Signing Day - Under Achievers

[TheChief]

So, as I sit here and look at yet another top 10 recruiting class for FSU, I can't help but feel disgusted. Year after year, every early February we land a great recruiting class, and by great I mean a solid mix of great talent mixed in with a few "elite" type players. Legitimate badass classes.

Yet, every singl fall since 2000 we continue to be one of the most under achieving teams in the country. Since I am so self absorbed with FSU athletics, I was wondering who else out there (besides the non supported Miami fan on this board), suffers from the same issues??

Is FSU alone in this group?

[King Crimson]

I'd say Texas A&M. top 15-top 25 type classes every year and not much to show, give or take, the last decade. One Holiday Bowl with Fran, probably the high water-mark.

maybe not quite with FSU in that regard, but an underachiever, IMO.

[Van]

ND fan certainly has reason for a similar beef. They've been getting very little big time success out of a lot of very highly rated recruits, for a very long time now.

Michigan, too. Michigan has always had highly rated recruiting classes and what do they have to show for it over the past twenty or thirty years? One split title? A whole buncha big bowl game losses? Michigan should've been a much bigger "big game" team than they've been.

Hell, until 2004 Texas could be accused of the same thing. Recruiting wise they've mostly always owned the state of Texas but until VY's sophomore season it'd been a really long time since they'd been to the top.

Tennessee's also a bit of a perennial disappoinment, considering the recruting classes they bring in annually.

To a lesser extent I'd add Oregon and especially Cal to that mix. Considering the talent that has passed through Berkeley that program has achieved nothing. It's simply amazing to me that not once has Cal managed to even blind squirrel their way into a championship season.

Over the last fifteen or twenty years though I'd still say ND fan has the most legitimate gripe.

[Vito Corleone]

I wouldn't put Texas in that group, true we weren't able to put ourselves over the top until Vince arrived but Texas has never had less than 9 wins under Mack. Now if you were to have asked me this question in 2k3 I would have definitely said Texas. It's hard to use the word under achiever for a team that has gone something like the last 7 seasons with 10+ wins every single year. About the only complaint I might have is the lack of conference titles in that time.

[indyfrisco]

I'd say Texas A&M. top 15-top 25 type classes every year and not much to show, give or take, the last decade. One Holiday Bowl with Fran, probably the high water-mark.

maybe not quite with FSU in that regard, but an underachiever, IMO.

I'll just quote what I said in the other thread, but you are spot on. And let's not forget the Cotton Bowl abortion where Tennessee buttfucked us in the mouth. I went to Dallas for that shit game. It was a long drive back to Indiana.

And like I said earlier, A&M has had top 25 and srpinkle in a couple top 10 or 15 classes the past 6 years and haven't done shit with them. These rankings are just a dog and pony show. I put zero stock in them.

Chief,

We'll have to get back to watching our "underachievers" on Saturdays again. I'm getting DirecTV or Dish for the garage.

[Terry in Crapchester]

ND fan certainly has reason for a similar beef. They've been getting very little big time success out of a lot of very highly rated recruits, for a very long time now.

. . .

Over the last fifteen or twenty years though I'd still say ND fan has the most legitimate gripe.

Oh, it's been longer than that, even.

Granted, it hasn't been 100% consistent (we've had a few good teams and a few shitty recruiting classes mixed in), but ND has pretty much been in this position dating back all the way to the Faust years.

[Nolesy]

Oh ye of little faith. What you say is true yet you fail to realize that they will be coached by a different staff. Jimbo and co. are changing the culture here and getting kids to "buy in". Though they didn' get 5 star guys across the board they got THIER guys.
I think that you will start seeing the fruits of that this year.

[TheChief]

Chief,

We'll have to get back to watching our "underachievers" on Saturdays again. I'm getting DirecTV or Dish for the garage.

Sounds like a plan!

[Danimal]

Gotta agree about the Aggies and 'noles.

The Aggies have been the "sleeping giant" of college football forever. I thought Franchione would get them going but that was a relative bust, and Sherman has an up-hill struggle with the rest of the south looking dang tough.

The 'noles have gotten comparable classes to when they were a top team but just aren't a top team anymore. Only time will tell if Jimbo reverses the trend. But I've read some good things about him turning them into a more disciplined, hardnosed team.

Canes-fan can make all the "youth" excuses they want but I gotta call them an underachier, they've been pretty meh for the last four seasons.

In terms of being a "big name" team my 'skers havent' exactly lit it up on the field. But we don't have a bunch of 4* running around the field either. Callahan had one really big class('05) but that one turned-out to be a big disappointment, and recruiting was a considerable part of Solich losing his job. Pelini is a work in progress, per-recruit we had a top25 class but we missed at a couple positions. But I think we should do better as experienced is gained and we have a better team to recruit-to.