Edsell is a class act all the way. UConn is well represented by their head football coach...

(01-02-2010 06:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Edsell is a class act all the way. UConn is well represented by their head football coach...

Thanks Bit. Meyer could learn a thing or two from Edsall. He let his Gators run up the score all the time including last night.

I disagree about the talent difference between WVU and Florida State, it was just a bad game for WVU. UC and Florida, that was a difference. UC was going to have to be well-coached to keep up with Florida, and we weren't, so the talent difference came into play.

USC UCONN
2005 20 59
2006 33 66
2007 7 53
2008 34 70
2009 13 76

Avg 21.4 64.8
(05-09)

Above is 5 years of Scout recruiting ranking for South Carolina vs. UCONN. I don't even want to do Rivals because they rated UCONN classes even worse. According to the above, UCONN recruiting got worse each year. South Carolina, on the other hand, should be an annual top 25 team. Based on the recruiting rankings, USC should have dominated UCONN up and down the field in the PapaJohn bowl in SEC country.

Here are the facts:

1. According to anyone inside the UCONN program, recruiting each year actually got better from previous years. Talent has improved year to year with big improvements. UCONN has FRs contributing on the field right now on the current team.

2. South Carolina should have been a top 25 team annually. Especially considering they got a big time coach in Spurrier.

3. South Carolina should have better players than UCONN overall. On the field at PapaJohn Bowl, what I saw was an overall faster UCONN team dominated South Carolina in the trenches on both lines. It was physical but the more physical players were UCONN players, not South Carolina players. So who has the better talent? And how is talent of #64.8 in the country dominated average recruiting class of #21.4?

I don't even want to do one for ND because it won't even make sense. Bottom line is either those recruiting "experts" have no clue what they are talking about with most teams or they simply get lucky with some teams because they assign 4 or 5 stars to anyone FLA/Bama recruited.

I am sure we can do the same analysis of MWC teams vs. PAC-10 teams. Once again, those recruiting rankings are just fraudulent.

You could post Florida's recruiting rankings the past 5 years and the recruiting rankings of UC the past 5 years and you'd see a similar disparity. So what would that prove?

(01-04-2010 07:30 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  You could post Florida's recruiting rankings the past 5 years and the recruiting rankings of UC the past 5 years and you'd see a similar disparity. So what would that prove?

Yes, no one is saying that recruiting explains the results of EVERY game. Jus that recruiting obviously matters a great deal.

The bottom line is that there surely IS a strong correlation between recruiting rank and participation in BCS bowls. Teams like USC, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and LSU are routinely in the top 10 to top 15 in recruiting ranking, and play a disproportionate share of BCS bowl games.

Obviously recruiting is important but how do you know how good or bad?
How do you know that this team or that team rank high or low than that team?
Even if you know how unreliable they maybe you still use them for your argument.

You like to point out how good a coach he is for taken average kids and made them good.
And this conclusion base on unreliable information. Even so, we fans get very excited when 4 or 5 stars kids come our way.
Knowing what we know.

Wouldn’t it better to argue a great coach go against no coach is no contest. Every year, we see coaches get fire and hire when they are not on the field.

(01-04-2010 12:40 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  Obviously recruiting is important but how do you know how good or bad?

I guess it would be possible to calculate a correlation coefficient between recruiting rank and outcomes like wins and BCS bowl participation. That would give us a rough, but not definitive, idea of the import.

(01-04-2010 01:34 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  USC UCONN
2005 20 59
2006 33 66
2007 7 53
2008 34 70
2009 13 76

Avg 21.4 64.8
(05-09)

Above is 5 years of Scout recruiting ranking for South Carolina vs. UCONN. I don't even want to do Rivals because they rated UCONN classes even worse. According to the above, UCONN recruiting got worse each year. South Carolina, on the other hand, should be an annual top 25 team. Based on the recruiting rankings, USC should have dominated UCONN up and down the field in the PapaJohn bowl in SEC country.

Here are the facts:

1. According to anyone inside the UCONN program, recruiting each year actually got better from previous years. Talent has improved year to year with big improvements. UCONN has FRs contributing on the field right now on the current team.

2. South Carolina should have been a top 25 team annually. Especially considering they got a big time coach in Spurrier.

3. South Carolina should have better players than UCONN overall. On the field at PapaJohn Bowl, what I saw was an overall faster UCONN team dominated South Carolina in the trenches on both lines. It was physical but the more physical players were UCONN players, not South Carolina players. So who has the better talent? And how is talent of #64.8 in the country dominated average recruiting class of #21.4?

I don't even want to do one for ND because it won't even make sense. Bottom line is either those recruiting "experts" have no clue what they are talking about with most teams or they simply get lucky with some teams because they assign 4 or 5 stars to anyone FLA/Bama recruited.

I am sure we can do the same analysis of MWC teams vs. PAC-10 teams. Once again, those recruiting rankings are just fraudulent.

If you look beyond the rankings and look at the specific positions you will see that South Carolina has recruited a ton of highly rated WR and DB and not so much on the OL and that's where their problems have been this year.

(01-04-2010 02:49 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 01:34 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  USC UCONN
2005 20 59
2006 33 66
2007 7 53
2008 34 70
2009 13 76

Avg 21.4 64.8
(05-09)

Above is 5 years of Scout recruiting ranking for South Carolina vs. UCONN. I don't even want to do Rivals because they rated UCONN classes even worse. According to the above, UCONN recruiting got worse each year. South Carolina, on the other hand, should be an annual top 25 team. Based on the recruiting rankings, USC should have dominated UCONN up and down the field in the PapaJohn bowl in SEC country.

Here are the facts:

1. According to anyone inside the UCONN program, recruiting each year actually got better from previous years. Talent has improved year to year with big improvements. UCONN has FRs contributing on the field right now on the current team.

2. South Carolina should have been a top 25 team annually. Especially considering they got a big time coach in Spurrier.

3. South Carolina should have better players than UCONN overall. On the field at PapaJohn Bowl, what I saw was an overall faster UCONN team dominated South Carolina in the trenches on both lines. It was physical but the more physical players were UCONN players, not South Carolina players. So who has the better talent? And how is talent of #64.8 in the country dominated average recruiting class of #21.4?

I don't even want to do one for ND because it won't even make sense. Bottom line is either those recruiting "experts" have no clue what they are talking about with most teams or they simply get lucky with some teams because they assign 4 or 5 stars to anyone FLA/Bama recruited.

I am sure we can do the same analysis of MWC teams vs. PAC-10 teams. Once again, those recruiting rankings are just fraudulent.

If you look beyond the rankings and look at the specific positions you will see that South Carolina has recruited a ton of highly rated WR and DB and not so much on the OL and that's where their problems have been this year.

Catdaddy: So why can't USC ever get it together...they should be a powerhouse and they are not. Just seeking your opinion.

Why SC can't get it together: Florida, Georgia & Tennessee

(01-04-2010 07:30 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  You could post Florida's recruiting rankings the past 5 years and the recruiting rankings of UC the past 5 years and you'd see a similar disparity. So what would that prove?

Ok then, how do you explain all the years FLA sucked? I mean with 5 star recruits shouldn't they be dominating forever? Same can be said for Texas before Mack Brown or USC before Carroll.

(01-04-2010 01:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 12:40 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  Obviously recruiting is important but how do you know how good or bad?

I guess it would be possible to calculate a correlation coefficient between recruiting rank and outcomes like wins and BCS bowl participation. That would give us a rough, but not definitive, idea of the import.

What you gonna find is good coaches win and not so much recruiting rankings. It takes a great coach to mold a team into his style. It takes a great coach to develop players. Recruiting ranking is for sucking money out of idiots who pay those subscription fees.

On the field at PapaJohn, UCONN is far closer to a top 25 team than USC. Edsall is a good coach, but he isn't no magician who can turn some street kid into a BCS caliber player. There are obvious major talent across the board at UCONN despite those rankings. Those kids were players before they step on campus at UCONN even though they are 1 or 2 stars. 6 kids from last year's UCONN graduating class made the opening day NFL roster. UCONN don't have many players graduating this year, but they should send few more to the NFL (Whitten, Easley and Dixon). UCONN did not have one of those dominating season yet, but I see 2010 as the year of the Huskies in football.

Looking at South Carolina's depth chart, they have one 5 star, twelve 4-stars, eight 3-stars, and a walk-on OL. I don't know if they are overrated or UCONN is underrated but I leaning towards the latter.

Tennessee not so much. Spurrier may not be at Florida any longer. But he always had Fulmer's number. Kiffen is a new quantity. Kiffen is 1-0 versus Spurrier now. We'll see if that trend continues, or whether it was an abberation soon enough...

(01-04-2010 03:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Catdaddy: So why can't USC ever get it together...they should be a powerhouse and they are not. Just seeking your opinion.

That's the big question that many around these parts have been asking for years.

One big reason is too many hands on the program. Nothing has stymied South Carolina athletically more than interference both from within the university and from powerful politicians.

Honestly on paper they should clean Clemson's clock every year in every sport because they have every advantage.

They are the state flagship University
They are located in the state capital and in the center of the state
They have the journalism school, so every local reporter out there is likely a South Carolina grad.
They produce far more alumni, so have a larger donor base.
They bring in and spend more money on athletics than Clemson.

But overall Clemson beats South Carolina more than they lose.


I certainly hope they never figure out what their problem is.

(01-04-2010 03:55 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 03:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Catdaddy: So why can't USC ever get it together...they should be a powerhouse and they are not. Just seeking your opinion.

That's the big question that many around these parts have been asking for years.

One big reason is too many hands on the program. Nothing has stymied South Carolina athletically more than interference both from within the university and from powerful politicians.

Honestly on paper they should clean Clemson's clock every year in every sport because they have every advantage.

They are the state flagship University
They are located in the state capital and in the center of the state
They have the journalism school, so every local reporter out there is likely a South Carolina grad.
They produce far more alumni, so have a larger donor base.
They bring in and spend more money on athletics than Clemson.

But overall Clemson beats South Carolina more than they lose.


I certainly hope they never figure out what their problem is.

One thing I learned about South Carolina fans is that they really really really hate you guys. Man that hate is just deep. Those USC fans were saying because they blew you guys out and stopped Spiller, they gonna stop UCONN's running game LOL. I guess they didn't realize our OL and RBs are pretty good.

(01-04-2010 04:03 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 03:55 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 03:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Catdaddy: So why can't USC ever get it together...they should be a powerhouse and they are not. Just seeking your opinion.

That's the big question that many around these parts have been asking for years.

One big reason is too many hands on the program. Nothing has stymied South Carolina athletically more than interference both from within the university and from powerful politicians.

Honestly on paper they should clean Clemson's clock every year in every sport because they have every advantage.

They are the state flagship University
They are located in the state capital and in the center of the state
They have the journalism school, so every local reporter out there is likely a South Carolina grad.
They produce far more alumni, so have a larger donor base.
They bring in and spend more money on athletics than Clemson.

But overall Clemson beats South Carolina more than they lose.


I certainly hope they never figure out what their problem is.

One thing I learned about South Carolina fans is that they really really really hate you guys. Man that hate is just deep. Those USC fans were saying because they blew you guys out and stopped Spiller, they gonna stop UCONN's running game LOL. I guess they didn't realize our OL and RBs are pretty good.

Trust me when I tell you the hate runs both ways. They stopped us for the same reason you stopped them....Tommy Bowden put too much of a priority on skill position players and not enough on the lines. Much like South Carolina under Holtz and Spurrier they were more concerned with winning recruiting rankings by getting as high a class as possible than building quality depth throughout the roster.

(01-04-2010 04:26 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 04:03 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 03:55 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 03:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Catdaddy: So why can't USC ever get it together...they should be a powerhouse and they are not. Just seeking your opinion.

That's the big question that many around these parts have been asking for years.

One big reason is too many hands on the program. Nothing has stymied South Carolina athletically more than interference both from within the university and from powerful politicians.

Honestly on paper they should clean Clemson's clock every year in every sport because they have every advantage.

They are the state flagship University
They are located in the state capital and in the center of the state
They have the journalism school, so every local reporter out there is likely a South Carolina grad.
They produce far more alumni, so have a larger donor base.
They bring in and spend more money on athletics than Clemson.

But overall Clemson beats South Carolina more than they lose.


I certainly hope they never figure out what their problem is.

One thing I learned about South Carolina fans is that they really really really hate you guys. Man that hate is just deep. Those USC fans were saying because they blew you guys out and stopped Spiller, they gonna stop UCONN's running game LOL. I guess they didn't realize our OL and RBs are pretty good.

Trust me when I tell you the hate runs both ways. They stopped us for the same reason you stopped them....Tommy Bowden put too much of a priority on skill position players and not enough on the lines. Much like South Carolina under Holtz and Spurrier they were more concerned with winning recruiting rankings by getting as high a class as possible than building quality depth throughout the roster.

Yep. I always believe games are won in the trenches. UCONN's OL got to be one of the most underrated in the country. Baylor fans were shocked how dominating our OL was against their DL. Same as ND. UCONN OL also manhandled USC's DL to a certain extend. Those skill positions are nice, but football games are won in the trenches. I am also never a big fan of those gimmick offense. To win games, you got to establish the run and then go from there.

That being said, I won't mind UCONN schedule more SEC teams because we play similiar style of game to many SEC teams. We got Tenn and Vandy coming to the Rent in future years but won't mind see few others. A home and home with Clemson won't be so bad either.

(01-04-2010 01:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2010 12:40 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  Obviously recruiting is important but how do you know how good or bad?

I guess it would be possible to calculate a correlation coefficient between recruiting rank and outcomes like wins and BCS bowl participation. That would give us a rough, but not definitive, idea of the import.

Have you ever waited few years until you pronounce this class is good class or you just going by recruit sites? I understand the excitement of getting 4 and 5 stars and he may never get on the field but we are not going to wait and going from site to site telling anyone willing to listen how good our recruiting class going.

(01-02-2010 06:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Edsell is a class act all the way. UConn is well represented by their head football coach...

I like Edsell, but why does he seem itching to leave UCONN?

It's a great job that is only going to get better. Is it just money?