker room, scope outside apartments, etc. Not everyone does the cloak and dagger stuff. Depends how much they want to put in to rules compliance.

Thanks for proving my point. Most of that quote refers to the players themselves, not their families. You can't police families. You can "look into it, if you become aware of it," yeah, and the families can run you around in circles, with any amount of effort at all.

There are no guilty findings, so you can find USC guilty all you want. It doesn't change the fact that under Pete Carroll the USC football program hasn't been found in violation of anything by the NCAA.

so basically, your tooth fairy analysis is to help explain why lebron james' high school is more proactive in these matters than usc. i get it.

What you don't get is your rabid desire to see USC taken down, for a single alleged violation; an alleged violation which wasn't even committed by USC; an alleged violation which never stood to benefit USC.

One weak ass allegation, and you're the hanging judge, because it's USC. That's what you don't get.

Keep it up and we'll, umm, send you to wenst you came.
hahahaha, pacedog 2.0. what, you're going to "run" me?

Calm down, tough guy. That was merely a harmless parody of TVO, who doesn't know how to spell or use the term "whence." It had nothing to do with you. You just didn't get it.

Right. Reportedly, in an effort to entice the kid to leave USC early, some jackass agent preys on the family of one of USC's established star players, and because of this USC should be forced to forfeit two years.
the poor family was attacked by the agent's big house! and he even raped the tooth fairy!

The family was (allegedly) preyed on by the agent.

B...F...D.

Wake us up when anything comes of it, from the NCAA.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed May 13, 2009 2:17 pm

Niiiiiiiice.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:32 pm

The point of friend's email is that an AD has the ability to investigate beyond requests for lease documents. This, again, has less to do with any tooth fairy than it does you sticking your fingers in your ears while screaming, "It's just not possible!" Hmm.

The OJ quip was not a non-sequitur. It has to do with your insistence that a hypocritical organization notarize reality. Like anyone's going to sit around waiting for the the NCAA to sanction the one real football team in the country's second biggest market.

You're right, I totally have a rabid desire to see SC burn. It's also an extremely intense desire since I have to fit all my hate into the .3% of the time I spend thinking of SC during the time I think of CF as a whole. I suppose if you can pinpoint everyone's sexual proclivities than you can obviously define what does and doesn't motivate me.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:38 pm

I can safely say that if all the circumstances were identical, except we were talking about Washington St instead of USC, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Lefty wouldn't have bothered to post this thread, and yahoosports wouldn't be digging so hard for this story, because nobody would care.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:18 pm

probably because any family willing to follow their kid to wazzu doesn't need an agent to lease them a place to park their trailer.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:29 pm

That's downright unkind, and Q style will resent that remark.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed May 13, 2009 10:02 pm

Van wrote:I can safely say that if all the circumstances were identical, except we were talking about Washington St instead of USC, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Lefty wouldn't have bothered to post this thread, and yahoosports wouldn't be digging so hard for this story, because nobody would care.

Sorta like how all the media outlets went to the racism card when ND fired Ty, but nobody cared when New Mexico State fired its black head coach, eh?

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:11 pm

No, not really. Did New Mexico break their own tradition in firing the guy? Did New Mexico fall back on that tradition with the next white guy, refusing to fire him before his five years were up?

Also, even if your point is accurate, it only helps to prove mine. Because it's ND, because it's USC, people make an unusually big deal out of it. People point fingers and make accusations they otherwise would've bother to make.

See, that's sorta my point. Or, maybe I'm reading you wrong, and you're agreeing with me, in which case, yep, of course ND received undue media scrutiny over the Ty firing...because they're ND.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed May 13, 2009 10:45 pm

Van wrote:No, not really. Did New Mexico break their own tradition in firing the guy? Did New Mexico fall back on that tradition with the next white guy, refusing to fire him before his five years were up?

On the flipside of that, was Ty Willingham the winningest coach in Notre Dame's history?

Edit: My bad, third winningest. Sometimes I need to be reminded to factcheck the ND homer boards.

See, that's sorta my point. Or, maybe I'm reading you wrong, and you're agreeing with me, in which case, yep, of course ND received undue media scrutiny over the Ty firing...because they're ND.

Ahhh, so now you can argue both sides? Well done, grasshopper. You too would make a fine attorney -- if you had the education.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:49 am

Notre Dame fails at human resources. Time can't even figure the Willingham/racism thing out: on one hand, Weis hasn't been any better, so yeah, KKK, why does he get more time than the black dude; and on the other, we've discovered the black dude can't actually coach. Perhaps the NCAA will find lack of institutional control at SC and punish them by striking the Willingham tenure from ND.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:07 am

~...and that's what dreams are made of...~

Terry in Crapchester · Thu May 14, 2009 10:17 am

M Club wrote:on one hand, Weis hasn't been any better, so yeah, KKK, why does he get more time than the black dude;

Weis has recruited much better than Willingham did. That, and I believe that alone, is why he has gotten more time.

That being said, I'm very surprised he wasn't let go after this season.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu May 14, 2009 5:00 pm

Depends on how you measure it. Willingham's recruits became bigger stars than those recruited by Weis. These last two NFL drafts should've produced some stars recruited by Weis, and they didn't.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu May 14, 2009 5:21 pm

Van wrote:Depends on how you measure it. Willingham's recruits became bigger stars than those recruited by Weis. These last two NFL drafts should've produced some stars recruited by Weis, and they didn't.

As I've said before, Willingham had one outstanding class -- his first -- followed thereafter by two classes that were very subpar by ND's standards at least. Last year's graduating class was recruited by Willingham.

This year's graduating class signed LOI's the same year Willingham was fired and Weis was hired. Recall that the Patriots won the Super Bowl that year, and Weis didn't become full-time head coach at ND until less than a week before LOI day. Willingham certainly started the recruiting process for that class. Under the circumstances, Weis couldn't have added any more recruits, and with one notable exception (David Nelson, who originally commited to ND then changed his mind and signed with Florida), he did a remarkable job of keeping the class together.

Next year's graduating class will be the first class that was all Weis' from the start of the recruiting period onward. Call me crazy, but I suspect we'll have more than one player drafted out of that class.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu May 14, 2009 5:23 pm

Real stars don't need to wait until they're graduating before they're drafted. For the most part, if they're good enough, they won't stick around that long.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu May 14, 2009 5:42 pm

Ask Peyton Manning about that. Or if you prefer an opinion from your own school, ask Carson Palmer (admittedly, it would've been a huuuuge mistake for him to leave early, at that point he was playing more like Carson Daly

).

In any event, if you're going to use the NFL draft as the standard by which to rate a college coach's success at recruiting (not a perfect correlation, since other factors besides recruiting are implicated), it's a bit premature to label a coach a recruiting failure when his earliest recruiting class still has one year (and in some cases, two years) of eligibility remaining.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:12 pm

Van wrote:Real stars don't need to wait until they're graduating before they're drafted. For the most part, if they're good enough, they won't stick around that long.

that's increasingly true, but the leave early superstar quotient doesn't measure the overall quality of classes considered in total.

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:16 pm

Van, I'd venture a guess that guys who stay all 4 years do better at the next level than those who leave early. I may be wrong because I haven't done a study but just because a guy leaves early doesn't guarantee success at the next level.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:26 pm

King Crimson wrote:
Van wrote:Real stars don't need to wait until they're graduating before they're drafted. For the most part, if they're good enough, they won't stick around that long.
that's increasingly true, but the leave early superstar quotient doesn't measure the overall quality of classes considered in total.

Which is why I said it depends on how you measure it. Meaning, there is more than just one way to look at it. Other methods might include on-the-field success, high rankings, the up or down direction of a program, etc.

Using any method that truly matters, Weis has shown no evidence of being a superior recruiter to Willingham. He's merely shown evidence of being the coach at ND, which affords his recruiting classes undeservedly high rankings. There is no on-the-field evidence that ND's talent level has increased since he took the job. There is, however, plenty of evidence saying it's gone down.

One might simply accuse Weis of being unable to "coach up" the talent that he has, and there certainly might be truth to this. He might be getting less out of his talent than others would.

Very possible. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, however. It's perfectly possible that he's underachieving as a coach, even with inferior talent. The dive that ND has taken as a program under Weis would seem to indicate he's failing in all football related areas, not just Xs and Os.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:28 pm

Laxplayer wrote:Van, I'd venture a guess that guys who stay all 4 years do better at the next level than those who leave early. I may be wrong because I haven't done a study but just because a guy leaves early doesn't guarantee success at the next level.

Of course it doesn't, and by and large, yes, it benefits the player to stick around all four (or five, or six) years.

Coming out early does guarantee though that he's a highly regarded talent. If an underclassman is able to come out early and be a high draft pick then there's no disputing his talent...unless the Raiders were the ones who made him a high draft pick.

ND hasn't had anybody talented enough to come out early under Weis, not even with the Raiders habitually stepping up early to the podium.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu May 14, 2009 7:13 pm

Van wrote:Using any method that truly matters, Weis has shown no evidence of being a superior recruiter to Willingham. He's merely shown evidence of being the coach at ND, which affords his recruiting classes undeservedly high rankings. There is no on-the-field evidence that ND's talent level has increased since he took the job. There is, however, plenty of evidence saying it's gone down.

One might simply accuse Weis of being unable to "coach up" the talent that he has, and there certainly might be truth to this. He might be getting less out of his talent than others would.

Very possible. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, however. It's perfectly possible that he's underachieving as a coach, even with inferior talent. The dive that ND has taken as a program under Weis would seem to indicate he's failing in all football related areas, not just Xs and Os.

Willingham was also the ND coach, so presumably, any benefit that Weis may get with respect to recruiting rankings also would have extended to Willingham. Yet Willingham's classes, except for the first one, were not ranked anywhere near as high as Weis' classes have been.

The team Weis inherited had two very talented upper classes, which included many players who had racked up a considerable amount of playing time as underclassmen. Given the fact that Weis initially tried to implement a NFL-style coaching approach to the college game, it's not surprising that he had his most substantial success with that group. Once that group graduated, though, there wasn't the talent in the classes below to replace them adequately. That being said, while 1 or 2 6-6 seasons might have been anticipated, a 3-9 season should have been unacceptable. Our talent was bad, but not that bad. Perhaps worst of all was the fact that 4-8 was the best-case scenario in '07 as it turned out.

I'm not privy to the inner workings of ND's football program, but from where I sit the problems seem to be twofold. He's been slow to adapt to the difference between coaching at the college level, as compared to coaching in the NFL, in two respects.

First is how to run a practice. At first he was running his practices like NFL practices, with more emphasis on gameplanning than anything else. In college, practice is more of a teaching operation, and the practices have to be more physical than they are in the NFL.

Second difference is just in how to run a program. In college, there are NCAA rules limiting the amount of time coaches can spend with the players. In the NFL, only the Law of Diminishing Returns limits the amount of time you can spend with the players. Also, in the NFL the focus is on the current year only. College coaches have to thing constantly about the next year, and the year after.

Those are the big areas of weakness for Weis. By contrast, X's and O's and recruiting are relative strengths.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:12 pm

Here's what I see...

-Weis only won with Willingham's players; the players recruited by Ty, not Weis.

-Weis, and ND apologists, place far too much stock in saying Weis initially had experienced players, from Ty's program, but not enough experienced players ever since.

Florida just won a MNC without having a single graduating player, on either side of the ball. ALL their starters were underclassmen, including many freshmen and sophomores. In college football, especially at ND's level, you damn well better be able to utilize your talent early. They may not be there long, and they're probably better than what you have returning. If you're getting killer recruiting classes then you better be winning, right now. Those players should be stepping right in and killing it, especially if they have little returning competition on the roster.

If ND's having such stellar recruiting classes, okay, where is the production from all those young studs? Where are there Julio Jones's, Adrian Petersons, Sam Bradfords, etc?

Supposedly, Ty left the cupboard bare. That being the case, Weis's young recruits should be stepping right in and dominating.

Case in point: Monte Te'o. That fucker has no excuses. He'd better come right in and start, and make a serious impact. He's supposed to be the kind of player who makes an immediate impact, especially on such a piss poor team. If ND had truly been landing lots of players of his ilk then we would've been seeing immediate and unmistakable production from their young players. Those killer recruits would now be seniors under Weis, or they'd already be in the NFL.

Instead, we get excuses. They're not producing in college, and the NFL doesn't see anything in 'em either.

Face it, the talent isn't there, and it hasn't been there, and when it was there Weis wasn't the guy who brought it there. Then, on top of that, he hasn't done a good job of developing whatever talent he's recruited.

ND hasn't had any Top 2 recruiting classes, not under Weis. I don't know where you get this bit about ND recently having a #2 ranked class, since in the last few years USC, LSU, Texas, OU, Ohio St and Florida have captured all the top 1-5 spots, according to the most reputable sources (ESPN, Rivals and Scout), with Bama also recently joining the party. ND hasn't been there.

ND's talent level, by any measurable standard, has actually been reduced under Weis to the point of a lower BCS conference level program, or a mid-tier non BCS conference level program. Right now, ND is closer in talent to Stanford, Navy or Nevada than they are to Florida, OU or USC. Weis has been there four years now, and this is what he's done to this program.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 15, 2009 12:32 pm

Van wrote:Supposedly, Ty left the cupboard bare. That being the case, Weis's young recruits should be stepping right in and dominating.

Among others, Sam Young, Jimmy Clausen, Michael Floyd and Eric Rudolph all have been starters virtually from Day One. Granted, Young and Clausen have been disappointments thus far, but at least in Clausen's case, there's still time to turn it around. Also, Brian Smith (only a 3-star recruit) became a starter before the end of his freshman year.

They're not producing in college, and the NFL doesn't see anything in 'em either.

Weis' earlierst recruits still have a year (or in some cases, two) of college eligibility left.

Then, on top of that, he hasn't done a good job of developing whatever talent he's recruited.

I agree with you on that point.

ND hasn't had any Top 2 recruiting classes, not under Weis. I don't know where you get this bit about ND recently having a #2 ranked class, since in the last few years USC, LSU, Texas, OU, Ohio St and Florida have captured all the top 1-5 spots, according to the most reputable sources (ESPN, Rivals and Scout), with Bama also recently joining the party. ND hasn't been there.

Jesus, Van, still beating this drum? I don't make this shit up. I've even steered you to the class I was referring to. And you don't provide any evidence to the contrary, just flat denials, as if there's no possible way this could be the case.

Wow, just wow. I wouldn't expect this from you, of all people. mvscal or Dins, perhaps. But not you.

Anyway, since you apparently can't/won't do the research yourself . . .

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/Te ... &year=2008
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2008

It's worth noting that both Rivals and Scout would have ranked ND's class #1 that year, except that Alabama actually signed more recruits than it had scholarship positions for.

Btw, ESPN ranked that class #9 (so much for a pro-ND bias at the WWL, I guess). Doubtless, you'll hang your hat on that. But given that: (a) Rivals and Scout have both been at recruiting rankings a lot longer than ESPN has; and (b) recruiting rankings are part of Rivals' and Scout's particular bailiwick, which isn't the case with ESPN; I'm more inclined to trust Rivals and Scout than ESPN (although I take all recruiting rankings with several grains of salt for reasons I've detailed several times).

ND's talent level, by any measurable standard, has actually been reduced under Weis to the point of a lower BCS conference level program, or a mid-tier non BCS conference level program. Right now, ND is closer in talent to Stanford, Navy or Nevada than they are to Florida, OU or USC. Weis has been there four years now, and this is what he's done to this program.

The last two graduating classes at ND were the two least talented classed in memory. And those classes were recruited by Willingham. Yeah, Weis was head coach when the second class signed LOI's, but Willingham was coach until late November that year, and Weis didn't come on full-time until less than a week before LOI day.

Strictly mho, but one of the unsung issues for Weis was the heart attack suffered by Cutcliffe before he ever coached a game at ND and which resulted in his resignation. Recall that Cutcliffe was to be Weis' assistant head coach/QB coach.

At first glance, it might not seem like much, until you take a closer look at the program. The biggest problem by far has been OL play. And Weis' OL coach, John Latina, had been OL coach at Ole Miss under Cutcliffe prior to coming to ND. Weis and Latina never seemed to be on the same page. Perhaps Weis had been intending to rely on Cutcliffe as a go-between between himself and Latina.

Nothing Weis could have done about that particular turn of events. However, it is on Weis that it took him four years (or two years, if you want to argue that talent bailed him out the first two years to the point where he wouldn't have recognized a problem) to adjust to it.

Btw, here are ND's annual recruiting rankings per Rivals going back to 2002 (most remote year that rankings are available on Rivals website), coach who recruited the class and upperclass (junior/senior years for each class) years in parentheses:

2009: 21 (Weis; upperclass in '11/'12)
2008: 2 (Weis; upperclass in '10/'11)
2007: 8 (Weis; upperclass in '09/'10)
2006: 8 (Weis; upperclass in '08/'09)
2005: Unranked in Top 25 (Willingham/Weis; upperclass in '07/'08)
2004: Unranked in Top 25 (Willingham; upperclass in '06/'07)
2003: 12 (Willingham; upperclass in '05/'06)
2002: 24 (Davie/Willingham; upperclass in '04/'05)

There's no way to argue, at least on paper, that Weis hasn't been a significant upgrade over Willingham at least as a recruiter. Player development is where he has struggled mightily.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri May 15, 2009 4:19 pm

Terry, I could've sworn that LSU and USC exchanged #1's and 2 over a three year period, beginning in '06.

Your Rivals and Scout links prove me wrong, so I stand corrected and apologize. Not sure where or why I thought what I thought. Maybe it was ESPN? In any case, Rivals and Scout have ND #2 in '08, so I'm wrong.

(edit: I just looked up Rivals and Scout. I missed it by one year. Beginning in '07 and rolling back to '03, USC was #1 nearly every year, and no lower than #3 with Rivals and #6 in Scout, with ND not in the Top 2 anywhere. For some reason Scout seems to usually rank ND's class a little higher than Rivals. I was unable to locate ESPN's team rankings. USC really took a crap though in '08, according to Rivals and Scout, and ND jumped up big. Now you stole Te'o from us, in '09. Okay, fucker, it's on!!

)

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Fri May 15, 2009 6:10 pm

What do you mean, It's on? Does this mean ND will actually achieve a first down before halftime? Does this mean ND may actually be in the game longer than the coin flip?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri May 15, 2009 6:35 pm

With a recent #2 ranked class, it'd better.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 15, 2009 7:18 pm

On paper, next year is ND's best opportunity for a win in this series in awhile. That being said, no ND fan realistically can predict a W in this game at this point.