I say, w/super coaching...yes
I say, w/super coaching...yes
3* and 4*? With plenty of 4*, then yeah I think they could. But history says they need to average either top 10 classes in the 4 cycles leading up to the natty, or average top 15 with a dominant game changing QB.
In the last 20 years, every national champion has had at least 2 top 10 classes in the 4 years leading up to their title except for 2. Oklahoma in 2000 and Clemson last year. Oklahoma had 1 top 10 class and Clemson had 1 top 10 class and 1 class that was 11th. So in reality.. no
No. However they can become a pretty regular team in New Year 6 Bowls.
Not out of the SEC. Now a team like that may could come out of a weaker conference and then play above their heads in the playoffs and possibly pull it off.
You beat Bama, you can beat anybody and I think we beat Bama this year.
We have a 5 with Simmons.
Leo , Spencer, Kobe, Willie, Cory, Peters, Adams , Green, Bryant are all 4 guys . I may have left off some.
Sweat and Abram are 4* players
Other guys we have are underrated .
Not saying we don't need to improve in recruiting higher rated players, but this shit we hear from the media that all we have are 2-3 star guys is bullshit.
And yes coaching is a HGUE deal..
When it comes to national Title. Let's take care of business In the west and try and make a NYE bowl
Given the relative Stone Age of recruiting services that Oklahoma team’s recruiting rankings are based on, its hard to really accurately compare them to the recruiting rankings of teams in the past decade or so, when recruiting rankings have gotten far more advanced and national than they were in the 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by calidawg
Clemson's rise is your blueprint, honestly, for anyone who isn't a true blue blood program, with access to any player they want. However, they would be second tier for sure, and they recruit better than just 3 and 4 stars.
If you are asking how a team like MSU could do it? It's going to take an extraordinary combination of coaching and an elite player or two somewhere along the line, preferably a quarterback. Think Cam Newton. Is Fitzgerald that guy? He may be.
Can they? Sure, of course. Is it likely? No.
You bring up an interesting point. Many on here would say MSU could've won the 2010 title with Cam Newton as Qb. So, how does Nick compare to college-Cam, and how does the 2010 MSU team compare to 2017 MSU team?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasu Dackds
To me, the 2010 and 2017 defenses are similar. Both aggressive with a couple NFL ready players. On offense, I actually think the 2017 receivers have an edge on the 2010 receivers. Wasn't the leading receiver Chad Bumphis that year? I'll give Vick Ballard the edge over A-train, but RB depth is better this year. Not sure about the O-line. 2010's was probably a bit better and more experienced than this year, but it's still early.
Nick isn't quite Cam Newton level yet. He needs to develop more accuracy throwing downfield. Also, though Nick is very physical I think Cam was harder to tackle.
Cam had better touch, both have a cannon for an arm, both tough to bring down (might give the nod to Cam), but Fitz is faster than Cam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaver
Fitzgerald isn't Cam, not even close, and I'm a big Fitz fan. Cam Newton was the most dominant college player ever.
Cam was basically if you combined Dak and Fitz. He was great throwing the ball but could drag guys for a 5 yard gain if he was hit at the line. I will say as great as Cam was, AU doesn't win the title without Fairly. He was as disruptive at DT as anyone in the SEC in the last 10 years. He made that defense go just like Cam made the offense. Either of those guys went down and AU probably doesn't win more than 8 games. If both went down then they might not have won 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
More likely pre BCS. The evolution of the post season makes it less likely IMO.
Cam was one of the freakiest athletes to play in the SEC. He could have played 3 or 4 other positions and excelled at all of them. Not many people could single handedly take over a football game like he could.
This. Fitz is awesome, but he is no where close to Cam.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Agree, it's just one more fist fight to deal with
Any school will have to have a good dose of 4 and 5* players to win it all imo. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I wonder what is the average star ratings for FSU,OSU,AL and Clemson(last 4 champions) was?
If a lesser talented team rises, it's usually always due to quarterback. Even Clemson had to do that, though they seem pretty damn good this year too. But yeah that Auburn 2010 team was 7-5 or 8-4 without Newton, essentially what they were in 2009 and 2011. Lucky bastards.
So at the end of the day, there's your baseline. Have 7/8 win talent around a super quarterback, or upgrade talent slightly and have a lesser but great quarterback, which may be where were are presently. We'll see.
Got to have men in the trenches, first and foremost.
And a team full of two and three stars almost beat them that year in Starkville.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Wisconsin has come close. Plus there is an inherent mental bias to how rating are made. If Bama wants you, then a player is almost a default 4 star. Southerners are the buyers and makers of recruiting information so SEC recruits will always be rated higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Indndawg
That said, Wisconsin is an exception. Minnesota sucks, Illinois sucks, and Iowa just ok.
I think quality teams are made by quality players and quality players gather and perform for quality coaches
So I rather seek and retain a 5* coach (MSU formula) than Pimp and Gimick for 4/5* players (Ole Miss Formula)
Anything can happen but it hasn't been done yet. Eventually it will.
You can only play 11 players on offense and 11 on defense. As long as those 22 players are playing to the level of a four or five star then yes.
As Mullen says it's not about how many stars you had then it's about how many stars you have now. The guys who earn PT at state must at least be 4 star level. Simmons is playing at 7 or 8 star level. Fitz is at 6-7 star level. Aeris is playing at 7 star level. They have taken the talent they had coming in and with training and experience built upon it.
One game doesn't mean anything. It's about surviving the grind. Nowadays you can even drop a game and still be in the national picture.
When has Wisconsin come close? Only non-blue blood team I've ever seen give it a real shot in the modern era was Oregon.
Yep, held them to their lowest point total (17) all season including SECCG and BCS Title game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
Pistons dominated the Lakers in 2004. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
Not a good comparison. The Pistons starting 5 were all in the Top 10 at their position. The Lakers just had 2 elite players with the names but the rest of the team was mediocre compared to the Pistons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token Bammer
It is a great comparison. Pistons were not a team with star power and not one elite scorer. They played defense, rebounded, and out worked their opponents. They played as a team, and my point was sometimes the best TEAM isn't the one with most star power. The Lakers had two of the five best players in basketball at the time and two other hall of famers. The Lakers were a heavy favorite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew
+2Quote:
Originally Posted by Reason2succeed
FIFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Reason2succeed
Lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by TUSK
Basketball and football are totally different sports. It was also the peak of the Kobe/shaq rift that splintered the lakers dynasty. If there’s public fueding going on between bama players and saban and what not, our chances of beating them go up exponentially. Finally, it’s professional sports. Every player actually playing important minutes for for a championship caliber team is a 4* talent minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token Bammer
Yes, different sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
My goodness the point of this post is missed. I still say it's a great example. Like I originally said, it doesn't happen OFTEN but it does happen.
Ehh, he had a senior/experience laden oline (Pugh/Ziemba) that helped him tremendously, a killer TE (Lutzenkirshen) plus a couple of bad asses on defense (Nick Fairley/Dee Ford), and a Fresh all SEC RB (Dyer) that helped him and they still had a few nail biter games that year that could have turned the tables on their season.Quote:
Originally Posted by BB30
Cam was dynamic and could get you 3 yrds just by stretching out on a play. He made something out of nothing and could get you yards. The fact that Chizik was able to hold that team together and get them focused with all of the outside distractions is what's truly amazing.
And you’re missing the point that the Kobe/shaq rift was at its peak which most definitely played a major role in the pistons championship win. Throw in the fact that the pistons roster was probably DEEPER, just not as top loaded, and the fact that the early to mid 00s era of the NBA that allowed for a lot of rugged defense, which muddled up games to the point of being unwatchable, and that’s how the pistons won. So basically if hurts and Calvin Ridley publicly feud, while saban picks a side, and the sec officials decide to let our defense hold, grab, and hit bama without calling penalties, then maybe we’d start to get into the same type situation that led to the pistons winning the 04 championship. But then we still aren’t addressing the fact that bama has a much deeper roster than we do, so we’d need a bunch of injuries in tuscaloser to even things up a bit in that department.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token Bammer
Wow. Just wow. I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
When did this thread turn into an NBA pissing match = <17> the NBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
Clemson had 1 top 10 class the past 5 years before the title (the most recent class that was 9th), one 11th (before the first NC appearance) and the 3 years before were all barely Top 15. The last two years, the vast majority of their 2 deep has been in those first 3 classes that were barely within Top 15.Quote:
Originally Posted by calidawg
Bottom line, "Top 10" is an inaccurate and arbitrary number for defining an elite recruiting class. Top 15 has historically been a more correct number. Not a lot of difference between the performance of a team who's average class rank is 10th vs. 15th over a 4 year period. But there's a huge difference between 15th and 20th. At or inside the Top 15 gives you a chance to win it all.