Historical recruiting perspective on Clemson's accomplishment tonight

[dawgs]

Auburn had 3 top 10 classes and two outside the top 20 (during the Tubby to Chizik transition years) over the same period as mentioned above for Clemson before their title. They also had probably the most physically gifted QB of all time, so a little bit of an anomoly there. Oregon hasn't been able to win a title, so their rankings are somewhat irrelevant as it relates to what it takes to hoist the trophy.

1) I mentioned QB being the key piece that takes a team with an average recruiting ranking in the teens to being a contender. We saw how quickly those recruiting classes underperformed without cam.

2) Oregon was a flukey tackle where the RB's knees/elbows/butt were inches from the ground that resulted in a 50 yard run to set up a last second FG from going to OT in the natty. That's about as close as a team can be to winning one without winning it. Play that game on a different day and the result could easily be different. You put yourself in position to win conference titles and get a natty shot, actually winning the natty is a bit more of a crapshoot between 2 great teams on any given day. If we want to being myopic and not learn from a program's approach that was inches away from maybe winning a title because "they didn't win it so they are irrelevant", then we are dumb.

3) I said teams that have PLAYED for a natty. That shows you not just how hard it is to win a natty without elite recruiting, but shows how hard it is just to be in a position to play for a natty without elite recruiting. We need to get our recruiting consistently in the mid-teens and then hope to find the right transcendent QB to get the program over the top to competing for a conference championship (and this likely in the natty discussion). We were close with dak and had some other high end pieces, but the middle and back of our roster just wasn't quite good enough.

[I seen it dawg]

Starts at the top

[HSVDawg]

1) I mentioned QB being the key piece that takes a team with an average recruiting ranking in the teens to being a contender. We saw how quickly those recruiting classes underperformed without cam.

2) Oregon was a flukey tackle where the RB's knees/elbows/butt were inches from the ground that resulted in a 50 yard run to set up a last second FG from going to OT in the natty. That's about as close as a team can be to winning one without winning it. Play that game on a different day and the result could easily be different. You put yourself in position to win conference titles and get a natty shot, actually winning the natty is a bit more of a crapshoot between 2 great teams on any given day. If we want to being myopic and not learn from a program's approach that was inches away from maybe winning a title because "they didn't win it so they are irrelevant", then we are dumb.

3) I said teams that have PLAYED for a natty. That shows you not just how hard it is to win a natty without elite recruiting, but shows how hard it is just to be in a position to play for a natty without elite recruiting. We need to get our recruiting consistently in the mid-teens and then hope to find the right transcendent QB to get the program over the top to competing for a conference championship (and this likely in the natty discussion). We were close with dak and had some other high end pieces, but the middle and back of our roster just wasn't quite good enough.

Good points. I agree that Auburn and Oregon are both the most valid recent comparisons to Clemson, but both had a little more talent, I think. Either way, you have to have an elite QB along with a bunch of guys who outperform their recruiting ranking for it to work out. We have a long ways to go, although we appear to have the QB play set for awhile if we can ever figure out the other pieces.

[Lance Harbor]

HAHAHAAH..thank you.

[dawgday166]

Good points. I agree that Auburn and Oregon are both the most valid recent comparisons to Clemson, but both had a little more talent, I think.

Not so sure how you see this. I think Clemson is better than both. Bama would've killed those 2 teams. Remember ... we only lost 17 - 14 to Auburn that year. But even at end of year this Bama team would've beat both IMO.

[GTHOM]

Good post and probably true most years, but the SEC hasn't been as good as the ACC the last two years. The team Clemson has built would be able to run the table in the SEC West, and they proved it. Two best teams in the SEC according to the final CFP rankings were Alabama and Auburn, and Clemson beat both of them at road / neutral locations.

LSU would have beaten auburn with the ogre. The SEC did have a down year but we will be back next year. With a vengeance

[IMissJack]

The better your QB, the worse (relatively speaking) your overall recruiting can be. Bama, maybe Ohio st and f$u, are the only programs recruiting on a level that mediocre QB doesn't immediately disqualify them from playoff discussion. Everyone else needs an elite QB to take them from the 8-10 W level to contender level. I think people have run the numbers before on worst recruiting classes to play for a natty, and seems like Oregon and auburn were both about where clemson's rankings are.

This is very true about QB. A good QB covers a lot of things...see Tom Brady.