T1B

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:05 am**

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/r ... /rank-3053

USC is nabbing three of the top ten/four of the top twelve/five of the top twenty-two/six of the top twenty-seven recruits in the nation...and only one of them is even from California? Look, morons, USC went 7-6 this past season and was every bit as bad as that record indicates. A number of their best players won't be back, so there's no reason to believe that they won't be just as awful next season.

This has to be a mistake. They must mean South Carolina.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:57 pm**

Dominos?

Again?

The m2 is strong in this one...

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:21 pm**

No dominoes here. These guys are already committed...supposedly.

Besides, this is USC we're talking about here, not Cal. USC normally does land killer recruiting hauls. I know Kiffin and Orgeron are both demons on the recruiting trail but this strong of a class coming off of such a horrible season just makes no sense.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:36 pm**

The ability to play right away is very powerful. Clearly there were either some misses in past recruiting classes or the current players couldn't do what the coaching scheme asked of them. That opens the door for top level recruits to see the field right away.

So a mediocre season like they just had can actually boost recruiting. Have another season or especially two like that and it will hurt recruiting.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:44 pm**

If the ability to play right away was that strong of a lure then programs like USC, Bama and LSU wouldn't always pull in top classes. Washington St, Indiana and Kentucky would be killing it every year.

No, winning combined with the opportunity to play high-profile games on national TV is the strongest bait.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:03 pm**

I thought it was assumed we were talking a out the highest level programs.

Of course cal is exempt from this because they are on a 21 year NC streak.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:26 pm**

Van wrote:this strong of a class coming off of such a horrible season just makes no sense.

ND's #2 class came off the 3-9 season. Just sayin'.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:37 pm**

I'm pretty sure we went over this before, but I don't recall ND garnering any #2 classes in recent years. Top ten, okay, but #2? When was this, and who did the rankings?

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:49 pm**

SC's recruiting classes, starting 2008:

2008 #8
2009 #4
2010 #1
2011 #4
2012 #8

So this year's horrible season came from a team that was mostly from #4 and #1 recruiting classes.
Doesn't say much for the relevance of the Rivals Rankings.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:17 am**

Or, perhaps, their coaching. Hard to say, though, what with the sanctions and the debilitating effect they've had on USC's ability to hold proper full-contact practices the past couple of seasons.

Even crazier is that the 2012 class was really the #1 class by a wide margin, if you go by average star ranking. Considering the fact that they only had fifteen schollies to hand out, of course they couldn't stockpile recruits in sufficient numbers to be able to secure a Bama-style class of cynical overkill. Average star ranking really is the more telling preliminary metric of quality recruiting, and USC often wins that one fairly handily.

Again, though, do you recall any recent class of ND's being ranked #2 by anyone other than www.welivetonarfdownirishchoad.com?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:20 am**

Van wrote:Or, perhaps, their coaching. Hard to say, though, what with the sanctions and the debilitating effect they've had on USC's ability to hold proper full-contact practices the past couple of seasons.

Even crazier is that the 2012 class was really the #1 class by a wide margin, if you go by average star ranking. Considering the fact that they only had fifteen schollies to hand out, of course they couldn't stockpile recruits in sufficient numbers to be able to secure a Bama-style class of cynical overkill. Average star ranking really is the more telling preliminary metric of quality recruiting, and USC often wins that one fairly handily.

Again, though, do you recall any recent class of ND's being ranked #2 by anyone other than http://www.welivetonarfdownirishchoad.com?

#2 this year by Rivals.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:21 am**

No, I'm talking about what Terry mentioned: a #2 class ranking for ND following a 3-9 season.

(Edit: I just checked this year's Rival's rankings. No team is even close to an average star ranking of 4.0...except USC, which is sitting there at 4.43. Wtf. This is exactly like last year. What the hell is wrong with these kids? Jesus, people, go to Stanford: nice weather, top-notch academics, two or three semi-hot Asian girls who may or may not treat you to an indifferent handjob, and you'll win like crazy. Or go play for Nick Saban: sweat your balls off, skip class to fuck a gaggle of hot strippers, and win like crazy. Why go to USC? You'll score some epic coed stank, sure, and the weather and academics are excellent, but don't you also want to win? :? )

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:25 am**

Van wrote:No, I'm talking about what Terry mentioned: a #2 class ranking for ND following a 3-9 season.

In 2007 they were 3-9. Rivals rated their 2008 recruiting class #2.

3, 16, 4, 3.96 avg.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:36 am**

Okay, thanks.

Notre Dame: assfucked weather; chubby, poorly dressed Asian Catholic girls who are intimidated by the reputed prowess of their priests when it comes to sexual skeelz; other slightly hotter girls who may or not actually exist in real life but who are top-notch sexters; great academics; and once in a blue moon you'll strike a pot of fool's gold on the gridiron.

Where do we sign up?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:31 am**

Van wrote:No dominoes here. These guys are already committed...supposedly.

Do you ever have any idea what you're talking about ?

Pssst.... Cal had the #5 ranked class last year before Toshgate happened and ALL the kids were commits but had not signed.

Today just happens to be the one year anniversary of Toshgate by the way...

Van wrote:Besides, this is USC we're talking about here, not Cal..

That's right.

U$C just hires our rejects.

Enjoy our crap Defensive Coordinator... who we fired this year because he sucked so bad. He basically was living off all of Cal's NFL talent on D and it finally caught up with him.

The funny thing is U$C hired him to be their Defensive Coordinator !!!

You thought last years 7-6 season was bad... wait til Lame and Clancy get together... I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing when I look up at your scoreboard and it looks like "the pinball wizard" is at the controlls.

Actually, I'm already laughing... just thinking about it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:17 am**

You wanna good laugh? Here ya go...

Nine in a row, even through an ugly stint of probation and a couple of wildly shitty teams.

Wanna just laugh yourself stoopid? Okay...

1938.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:19 pm**

Van wrote:Asian Catholic girls

With the possible exception of Filipinos, :?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:37 pm**

Van wrote:No, I'm talking about what Terry mentioned: a #2 class ranking for ND following a 3-9 season.

(Edit: I just checked this year's Rival's rankings. No team is even close to an average star ranking of 4.0...except USC, which is sitting there at 4.43. Wtf. This is exactly like last year. What the hell is wrong with these kids? Jesus, people, go to Stanford: nice weather, top-notch academics, two or three semi-hot Asian girls who may or may not treat you to an indifferent handjob, and you'll win like crazy. Or go play for Nick Saban: sweat your balls off, skip class to fuck a gaggle of hot strippers, and win like crazy. Why go to USC? You'll score some epic coed stank, sure, and the weather and academics are excellent, but don't you also want to win? :? )

I once talked to a guy who was involved with tutoring some of the top players at SC. What he told me was that basically a number of those guys couldn't spell cat if you spotted them the c, the a and the t. Those kids aren't going to Stanford, or Notre Dame (or even Cal probably), even if they're the next Andrew Luck football talent-wise. I suppose they could be valedit...err...valadic...err...at the top of their class at 'Bama, though.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:00 pm**

Cal? You mean the esteemed institution of higher learning that babysat Mensans like Marshawn Lynch and Desean Jackson? That Cal?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:44 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:No, I'm talking about what Terry mentioned: a #2 class ranking for ND following a 3-9 season.

(Edit: I just checked this year's Rival's rankings. No team is even close to an average star ranking of 4.0...except USC, which is sitting there at 4.43. Wtf. This is exactly like last year. What the hell is wrong with these kids? Jesus, people, go to Stanford: nice weather, top-notch academics, two or three semi-hot Asian girls who may or may not treat you to an indifferent handjob, and you'll win like crazy. Or go play for Nick Saban: sweat your balls off, skip class to fuck a gaggle of hot strippers, and win like crazy. Why go to USC? You'll score some epic coed stank, sure, and the weather and academics are excellent, but don't you also want to win? :? )
I once talked to a guy who was involved with tutoring some of the top players at SC. What he told me was that basically a number of those guys couldn't spell cat if you spotted them the c, the a and the t. Those kids aren't going to Stanford, or Notre Dame (or even Cal probably), even if they're the next Andrew Luck football talent-wise. I suppose they could be valedit...err...valadic...err...at the top of their class at 'Bama, though.

Every once in a while you lob a good one out there.....

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:33 pm**

Van wrote:Cal? You mean the esteemed institution of higher learning that babysat Mensans like Marshawn Lynch and Desean Jackson? That Cal?

Cal is the world's leading institution of teaching, research and football. You don't think they would risk their reputation by recruiting athletes who are not highly motivated academically do you? As I believe M2 has already posited, the abysmally low graduation rate among their football playing student-athletes only reinforces the fact that they rigorously enforce their high academic standards among all of their undergraduates.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:19 pm**

You took that directly from something scribbled in crayon on the wall inside a bathroom stall on the Cal campus, didn't you?

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:11 pm**

How could you tell?

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:53 pm**

I dunno. It just sort of cried out with flaccid ennui.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:18 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:50 pm**

i thought schmick's rule was schools could only recruit kids from their state. a sooped up BTPCF articles of confederation.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:12 pm**

Nice class coming in....should be under a dozen by tomorrow.

http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1468661

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:39 am**

Carson wrote:Dominos?

Again?

The m2 is strong in this one...

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:13 pm**

Judging from the new recruiting class, Iowa may be altering their offensive philosophy to accommodate their offensive coordinator, Greg Davis. The Hawks have signed far more WRs than in years past, most of whom reportedly run 4.4's. WR was a glaring need this past season and they didn't have the personnel to run Davis' offense. Looks like the Hawks might be opening up the offense in the years to come.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:26 pm**

Carson wrote:
Carson wrote:Dominos?

Again?

The m2 is strong in this one...

The still ended up with five five-stars, the most in the nation. They were also the only team whose average star ranking was in the fours. At 4.42 they beat everyone else by a good half-point or more.

They only signed twelve players, though. Of course that automatically kills their overall class ranking.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:40 pm**

Mace wrote:Judging from the new recruiting class, Iowa may be altering their offensive philosophy to accommodate their offensive coordinator, Greg Davis. The Hawks have signed far more WRs than in years past, most of whom reportedly run 4.4's. WR was a glaring need this past season and they didn't have the personnel to run Davis' offense. Looks like the Hawks might be opening up the offense in the years to come.

I laffed. What exactly is Greg Davis' offense? Bubble and tunnel screens?

Ask Texas fan about Davis' offense. It changed at least every other year.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:59 pm**

Left Seater wrote:
Mace wrote:Judging from the new recruiting class, Iowa may be altering their offensive philosophy to accommodate their offensive coordinator, Greg Davis. The Hawks have signed far more WRs than in years past, most of whom reportedly run 4.4's. WR was a glaring need this past season and they didn't have the personnel to run Davis' offense. Looks like the Hawks might be opening up the offense in the years to come.

I laffed. What exactly is Greg Davis' offense? Bubble and tunnel screens?

Ask Texas fan about Davis' offense. It changed at least every other year.

Pretty much 4 yard outs when it's 3rd and 11 with no vertical aspect to the passing game. Iowa needed more speed at the receiver position to make this work and signed some speedy receivers to do it. Time will tell.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:06 pm**

Best of luck.

T1B

Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...

Re: Someone clearly wasn't paying attention...