A few things Leach needs to do to be successful

I dont see it that way. It has always been the goal to be in the top 4 of the country and make it to the Sugar, Rose, Orange, or Fiesta Bowl. Those bowls usually had the same teams in them that they do now. Only difference now is the way Bama and Clemson arent having any down years as opposed to years past.

We had a chance to win the SEC in 1980 but Georgia pulled off the 92 yard TD pass against Florida
We had a chance in 1999 but lost on the road at Bama
We had a chance in 2014 but lost on the road against Bama and OM.

Every 15-20 years we have a team good enough to be in the mix. Thats the case for most schools. But every conference has its group of a few teams that win it every season. Just look at the SEC:

South Carolina hasnt won a conference title since 1969
State? 1941
Vandy? 1922
A&M? 1998
OM? 1963
Kentucky- 1950
Mizzou? 1969
Tenn? 1998

This school is who we can be with the right hire. One who is committed to MSU for the long haul...Here is their Recruiting ranking the last 10 classes
2010- 27
2011- 10
2012- 20
2013- 15
2014- 16
2015- 9
2016- 11
2017- 16
2018- 7
2019- 10
2020- 3

This is Clemson

44% of the teams in the NFL make the playoffs. 3% of teams in college football make the playoffs.

I was thrilled with the Peach Bowl growing up. That's no longer the case.

Yeah, but each year they get 4 star guys that absolutely produce on the next level. There is a gigantic difference between a top 10 class and a top 25 class though. So for 8 years straight they are pretty much in the top 15. That is pretty dang good.
Also note, it depends on how their classes work together. Mullen screwed us on OL, DBs, and WRs. That is what hurt us, we missed on literally every OL prospect his last two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead

Yeah, but each year they get 4 star guys that absolutely produce on the next level. There is a gigantic difference between a top 10 class and a top 25 class though. So for 8 years straight they are pretty much in the top 15. That is pretty dang good.
Also note, it depends on how their classes work together. Mullen screwed us on OL, DBs, and WRs. That is what hurt us, we missed on literally every OL prospect his last two years.

---

If we had a Mullen esq hire that had the leadership behind him and wasn't job hunting as was committed to MSU we could have similar recruiting classes. Maybe not too 3 or 10 for that matter. Crazy thing is has Mullen committed after 14 who knows where we would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgfan77

This school is who we can be with the right hire. One who is committed to MSU for the long haul...Here is their Recruiting ranking the last 10 classes
2010- 27
2011- 10
2012- 20
2013- 15
2014- 16
2015- 9
2016- 11
2017- 16
2018- 7
2019- 10
2020- 3

This is Clemson

---

Pretty bad example. Clemson gets pretty much whoever they want. They have probably the lowest attrition rate in the Power 5. So some of those classes have 17 kids it in. Even last year, they only signed 23. That effects their overall team ranking. They had 14 signees in 2017.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoopsDawg

Pretty bad example. Clemson gets pretty much whoever they want. They have probably the lowest attrition rate in the Power 5. So some of those classes have 17 kids it in. Even last year, they only signed 23. That effects their overall team ranking. They had 14 signees in 2017.

---

Disagree. Clemson was average until they got a Transcendent QB. Dabo rode Watson all the way to a NC. We also had low numbers in classes don't act Clemson is the only program to sign less than 25.
Point is had Mullen capitalized in Dak and was totally bought in like Dabo who knows what would have happened

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgfan77

Disagree. Clemson was average until they got a Transcendent QB. Dabo rode Watson all the way to a NC. We also had low numbers in classes don't act Clemson is the only program to sign less than 25.
Point is had Mullen capitalized in Dak and was totally bought in like Dabo who knows what would have happened

---

A totally bought in Mullen still isn't a fraction of the recruiter at MSU that Dabo is at Clemson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

There's never been parity in college football.

---

Exactly, and that is what makes it the worst major sports product out there in my view. And yes, the better programs have always been the better programs but the gulf has just widened at least on the field and the product keeps getting worse. And part of that is because offenses have become more prolific. But Bama was a 30+ point favorite in multiple SEC games this year (at least 3 or 4). Something is very, very wrong when a team is playing in its own league and game after game is that non-competitive. I bet the Alabama-Florida game this year was the only time I watched a second of the 2nd half of any Bama game this year except maybe when they played Georgia. The best college games are normally when two of the 'non-elite' teams play. Nothing interesting about watching the elite teams play until they play another top ranked elite team. And nobody is willing to do anything to address the core problem which is the glut of scholarships football programs have that allow the elite programs to gobble up all the elite talent. Heck, the 85 scholarship rule may have fit back when essentially no freshmen were playing but it doesn't fit the product any more. 85 players actively playing on a team is WAY more than a team needs and is the primary culprit that allows the elite programs to build dynasties. They oversign elite talent and then process out the ones that don't live up to their recruiting hype. Everyone else gets the leftovers. Just this recruiting cycle Bama signed 20 or more of the ESPN Top 300 recruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Exactly, and that is what makes it the worst major sports product out there in my view. And yes, the better programs have always been the better programs but the gulf has just widened at least on the field and the product keeps getting worse. And part of that is because offenses have become more prolific. But Bama was a 30+ point favorite in multiple SEC games this year (at least 3 or 4). Something is very, very wrong when a team is playing in its own league and game after game is that non-competitive. I bet the Alabama-Florida game this year was the only time I watched a second of the 2nd half of any Bama game this year except maybe when they played Georgia. The best college games are normally when two of the 'non-elite' teams play. Nothing interesting about watching the elite teams play until they play another top ranked elite team. And nobody is willing to do anything to address the core problem which is the glut of scholarships football programs have that allow the elite programs to gobble up all the elite talent. Heck, the 85 scholarship rule may have fit back when essentially no freshmen were playing but it doesn't fit the product any more. 85 players actively playing on a team is WAY more than a team needs and is the primary culprit that allows the elite programs to build dynasties. They oversign elite talent and then process out the ones that don't live up to their recruiting hype. Everyone else gets the leftovers. Just this recruiting cycle Bama signed 20 or more of the ESPN Top 300 recruits.

---

This!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Exactly, and that is what makes it the worst major sports product out there in my view. And yes, the better programs have always been the better programs but the gulf has just widened at least on the field and the product keeps getting worse. .

---

Has it changed?

Bama won the NC 3 times in the 70's while going 96-11 during that time. They had a 28 game winning streak we broke in 1980.
Oklahoma and Nebraska used to beat people by 40-50 in the Big 8 every season under Switzer and Osbourne
Ohio State or Michigan won the Big Ten every year
Penn State and ND won every year
USC and Washington ran the West Coast with UCLA being good at times.

Same shit is going on now- just Clemson and Oregon jumped in the mix as Michigan and USC has dropped off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Has it changed?

Bama won the NC 3 times in the 70's while going 96-11 during that time. They had a 28 game winning streak we broke in 1980.
Oklahoma and Nebraska used to beat people by 40-50 in the Big 8 every season under Switzer and Osbourne
Ohio State or Michigan won the Big Ten every year
Penn State and ND won every year
USC and Washington ran the West Coast with UCLA being good at times.

Same shit is going on now- just Clemson and Oregon jumped in the mix as Michigan and USC has dropped off

---

I think it has changed in the sense that even fewer teams are capable of making a move into competing for conference or national titles. Conference consolidation has set that up to a degree. In the 80s and 90s you still had the Big 8; the SWC, the Big East, the WAC all produce National Championships or what would be Play-Off teams. Not to mention Independents like ND, Pitt, Penn State, Miami, and FSU. The upside is the conferences now weed out the "lesser" teams on their own. the downside is that you have fewer teams in the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Has it changed?

Bama won the NC 3 times in the 70's while going 96-11 during that time. They had a 28 game winning streak we broke in 1980.
Oklahoma and Nebraska used to beat people by 40-50 in the Big 8 every season under Switzer and Osbourne
Ohio State or Michigan won the Big Ten every year
Penn State and ND won every year
USC and Washington ran the West Coast with UCLA being good at times.

Same shit is going on now- just Clemson and Oregon jumped in the mix as Michigan and USC has dropped off

---

In my view, absolutely yes, individual games are overall less competitive and talent gap continues to widen. The recruiting footprint for elite programs continue to broaden and because of all the recruiting websites and analysts out there it seems there are no recruits you can hide from the elite programs finding anymore like you could do in the past sometimes. And even if changes are made like I am talking about it will still continue to be most of the same teams winning championships because as long as recruits can choose where they go the best programs will rise to the top and continue to attract the top recruits just like in basketball and baseball. All I am saying is if you took 5 players off the Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, Oklahoma, etc. signing class every year and spread them out to everyone else you could close the talent gap a little to make college football a more competitive product to watch. From the macro level you would still have the best programs remain the best programs and win most of the championships. That is not really the issue it would address. Biggest problem right now is that when the elite programs play teams that aren't also in the elite category the game is pretty much unwatchable. Does anyone but Bama fans even watch the second half of these CBS Bama games where Bama is beating teams to a pulp? I'm sure not. I would say even most Bama fans would rather see a competitive game most of the time. I rarely even watch the first half of games where there is zero doubt of who will win. There is no entertainment value to me in that just like I get very little entertainment value when State plays Jackson St. or Stephen F. Austin or some other FCS team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Has it changed?

Bama won the NC 3 times in the 70's while going 96-11 during that time. They had a 28 game winning streak we broke in 1980.
Oklahoma and Nebraska used to beat people by 40-50 in the Big 8 every season under Switzer and Osbourne
Ohio State or Michigan won the Big Ten every year
Penn State and ND won every year
USC and Washington ran the West Coast with UCLA being good at times.

Same shit is going on now- just Clemson and Oregon jumped in the mix as Michigan and USC has dropped off

---

Was UCF whining then also ** That's pretty much the way I remember ... Texas had a NC and seemed a little more consistent then than now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoopsDawg

Pretty bad example. Clemson gets pretty much whoever they want. They have probably the lowest attrition rate in the Power 5. So some of those classes have 17 kids it in. Even last year, they only signed 23. That effects their overall team ranking. They had 14 signees in 2017.

---

Clemson does now; it wasn't that way for a long time. The fall of Tenn has also helped Clemson. The top recruits went to the big orange for a long time, now it is the other orange.

Things can change over time too as others have mentioned. MSU can be the next one, we almost were with Mullen if he had committed. Funny he tried lecturing the fan base about being committed but in the end he was the one not committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

I think it has changed in the sense that even fewer teams are capable of making a move into competing for conference or national titles. Conference consolidation has set that up to a degree. In the 80s and 90s you still had the Big 8; the SWC, the Big East, the WAC all produce National Championships or what would be Play-Off teams. Not to mention Independents like ND, Pitt, Penn State, Miami, and FSU. The upside is the conferences now weed out the "lesser" teams on their own. the downside is that you have fewer teams in the argument.

---

Good post and great point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

I think it has changed in the sense that even fewer teams are capable of making a move into competing for conference or national titles. Conference consolidation has set that up to a degree. In the 80s and 90s you still had the Big 8; the SWC, the Big East, the WAC all produce National Championships or what would be Play-Off teams. Not to mention Independents like ND, Pitt, Penn State, Miami, and FSU. The upside is the conferences now weed out the "lesser" teams on their own. the downside is that you have fewer teams in the argument.

---

I think recruiting rankings, combins, HUDL, and the internet in general has spread information so much that it's far less likely that elite players will slip through the blue blood's crasp. Thus a consolidation of talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

This is true.

Rumor is that Jimmy Sexton came after Arnett recently & he told him to go kick rocks.

---

Did Arnett ask Sloppy Joe before telling Sexton that?