-
Can a college team win a Natty w/mostly 3*&* athletes, no 5*'s
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.
-
You beat Bama, you can beat anybody and I think we beat Bama this year.
-
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
-
Originally Posted by
calidawg
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
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.
-
Originally Posted by
calidawg
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
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.
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.
-
Originally Posted by
HSVDawg
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.
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.
In this threads and others, various posters (including myself) have pointed out you either need to average top 10 classes leading up to your natty run OR you need to average top 15 classes with a transcendent QB and/or coach ($cam, Watson, mariota, chip kelly). Our route, if we ever make a run to play for a natty is to average a top 15 class for a few ears and land a game changing QB. The difference between us in 2014 and Clemson last year was about 10 spots in the recruiting rankings, which showed towards the end of the year.
-
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.
-
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
Last edited by Ari Gold; 09-21-2017 at 11:29 AM.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by
Hasu Dackds
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.
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?
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.
-
Originally Posted by
Beaver
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?
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.
-
Fitzgerald isn't Cam, not even close, and I'm a big Fitz fan. Cam Newton was the most dominant college player ever.
-
Originally Posted by
smootness
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.
-
Originally Posted by
smootness
Fitzgerald isn't Cam, not even close, and I'm a big Fitz fan. Cam Newton was the most dominant college player ever.
This. Fitz is awesome, but he is no where close to Cam.
-
Originally Posted by
smootness
Fitzgerald isn't Cam, not even close, and I'm a big Fitz fan. Cam Newton was the most dominant college player ever.
And a team full of two and three stars almost beat them that year in Starkville.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by
Jack Lambert
And a team full of two and three stars almost beat them that year in Starkville.
Yep, held them to their lowest point total (17) all season including SECCG and BCS Title game.
-
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.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.