http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ting-jobs-1-65
Printable View
Alabama all the way down at #6 despite having classes between 1 and 3 every year makes me wonder, how much of their recruiting success is Bama and how much is Saban? I'm interested to see if whoever they get next can sustain it after Saban calls it quits.
Stanford should barely be in the top 50. Academics alone, hinder them.
it's "EASE OF RECRUITING" not recruiting success.
Seems like a decent list. May be the first list I've ever said that about coming from ESPN.
Thought Nebraska should be higher but that's it
Cal over us?? It's in a picturesque area and all, but what real advantages do they have over us?
It's decent, but it really should be done with a lot of in tiers rather than numerical. UF and FSU should be in teh same tier (they are at least ranked right next to each other) and when you get further down, the groupings should probably be bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
Georgia at #1 is so stupid. Sure, they're up there, but GA certainly does not have the most in-state talent, and while they have a lot, so many kids from GA grow up fans of other schools. It is much harder, for example, to keep the top kids in GA than it is to keep the top kids from places like AL and MS in-state.
Texas, Florida, and USC should be at the top of this list every single time. Period. And Ohio State shouldn't be far behind. All of those schools should be clearly ahead of Georgia.
Location and access to a ridiculous amount of good in-state talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bothrops
Oklahoma State and TCU ahead of Ole Miss is just laughable.
You mean the talent that Stanford, Oregon, UCLA, USC, etc get.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Sure, but a good coach could change that. It would be easier for a good coach to get talent to Cal than for a good coach to get talent to State.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bothrops
One factor not being factored in enough though is in-state loyalty. The top recruits in AL are probably the most loyal to the in state schools of any state in the nation. Georgia, not nearly as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Funny how THE national sports network has a much higher opinion of our school`s potential to recruit well and be successful in football than our inferiority complex riddled fan base. If this article is anywhere near accurate, what it says is Mullen has done no more than to simply help the school realize most of it`s potential rather than being it`s savior who invented football at MSU. This isn`t a fire Mullen post by any means but I just wish our fan base would wake up and realize that our school has a lot to offer and has been a sleeping giant for a long time and that DAN MULLEN IS NOT THE ONLY DAMN COACH IN THE COUNTRY THAT CAN BE SUCCESSFUL AT MSU. HAIL STATE and get off my lawn !
edited to add: Dan awakened the giant and for that I am eternally grateful...but by damn the potential has always been there IMO
HAIL STATE to your post. And I will stay off of your lawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Churchill
If you are afraid to change, you are afraid to get better.
The guy that came up with the list also factored in the fact that they are next to Florida as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
I agree with the assessment for the most part. Georgia enjoys location as was mentioned earlier. I would have LSU higher due to the loyalty of instate kids. The fact that we are in the SEC and are in a talent rich state although it is shared should place us higher on this list. I would say yearly potential is around 17 - 21. The sales pitch does seem to be lacking but I can't argue with the results. We all knew that this year would be a work in progress or a rebuilding year. If you didn't you use maroon colored glasses.
I'd have UGA waaaaaaaaaaaay up the list... I do agree about [historical] TX/OSU, and USC though... the MS schools are a bit high, IMO...Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Tusk, might I ask on a per capita basis how many NFL players does MISSISSIPPI produce a year and how many does al produce?
Yep- we have lots of athletes. The biggest thing we lack are QB's and o-linemen- two of the positions that arguably require the most development. And even at those two positions we have produced some really good ones over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by nicks_hammer