College Football - Week 4 (Sept. 25th)

[Tracer Bullet]

And if you don't think playing 4 BCS teams, 3 of which are ranked, is a harder schedule than anyone else in the country has played so far, you are certifiable. How many teams in the country have played 4 BCS teams, let alone 3 undefeated BCS teams? ND's schedule will get easier: BC sucks, Tulsa sucks, W. Michigan sucks. But, per usual, they start harder than most b/c they play BCS teams from the start and don't schedule 2-3 cupcakes before conference play, like most BCS schools.

The best team Michigan and Michigan State have combined to beat so far besides Notre Dame is UConn, who got beat handily by Temple, so I'm not sure how good those teams are yet. I do know that both teams made some silly mistakes/coaching decisions against ND that kept them in it when they were struggling. Stanford's really good, clearly, but I hope you'll excuse me for not talking up Michigan and Michigan State too much yet.

 

You don't have to talk up UM or MSU. I don't think either team is going to finish the year ranked. But they're better than the Austin Peays and FAUs of the world. Can you accept that?

[SpongeWorthy]

I haven't seen a player in ND's back 7 on defense in years who really pops off the screen athletically, besides Manti and maybe Zbikowski (who was a Willingham recruit, IIRC). Bama and Ohio State are littered with those type of guys. Is it ALL player development? It's a huge part of it but I'm skeptical.

 

I don't put much stock in those star ratings. USC hasn't played a complete game since the Rose Bowl game against Penn State and there's a pretty big gap between #1 and #2 by that metric.

 

ND plays a 3-4. Which are the back 7?

 

A handful of ND DBs, including 3 safeties, are on NFL rosters. And Manti will be. And Gary Gray has been incredible this year (admittedly, for the first time in his 4 years, though his leg injury messed him up).

 

I don't know how much is development, how much is different systems, etc. The seniors, for example, have played the 4-3, 3-4, 4-3, 3-4 in their 4 years. And last year was Tenuta's 4-3, which is a different animal and there was a lot of in-fighting between Tenuta and Brown b/c their systems were opposite ends of the spectrum. Some people close to the team are saying how happy the DBs are to just be playing in a system where all the coaches agree.

 

Yes, if you're just looking at the screen, ND's talent hasn't looked great at times. But I don't trust your eye for talent more than Rivals. Rivals says ND has as much talent on its roster as any team not named USC and maybe Florida. So if Kelly is really the great coach he's supposed to be, he'll turn that talent into wins. If not, some other guy will be in SB in 3-5 years. Hopefully Kelly leaves the cupboard as "bare" as Weis did.

 

The same guys who rate prospects for Rivals can also look at a Notre Dame game and see that their talent isn't of the same quality as other powerhouse programs. It's better than most but not that level. That's most simply reflected in the drafting of those very same players into the NFL.

 

And Weis didn't recruit Ndukwe or Zbikowski. Other than that, who has he put in the league on defense or along the offensive line? The top programs put guys into the league year after year. ND's only shown they can do that with skill players in the Weis era. Maybe it is development...and it probably mostly is, but I don't see the raw athleticism at linebacker, offensive line, defensive line, and especially in the secondary for the most part. Justin Tuck is the last guy I'd look at from Notre Dame and can immediately say, "ok yeah, that guys a freak." Manti's getting there.

 

Why does it matter if Weis recruited guys that are in the NFL now? You asked about recent defensive players that stood out and so I mentioned guys in the NFL. Why does it matter who recruited them?

 

It would be surprising to me if guys from Rivals rated HS players 4 or 5 stars and then saw them play for ND, usually 3 years later, and said "oh they suck, guess we were wrong!" rather than "huh, seems like a player development issue." ND isn't having trouble recruiting. Weis had a lot of trouble developing players. Hopefully Kelly turns that around.

 

Manti's there dude. He's so there.

 

I thin Flames earlier Duke basketball analogy is pretty apt here. On Rivals, a guy like Kyle Singler is neck and neck stars wise with someone like John Wall. Maybe ND is getting more of the Singler types and less of the John Wall types. Pure athleticism is more important in NCAA football than NCAA hoops and the differences become more stark when they move up a level.

 

Sam Young vs. Andre Smith, that sorta thing.

[Tracer Bullet]

I haven't seen a player in ND's back 7 on defense in years who really pops off the screen athletically, besides Manti and maybe Zbikowski (who was a Willingham recruit, IIRC). Bama and Ohio State are littered with those type of guys. Is it ALL player development? It's a huge part of it but I'm skeptical.

 

I don't put much stock in those star ratings. USC hasn't played a complete game since the Rose Bowl game against Penn State and there's a pretty big gap between #1 and #2 by that metric.

 

ND plays a 3-4. Which are the back 7?

 

A handful of ND DBs, including 3 safeties, are on NFL rosters. And Manti will be. And Gary Gray has been incredible this year (admittedly, for the first time in his 4 years, though his leg injury messed him up).

 

I don't know how much is development, how much is different systems, etc. The seniors, for example, have played the 4-3, 3-4, 4-3, 3-4 in their 4 years. And last year was Tenuta's 4-3, which is a different animal and there was a lot of in-fighting between Tenuta and Brown b/c their systems were opposite ends of the spectrum. Some people close to the team are saying how happy the DBs are to just be playing in a system where all the coaches agree.

 

Yes, if you're just looking at the screen, ND's talent hasn't looked great at times. But I don't trust your eye for talent more than Rivals. Rivals says ND has as much talent on its roster as any team not named USC and maybe Florida. So if Kelly is really the great coach he's supposed to be, he'll turn that talent into wins. If not, some other guy will be in SB in 3-5 years. Hopefully Kelly leaves the cupboard as "bare" as Weis did.

 

The same guys who rate prospects for Rivals can also look at a Notre Dame game and see that their talent isn't of the same quality as other powerhouse programs. It's better than most but not that level. That's most simply reflected in the drafting of those very same players into the NFL.

 

And Weis didn't recruit Ndukwe or Zbikowski. Other than that, who has he put in the league on defense or along the offensive line? The top programs put guys into the league year after year. ND's only shown they can do that with skill players in the Weis era. Maybe it is development...and it probably mostly is, but I don't see the raw athleticism at linebacker, offensive line, defensive line, and especially in the secondary for the most part. Justin Tuck is the last guy I'd look at from Notre Dame and can immediately say, "ok yeah, that guys a freak." Manti's getting there.

 

Why does it matter if Weis recruited guys that are in the NFL now? You asked about recent defensive players that stood out and so I mentioned guys in the NFL. Why does it matter who recruited them?

 

It would be surprising to me if guys from Rivals rated HS players 4 or 5 stars and then saw them play for ND, usually 3 years later, and said "oh they suck, guess we were wrong!" rather than "huh, seems like a player development issue." ND isn't having trouble recruiting. Weis had a lot of trouble developing players. Hopefully Kelly turns that around.

 

Manti's there dude. He's so there.

 

I thin Flames earlier Duke basketball analogy is pretty apt here. On Rivals, a guy like Kyle Singler is neck and neck stars wise with someone like John Wall. Maybe ND is getting more of the Singler types and less of the John Wall types. Pure athleticism is more important in NCAA football than NCAA hoops and the differences become more stark when they move up a level.

 

Sam Young vs. Andre Smith, that sorta thing.

 

What does hoops have to do with this? I'm confused. Oh and I edited my earlier post while you were responding.

 

Sam Young was a huge freak and Exhibit A in Weis' waste of talent. This is the first year ND has had a training table. Can you imagine a tier-1 CFB program that doesn't have some control over their players' food intake? I'm not sure Young got any stronger from his freshman to his senior year. And there may not have been a worse position coach during Weis's tenure than Latina. You really think player development is meaningless?

 

Oh, and Sam Young was the #1 or #2 OT in the country and started every game that he was on campus, including his sophomore year at LT, though he was a RT by nature, b/c the team had no one else to play the position. Your example makes no sense.

[SpongeWorthy]

My Duke analogy isn't difficult to follow at all. Are you being intentionally dense?

 

You're using star rankings to prove that all 4/5 star players are of similar athletic ability. That's clearly not true in basketball and I'm submitting that it's not all that true in football either.

 

Edit: I don't think I'd be breaking any news to ND fans by saying Sam Young had a fairly disappointing career despite all the starts.

[Tracer Bullet]

My Duke analogy isn't difficult to follow at all. Are you being intentionally dense?

 

You're using star rankings to prove that all 4/5 star players are of similar athletic ability. That's clearly not true in basketball and I'm submitting that it's not all that true in football either.

 

Edit: I don't think I'd be breaking any news to ND fans by saying Sam Young had a fairly disappointing career despite all the starts.

 

And I'm saying that when a guy is a 5-star, #1 OT, and #11 overall player, any team would love to have him. That's why every team recruited him. So how is Sam Young, coming out of HS, not a John Wall type? B/c 5 years later it doesn't look like he was the best OT in HS that year? Maybe it's b/c Rivals and every team that recruited him was wrong or maybe his OL coach at ND didn't develop him.

 

Your analogy makes no sense at all.

[Guest]

And if you don't think playing 4 BCS teams, 3 of which are ranked, is a harder schedule than anyone else in the country has played so far, you are certifiable. How many teams in the country have played 4 BCS teams, let alone 3 undefeated BCS teams?

 

Just off the top of my head, San Jose State has played a tougher schedule than Notre Dame. SJST played at Alabama, at Wisconsin and at Utah in the first four weeks. Yes, they also played FCS Southern Utah, but they also had three road games whereas three of ND's four were at home and their ranked opponents are better than ND's.

 

Using Sagarin's SOS rankings (not as a rule but just to check some other teams):

 

Oregon State has played three games, all BCS teams (TCU, Boise, Louisville)

UCLA has played three BCS teams including two that are currently ranked plus Houston (and Houston and Texas aren't undefeated, the former not ranked, because UCLA actually won those games, unlike Notre Dame)

North Carolina's three games were BCS teams

Vanderbilt has played three BCS teams

New Mexico played two BCS teams plus Utah.

 

Notre Dame's schedule hasn't been easy, but it's not like they've played the toughest schedule in the history of college football or anything like that.

[SpongeWorthy]

My Duke analogy isn't difficult to follow at all. Are you being intentionally dense?

 

You're using star rankings to prove that all 4/5 star players are of similar athletic ability. That's clearly not true in basketball and I'm submitting that it's not all that true in football either.

 

Edit: I don't think I'd be breaking any news to ND fans by saying Sam Young had a fairly disappointing career despite all the starts.

 

And I'm saying that when a guy is a 5-star, #1 OT, and #11 overall player, any team would love to have him. That's why every team recruited him. So how is Sam Young, coming out of HS, not a John Wall type? B/c 5 years later it doesn't look like he was the best OT in HS that year? Maybe it's b/c Rivals and every team that recruited him was wrong or maybe his OL coach at ND didn't develop him.

 

Your analogy makes no sense at all.

 

Sam Young is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He was a great high school player that was limited at the next level because of a lack of lateral quickness and strength. He had a decent career but all the player development in the world wasn't going to turn him into Ryan Clady or anything.

 

Your logic seems to imply that every high school player is the same kind of prospect based on their star rankings. Clearly there are guys that are 4/5 stars because they're polished have sound technique and are decent athletes. And then there are other guys that are big recruits because they're huge, fast, but maybe a bit raw.

[Tracer Bullet]

And if you don't think playing 4 BCS teams, 3 of which are ranked, is a harder schedule than anyone else in the country has played so far, you are certifiable. How many teams in the country have played 4 BCS teams, let alone 3 undefeated BCS teams?

 

Just off the top of my head, San Jose State has played a tougher schedule than Notre Dame. SJST played at Alabama, at Wisconsin and at Utah in the first four weeks. Yes, they also played FCS Southern Utah, but they also had three road games whereas three of ND's four were at home and their ranked opponents are better than ND's.

 

Using Sagarin's SOS rankings (not as a rule but just to check some other teams):

 

Oregon State has played three games, all BCS teams (TCU, Boise, Louisville)

UCLA has played three BCS teams including two that are currently ranked plus Houston (and Houston and Texas aren't undefeated, the former not ranked, because UCLA actually won those games, unlike Notre Dame)

North Carolina's three games were BCS teams

Vanderbilt has played three BCS teams

New Mexico played two BCS teams plus Utah.

 

Notre Dame's schedule hasn't been easy, but it's not like they've played the toughest schedule in the history of college football or anything like that.

 

my post was directed at Andy suggesting ND had an easy schedule. While the schedule, as a whole, is not as hard as it's been in years past, the first 4 games have not been "easy" compared with the vast majority of programs. I haven't claimed that ND's was the hardest schedule, but it's been far from easy. Context is important.

[Tracer Bullet]

My Duke analogy isn't difficult to follow at all. Are you being intentionally dense?

 

You're using star rankings to prove that all 4/5 star players are of similar athletic ability. That's clearly not true in basketball and I'm submitting that it's not all that true in football either.

 

Edit: I don't think I'd be breaking any news to ND fans by saying Sam Young had a fairly disappointing career despite all the starts.

 

And I'm saying that when a guy is a 5-star, #1 OT, and #11 overall player, any team would love to have him. That's why every team recruited him. So how is Sam Young, coming out of HS, not a John Wall type? B/c 5 years later it doesn't look like he was the best OT in HS that year? Maybe it's b/c Rivals and every team that recruited him was wrong or maybe his OL coach at ND didn't develop him.

 

Your analogy makes no sense at all.

 

Sam Young is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He was a great high school player that was limited at the next level because of a lack of lateral quickness and strength. He had a decent career but all the player development in the world wasn't going to turn him into Ryan Clady or anything.

 

Your logic seems to imply that every high school player is the same kind of prospect based on their star rankings. Clearly there are guys that are 4/5 stars because they're polished have sound technique and are decent athletes. And then there are other guys that are big recruits because they're huge, fast, but maybe a bit raw.

 

No, my logic doesn't imply that. But with hundreds of kids, recruiting rankings paint a pretty good picture of the quality that programs have coming in. Is it funny that USC, Florida, Alabama, and OSU are among the top programs in star rankings, per that article I posted? Star rankings aren't the end all measure of talent, but they're usually the best we have.

 

As to Sam Young: you didn't think he was strong or quick coming out of HS. Fine. I'd argue that rare is the OL that is strong enough to play major CFB as a freshman, but he held his own. I'd also argue that strength is one of the easiest things for CFB players to improve during their career, if there's a good program and their frame will support it. His frame does, but ND didn't have a good strength and conditioning program (it's better under Kelly/Longo). Finally, when it comes to quickness, I do think it's funny that you call it a weakness when Scout lists it among his strengths coming out of HS: quickness, size, technique. But I'm sure you analyzed a lot of Sam Young HS tapes back in 2005.

 

Recruiting sites may not be infallible. But I'll take their analysis over yours.

[SpongeWorthy]

No but I watched a lot of Sam Young in college and the idea that he doesn't have enough quickness to consistently hold up on a deep drop against a good NFL defensive end is pretty obvious. But if you want to delude yourself into thinking that Notre Dame has the same caliber athletes, have at it.

 

The difference between Harrison Smith and Eric Berry isn't just player development though.

 

FWIW: I'd say the same thing about USC the last two seasons vs. Alabama/Florida as I do about ND (to a lesser extent though) despite what the star rankings might say. Our athletes aren't as good.

[Guest]

And if you don't think playing 4 BCS teams, 3 of which are ranked, is a harder schedule than anyone else in the country has played so far, you are certifiable. How many teams in the country have played 4 BCS teams, let alone 3 undefeated BCS teams?

 

Just off the top of my head, San Jose State has played a tougher schedule than Notre Dame. SJST played at Alabama, at Wisconsin and at Utah in the first four weeks. Yes, they also played FCS Southern Utah, but they also had three road games whereas three of ND's four were at home and their ranked opponents are better than ND's.

 

Using Sagarin's SOS rankings (not as a rule but just to check some other teams):

 

Oregon State has played three games, all BCS teams (TCU, Boise, Louisville)

UCLA has played three BCS teams including two that are currently ranked plus Houston (and Houston and Texas aren't undefeated, the former not ranked, because UCLA actually won those games, unlike Notre Dame)

North Carolina's three games were BCS teams

Vanderbilt has played three BCS teams

New Mexico played two BCS teams plus Utah.

 

Notre Dame's schedule hasn't been easy, but it's not like they've played the toughest schedule in the history of college football or anything like that.

 

my post was directed at Andy suggesting ND had an easy schedule. While the schedule, as a whole, is not as hard as it's been in years past, the first 4 games have not been "easy" compared with the vast majority of programs. I haven't claimed that ND's was the hardest schedule, but it's been far from easy. Context is important.

 

That's not what you said or implied.

[Tracer Bullet]

And if you don't think playing 4 BCS teams, 3 of which are ranked, is a harder schedule than anyone else in the country has played so far, you are certifiable. How many teams in the country have played 4 BCS teams, let alone 3 undefeated BCS teams?

 

Just off the top of my head, San Jose State has played a tougher schedule than Notre Dame. SJST played at Alabama, at Wisconsin and at Utah in the first four weeks. Yes, they also played FCS Southern Utah, but they also had three road games whereas three of ND's four were at home and their ranked opponents are better than ND's.

 

Using Sagarin's SOS rankings (not as a rule but just to check some other teams):

 

Oregon State has played three games, all BCS teams (TCU, Boise, Louisville)

UCLA has played three BCS teams including two that are currently ranked plus Houston (and Houston and Texas aren't undefeated, the former not ranked, because UCLA actually won those games, unlike Notre Dame)

North Carolina's three games were BCS teams

Vanderbilt has played three BCS teams

New Mexico played two BCS teams plus Utah.

 

Notre Dame's schedule hasn't been easy, but it's not like they've played the toughest schedule in the history of college football or anything like that.

 

my post was directed at Andy suggesting ND had an easy schedule. While the schedule, as a whole, is not as hard as it's been in years past, the first 4 games have not been "easy" compared with the vast majority of programs. I haven't claimed that ND's was the hardest schedule, but it's been far from easy. Context is important.

 

That's not what you said or implied.

 

sure it is. it was in the context of andy's post about ND's weak schedule.

 

and your having to point to San Jose St and New Mexico sort of supports my point.

[TruffleShuffle]

ok - first of all - UM fans were livid in RichRod's first year. If you don't think so, teleport yourself back to Michigan that year. It was unbearable. Lots of teams' fans get pissed when their unrealistic expectations aren't met.

 

maybe i just happened to know all of the rational michigan fans (and i know quite a few - mostly michigan grads attending psu for grad school). they knew michigan was going to suck that year and indeed they did (plus how can you really get your hopes up when steven threet and nick sheridan are taking the snaps?)

[Tracer Bullet]

No but I watched a lot of Sam Young in college and the idea that he doesn't have enough quickness to consistently hold up on a deep drop against a good NFL defensive end is pretty obvious. But if you want to delude yourself into thinking that Notre Dame has the same caliber athletes, have at it.

 

The difference between Harrison Smith and Eric Berry isn't just player development though.

 

FWIW: I'd say the same thing about USC the last two seasons vs. Alabama/Florida as I do about ND (to a lesser extent though) despite what the star rankings might say. Our athletes aren't as good.

 

Dear god. Eric Berry? How many safeties last year were equal to Eric Berry? Eric Berry didn't even play for these teams that you say have all world talent that ND can't match. You're grasping at straw men here.

 

BTW - Golden Tate was the best WR in college football last year. So there's that. Imagine if Weis, this terrible recruiter who left ND "bare" for Kelly, hadn't wrangled him away from Tennessee.

[Tracer Bullet]

ok - first of all - UM fans were livid in RichRod's first year. If you don't think so, teleport yourself back to Michigan that year. It was unbearable. Lots of teams' fans get pissed when their unrealistic expectations aren't met.

 

maybe i just happened to know all of the rational michigan fans (and i know quite a few - mostly michigan grads attending psu for grad school). they knew michigan was going to suck that year and indeed they did (plus how can you really get your hopes up when steven threet and nick sheridan are taking the snaps?)

 

quite possibly. Maybe all the sane ones leave the state. Would make sense. I think I knew 2 fans that weren't completely freaking out that DickRod was a terrible hire after '08. I completely egged them on, of course, but I take no blame for their insanity.

[TruffleShuffle]

I haven't seen a player in ND's back 7 on defense in years who really pops off the screen athletically, besides Manti and maybe Zbikowski (who was a Willingham recruit, IIRC). Bama and Ohio State are littered with those type of guys. Is it ALL player development? It's a huge part of it but I'm skeptical.

 

I don't put much stock in those star ratings. USC hasn't played a complete game since the Rose Bowl game against Penn State and there's a pretty big gap between #1 and #2 by that metric.

 

ND plays a 3-4. Which are the back 7?

 

A handful of ND DBs, including 3 safeties, are on NFL rosters. And Manti will be. And Gary Gray has been incredible this year (admittedly, for the first time in his 4 years, though his leg injury messed him up).

 

I don't know how much is development, how much is different systems, etc. The seniors, for example, have played the 4-3, 3-4, 4-3, 3-4 in their 4 years. And last year was Tenuta's 4-3, which is a different animal and there was a lot of in-fighting between Tenuta and Brown b/c their systems were opposite ends of the spectrum. Some people close to the team are saying how happy the DBs are to just be playing in a system where all the coaches agree.

 

Yes, if you're just looking at the screen, ND's talent hasn't looked great at times. But I don't trust your eye for talent more than Rivals. Rivals says ND has as much talent on its roster as any team not named USC and maybe Florida. So if Kelly is really the great coach he's supposed to be, he'll turn that talent into wins. If not, some other guy will be in SB in 3-5 years. Hopefully Kelly leaves the cupboard as "bare" as Weis did.

 

yeah but if weis wasn't properly developing the talent, you can't say "well kelly is the coach now and this senior was a 4 star guy coming out of high school, so kelly should be able to make him good." he's supposedly had three years of wasted development, so he's probably going to still suck even if vince lombardi rises from the grave to coach him.

 

plus rivals star rankings are only good to a point. here are some rankings from 2002-06:

oklahoma:

2002: #7

2003: #4

2004: #8

2005: #3

2006: #9

 

boise st:

2002: not ranked in top 50

2003: not ranked in top 50

2004: not ranked in top 50

2005: not ranked in top 50

2006: not ranked in top 50

 

based on those results, boise st did not play in the 2007 fiesta bowl and certainly did not beat oklahoma.

 

plus, look at the guys boise st are getting: naanee, ian johnson, ryan clady, jared zabransky, kyle wilson... all those guys were rated as 2-star players coming into their program. are they that amazing that they're coaching mediocre athletes into very productive college players and (in a couple of cases) first round nfl draft picks? probably not. i mean, they do a great job there, but chances are they're getting guys who fall through the cracks and who should be ranked higher than they are by the scouting services.

[Tracer Bullet]

there's a whole lot of cherry-picking in that post, truffle. you realize that at the outset, right? It's like you haven't paid any attention at all, but want to throw your 2 cents in there, even though you aren't actually arguing any of these points in context. but anyway...

 

recruiting rankings are not infallible. I think I said that in my first post on this topic.

 

Weis did not develop players well on the whole. He did very well with QBs and obviously some other players. how much was Weis, the position coach, or the player, I don't know. But Tate, for example, didn't even know a "go" route when he got to ND. Funny story from one of CW's pressers in 2007: "Well, we sort of did that the other day, grabbed them and said, "Come in here and run a go," and they said, "What?" I said, "Run right by that guy," and the guy is listening to you, and he's looking at you like you're a liar, and he runs right by him. You can't do that with all the routes, now, because sooner or later they figure that out."

 

So yes, there were some players that developed under Weis. But not enough. It wasn't what he did well, coming from an NFL mentality. And I like Weis. I have no ill-will toward the man. But he wasn't a great college head coach.

 

Oh, and do you think BSU would swap rosters with OU in a heartbeat? Or, more importantly, USC, Florida, etc.

 

of course some guys fall through the cracks. But I don't think any CFB coach would take a roster of 2-stars over a roster of 5-stars. And, it's worth mentioning, that for some coaches, it's system-specific. Certain players fit what you're doing better than another, higher-rated player does. No one is arguing that every 5-star is better than ever 2-star and all 2-star players are worthless. Nothing close to that, really.

[TruffleShuffle]

there's a whole lot of cherry-picking in that post, truffle.

 

like picking and choosing which things i want to argue, or hanging down the end of a basketball court to get easy baskets?

 

speaking of cherry picking, you did a convenient job of cherry picking six players who were among the most highly-regarded players at their positions. of course nobody is going to bump a player up to #1 or #2 overall just because he picked notre dame. the guys who are more likely to get a "notre dame bump", as TT suggested, would be players farther down the lists, right?

 

It's like you haven't paid any attention at all, but want to throw your 2 cents in there, even though you aren't actually arguing any of these points in context.

 

actually if you are arguing that notre dame is right next to florida, texas, alabama, etc. as far as talent then it's like you actually haven't paid attention to college football for several years now.

 

recruiting rankings are not infallible. I think I said that in my first post on this topic.

 

you would be incorrect. you did not say that in your first post on this topic, or on your second one. your stance has sounded not far from thinking that rivals ratings are gospel.

 

Oh, and do you think BSU would swap rosters with OU in a heartbeat? Or, more importantly, USC, Florida, etc.

 

i dunno. maybe? depends on if they think those players would do well in the system that they coach. they've managed to be really good and beat really good teams the last four years, so it probably wouldn't make a huge difference if you give them oklahoma's players.

 

of course some guys fall through the cracks. But I don't think any CFB coach would take a roster of 2-stars over a roster of 5-stars. And, it's worth mentioning, that for some coaches, it's system-specific. Certain players fit what you're doing better than another, higher-rated player does. No one is arguing that every 5-star is better than ever 2-star and all 2-star players are worthless. Nothing close to that, really.

 

right and that's not what i'm arguing. i'm saying that if a team that hasn't ranked in the top 50 of rivals' rankings maybe ever beats a team that finishes top 5 most years, and consistently beats BCS opponents (oregon twice, oregon st, va tech), then maybe the rivals system has some pretty big holes.

[Tracer Bullet]

there's a whole lot of cherry-picking in that post, truffle.

 

like picking and choosing which things i want to argue, or hanging down the end of a basketball court to get easy baskets?

 

speaking of cherry picking, you did a convenient job of cherry picking six players who were among the most highly-regarded players at their positions. of course nobody is going to bump a player up to #1 or #2 overall just because he picked notre dame. the guys who are more likely to get a "notre dame bump", as TT suggested, would be players farther down the lists, right?

 

It's like you haven't paid any attention at all, but want to throw your 2 cents in there, even though you aren't actually arguing any of these points in context.

 

actually if you are arguing that notre dame is right next to florida, texas, alabama, etc. as far as talent then it's like you actually haven't paid attention to college football for several years now.

 

recruiting rankings are not infallible. I think I said that in my first post on this topic.

 

you would be incorrect. you did not say that in your first post on this topic, or on your second one. your stance has sounded not far from thinking that rivals ratings are gospel.

 

Oh, and do you think BSU would swap rosters with OU in a heartbeat? Or, more importantly, USC, Florida, etc.

 

i dunno. maybe? depends on if they think those players would do well in the system that they coach. they've managed to be really good and beat really good teams the last four years, so it probably wouldn't make a huge difference if you give them oklahoma's players.

 

of course some guys fall through the cracks. But I don't think any CFB coach would take a roster of 2-stars over a roster of 5-stars. And, it's worth mentioning, that for some coaches, it's system-specific. Certain players fit what you're doing better than another, higher-rated player does. No one is arguing that every 5-star is better than ever 2-star and all 2-star players are worthless. Nothing close to that, really.

 

right and that's not what i'm arguing. i'm saying that if a team that hasn't ranked in the top 50 of rivals' rankings maybe ever beats a team that finishes top 5 most years, and consistently beats BCS opponents (oregon twice, oregon st, va tech), then maybe the rivals system has some pretty big holes.

 

I've never claimed they were gospel. I said they were all casual fans have to go on. And then I said they weren't infallible. then you responded, completely ignoring the context of my posts. You, btw, saying that watching games on TV gives you any idea of how good the talent is (beyond who is the strongest or fastest player, and even then) is pretty ridiculous. You see what, a quarter of the field when watching a football game on TV? And the vast majority of what goes on by everyone but either the QB or the RB doesn't show up. And you often don't know who screwed up, etc. Yet you know more about talent than recruiting sites? Obviously they can't identify which players will end up being great and which ones won't with 100% accuracy. And lots of players are going to slip through the cracks - there are thousands of them.

 

I'm not sure what your BSU thing is after. You think the fact that BSU has beaten some BCS teams over the last few years proves that star rankings are worthless? Weird. Do you know much about the recruits playing for each of those teams, the injuries they'd suffered before or during those games, the guys that failed out, got arrested, or otherwise weren't on the field? How are you sure that BSU's raw talent coming in before this year's game was that much worse than Oregon State's? Anyway, yes, BSU does well with players that often slip through the cracks. There are always coaches that can do that at lower levels for a while and they typically jump to BCS schools pretty quickly. And when a few of those coaches offer a HS kid, he starts getting more stars.

 

I picked those guys to show that all of nd players aren't getting a bump (and that the talent is often not getting developed). Go look at their starters on both sides of the ball. every player was offered by one of those schools that sponge mentioned, except 1 (Riddick, we'll take him). I don't know which players TT thinks gets bumps, but he suggested it was a chicken/egg thing (ND offers, so the recruit gets 4-5 stars). That's simply not true if you look at the other offers these players have. I've followed ND's recruiting pretty closely for about 5-7 years now. There are a handful of times that an ND guy will get bumped by Scout or Rivals (though, frequently there are several teams that have made offers during the interim in star ranking, so it's often hard to say it was just ND's offer that caused it). It's at least as frequent that an ND guy will lose a star/drop in the rankings after committing to ND (Cierre Wood, who went from 5-star, #3 overall player to 4-star in 09, e.g.). My point was there is no mass bump up for every ND player. Identifying that there are a number of ND players that are the top 1 or 2 at their position out of HS is a lot easier than reviewing every player to get an offer and pointing out that they didn't get a bump. You can continue to believe there's an ND bump, just like you can believe the media or coaches give ND a bump that they don't deserve, but it just doesn't exist.

 

Again, with the talent, you're cherry picking rather than reading the posts. I don't claim that ND talent on the field matches Florida, USC, and Texas. But the talent that comes in the door is right there with them. There's a lack of a proper S&C program, the lack of focus on player development that's been widespread for several years, etc. Again, the point was ND has the talent coming in, but they haven't been developing it. Kelly/Longo have a great reputation in that area, so we'll see how that plays out.

[shnsajax]

ND recruiting the last 5 years has not been at the same level as the schools you mentioned especially the past couple of years. They don't have anywhere near the depth in recruiting.

[Tracer Bullet]

based on what?

[Tracer Bullet]

http://twitter.com/#!/BFeldmanESPN/status/26004300994