Here's another reason to hope your coaching staff is finding the "best" players to fit your program rather than worrying about how someone else "ranks" them. Wonder how many other high-rated groups in the past should have been re-evaluated.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...26842.html

(07-12-2014 05:47 PM)uiniu57 Wrote:  Here's another reason to hope your coaching staff is finding the "best" players to fit your program rather than worrying about how someone else "ranks" them. Wonder how many other high-rated groups in the past should have been re-evaluated.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...26842.html

Over 1/3 did not qualify initially and some may not qualify at all. How many will flunk out after a semester? OK, it's SC, probably none.

Hmmm, according to U.S. News South Carolina isn't terribly hard to get into (60% acceptance rate; NIU's is around 52%) so Spurrier really messed up.

What does a player not being acidemically eligible have to do with recruiting rankings? I will agree that getting players that fit the system is important, but a gifted athlete is still a valuable thing to have.

Quote:South Carolina’s 2014 recruiting class, which was ranked No. 16

Ranked number 16 by those that have no idea if the athletes can get into school.

A 1 star athlete that makes one play in four years but helps the team is far more valuable than a five star athlete that never gets in. Their "gift" is completely wasted.