Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billsin01, post: 3397012, member: 837"] So I don't disagree with these points by and large (though anytime I've pointed out any team over the years posters tend to point out how they're an exception). But generally I agree with you. My larger point is this -- all of those teams were better than us by a fairly wide margin yet you'd never know it from recruiting rankings. With essentially the same recruiting rankings/talent level, we had a 10-win season in 18 and a season where we not only dropped to 4 wins, but had just two legitimate wins and some absolutely horrifyingly bad losses -- umd in particular. Lastly -- there are also a ton of teams who have shown up regularly in the top 10 or 25 class rankings and then fallen as a program. USC is a great example of this -- almost always top 10 in talent, but really struggling on the field of late. Notre Dame was that way in the Ty Willingham era -- not falling out of the top 25 until it was clear that ND was a middle of the road team at best on the field. So, at the end of the day, no matter what your rankings I think two things are true: 1) You need coaches who identify talent that has an upside and then put that talent in an S&C environment and offensive/defensive system to help them max out. Obviously this is much less important for the Bamas, Clemsons, Gerogias, Ohio States, etc., but it still matters. 2) Your rankings will get better after you start winning games consistently. If fleck stays at Minny and they put together another good season -- I guarantee you we see them in the top 25 recruiting classes. If USC can't get their act together and is losing games, we'll see it reflected in their rankings. But the rankings NEVER change first. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?