Can a college team win a Natty w/mostly 3*&* athletes, no 5*'s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hasu Dackds

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.

---

Clemson is not a blue blood. Not even close.

Neither is Georgia Tech, Washington, or Colorado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offshore Dawg

When did this thread turn into an NBA pissing match = <17> the NBA.

---

Yeah, I quit watching the NBA around that time, but it was glorious to watch ONE OF THE BIGGEST UPSETS IN FINALS HISTORY against the team I hated, but, hey, it was no big deal according to some....apparently.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Token Bammer

Yeah, I quit watching the NBA around that time, but it was glorious to watch ONE OF THE BIGGEST UPSETS IN FINALS HISTORY against the team I hated, but, hey, it was no big deal according to some....apparently.

---

Wow, talk about willfully misinterpreting what is being said. I’ve just pointed out the set of circumstances that conspired that allowed such a big upset to happen, and you can’t plan on circumstances like that aligning to give you a chance. It happens, but the better and more effective route to winning is to decrease the talent gap between you and the team you want/need to beat, not plan for internal turmoil on the part of the better team.

And you still haven’t addressed that 2004 lakers roster was basically a fueding shaq and Kobe, a bunch of washed up former stars trying to grab a ring before they retired (Gary Payton, Karl Malone), and older role players past their peaks (rick fox, Horace grant, Byron Russell).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

Clemson is not a blue blood. Not even close.

Neither is Georgia Tech, Washington, or Colorado.

---

Clemson isn’t a blue blood, but they are the next tier down imo. GT, Washington, and Colorado won titles in a different era. The early 1990s weren’t that long ago in time, but CFB is a completely different game now than it was then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LockeDawg

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.

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.

---

People forget that Auburn team had 22 seniors if I remember correctly. Only 3 got drafted (Newton, Fairley, and Ziemba), but outside of those big 3 they had a crap ton of experience. I think that is many times why a program like ours cycles. Senior leadership is so important, so misses in recruiting are magnified in a developmental program like ours. This year we have the right balance of talent, experience, and good QB play to be an elite team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetEdDawg

People forget that Auburn team had 22 seniors if I remember correctly. Only 3 got drafted (Newton, Fairley, and Ziemba), but outside of those big 3 they had a crap ton of experience. I think that is many times why a program like ours cycles. Senior leadership is so important, so misses in recruiting are magnified in a developmental program like ours. This year we have the right balance of talent, experience, and good QB play to be an elite team.

---

They also caught lightning in a bottle a few times....