(09-28-2015 11:00 PM)geef Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:45 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I may very well be slightly incorrect but I would like to see the math on your claim. I just checked rivals and the numbers support my statement not yours.

The majority of Oregons team going back to 2012 is 2-3 star recruits.

More than slightly incorrect. I'm not sure what you're looking at. Whether on Rivals or Scout, they rarely offer a scholarship to a 2-star, and at approximately half of each year's recruits are 4- or 5-star. They're among the best recruiting teams in the nation. Numbers below. I just wasted 10 minutes typing these, and I hope the Ducks fail miserably in the future.

2011
Scout - 22 out of 23 are 3-star and better. 11 4-star, 1 5-star 1 2-star
Rivals - 21 our of 23 are 3-star and better.

2012
Scout - 20 out of 21 are 3-star and better. 10 4-star, 1 5-star, 1 2 star
Rivals - 19 or 21 are 3-star and better.

2013
Scout - 18 out of 19 are 3-star and better. 8 4-star, 1 5-star, 1 2-star
Rivals - 15 or 19 are 3-star and better.

2014
Scout - 19 out of 20 3-star and better.
Rivals - 18 out of 20 3-star and better.

2015
Scout - All 22 3-star and better.
Rivals - All 22 3-star and better.

Hey I mentioned I may be wrong but that's still a spin on words..... Add up the actual numbers. The majority of their recruits are three star players. And the number of 2 star vs 4-5 star recruits is very close.

Rivals only if you are going to.

The point being is if you compare Oregon to Ohio State, USC, or Alabama you see a huge difference in talent. How many three star recruits do you think USC or Alabama take in per year? Not to say Oregon does not recruit better than most teams. I'm not comparing them to most teams, I'm comparing them to the elites.

So good for them if they make the top 25 in recruiting that's not an impressive feat because about 14 teams get most of the elite talent every year.

(09-29-2015 07:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The point being is if you compare Oregon to Ohio State, USC, or Alabama you see a huge difference in talent. How many three star recruits do you think USC or Alabama take in per year? Not to say Oregon does not recruit better than most teams. I'm not comparing them to most teams, I'm comparing them to the elites.

So good for them if they make the top 25 in recruiting that's not an impressive feat because about 14 teams get most of the elite talent every year.

From a school that depends on underrated 3* recruits in the West, I can tell you that most of those 3* kids Oregon takes are the same diamond in the rough guys that our coaches had evaluated as better than their ranking. Their brand appeal was scary good, and you basically had to hope they never offer your commits.

(09-29-2015 07:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The point being is if you compare Oregon to Ohio State, USC, or Alabama you see a huge difference in talent. How many three star recruits do you think USC or Alabama take in per year? Not to say Oregon does not recruit better than most teams. I'm not comparing them to most teams, I'm comparing them to the elites.

So good for them if they make the top 25 in recruiting that's not an impressive feat because about 14 teams get most of the elite talent every year.

But, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that Oregon gets by on mostly 2-star and 3-star recruits. Using Rivals, which you seem to like, Oregon has brought in a total of 7 2-star players in 5 years. Their average class ranking is 16th over that time. There may be a difference in talent between top teams, but it isn't "huge". Why on earth am I arguing this, by the way? I can't stand the Ducks.

It's extremely tough for one team let alone 2 t win at football where you need at least 10 terrific players to be successful when a program is based in a state that produces very little talent.

Oregon and Idaho(Boise) produce very little instate talent. Yep they have California to work but competing against 4 instate 12 PAC programs along with 3 instate MWC teams and Cal Poly who is attractive to engineering students and those who actually want to get an education while they play football will make it increasingly harder for programs in states that don't produce much football talent to succeed.

(09-29-2015 09:34 AM)geef Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The point being is if you compare Oregon to Ohio State, USC, or Alabama you see a huge difference in talent. How many three star recruits do you think USC or Alabama take in per year? Not to say Oregon does not recruit better than most teams. I'm not comparing them to most teams, I'm comparing them to the elites.

So good for them if they make the top 25 in recruiting that's not an impressive feat because about 14 teams get most of the elite talent every year.

But, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that Oregon gets by on mostly 2-star and 3-star recruits. Using Rivals, which you seem to like, Oregon has brought in a total of 7 2-star players in 5 years. Their average class ranking is 16th over that time. There may be a difference in talent between top teams, but it isn't "huge". Why on earth am I arguing this, by the way? I can't stand the Ducks.

Oregon made a living off recruits that would normally go to USC, but the Trojans were on probation, which helped make Oregon an attractive alternative. USC is now off probation, and UCLA is making strides. So many of the more talented kids that the Ducks were getting are now staying closer to home. That's what's going on here.

(09-29-2015 09:46 AM)Policiious Wrote:  It's extremely tough for one team let alone 2 t win at football where you need at least 10 terrific players to be successful when a program is based in a state that produces very little talent.

Oregon and Idaho(Boise) produce very little instate talent. Yep they have California to work but competing against 4 instate 12 PAC programs along with 3 instate MWC teams and Cal Poly who is attractive to engineering students and those who actually want to get an education while they play football will make it increasingly harder for programs in states that don't produce much football talent to succeed.

I get that's it's difficult to compete, but why would it be increasingly difficult? California hasn't added Division 1 teams recently, and they don't appear likely to. In most respects, it's probably much easier to compete now than it was 20 years ago. Most games are televised, so you don't necessarily need a local presence as much. Airfare is historically cheap, making it easier for recruits to visit campuses, and most schools in the Pac-12 are on relatively equal footing with respect to facilities. Oregon and Idaho have had some of the highest population growth rates in the country over the past decade, so you could also argue that the in-state talent pool will continue to increase (it actually has increased in Oregon over the last decade).

(09-29-2015 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:34 AM)geef Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The point being is if you compare Oregon to Ohio State, USC, or Alabama you see a huge difference in talent. How many three star recruits do you think USC or Alabama take in per year? Not to say Oregon does not recruit better than most teams. I'm not comparing them to most teams, I'm comparing them to the elites.

So good for them if they make the top 25 in recruiting that's not an impressive feat because about 14 teams get most of the elite talent every year.

But, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that Oregon gets by on mostly 2-star and 3-star recruits. Using Rivals, which you seem to like, Oregon has brought in a total of 7 2-star players in 5 years. Their average class ranking is 16th over that time. There may be a difference in talent between top teams, but it isn't "huge". Why on earth am I arguing this, by the way? I can't stand the Ducks.

Oregon made a living off recruits that would normally go to USC, but the Trojans were on probation, which helped make Oregon an attractive alternative. USC is now off probation, and UCLA is making strides. So many of the more talented kids that the Ducks were getting are now staying closer to home. That's what's going on here.

Now that's a good point. I'll buy that.

It all depends on the coach and if he can maintain the success....

A lot of people have been saying that LSU is on their way down for years, but Les Miles has managed to keep the recruiting hot, and 2011 and this year they have started out strong

Oregon has the national name now...I'm sure they can recruit pretty well

(09-29-2015 10:57 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  It all depends on the coach and if he can maintain the success....

A lot of people have been saying that LSU is on their way down for years, but Les Miles has managed to keep the recruiting hot, and 2011 and this year they have started out strong

Oregon has the national name now...I'm sure they can recruit pretty well

They'll be ok in the long term if they recruit SoCal as well as they have in the last 5 years. If they don't, then other Pac-12 programs will get those guys, and they'll have a talent gap.

(09-29-2015 09:46 AM)Policiious Wrote:  It's extremely tough for one team let alone 2 t win at football where you need at least 10 terrific players to be successful when a program is based in a state that produces very little talent.

Oregon and Idaho(Boise) produce very little instate talent. Yep they have California to work but competing against 4 instate 12 PAC programs along with 3 instate MWC teams and Cal Poly who is attractive to engineering students and those who actually want to get an education while they play football will make it increasingly harder for programs in states that don't produce much football talent to succeed.

Ultimately, kids want to win...they go to the schools that are winning. Whenever a school wins a National championship, that's a good solid 5 years of good recruiting right there....Miami, FSU, USC, Alabama, LSU....they stockpile and ooze recruits, because they win championships

Oregon has played for a National championship twice in the last 5 years. Recruits want to play there...for that recruiting to taper off, you'll have to see Oregon descend out of the spotlight for a few years

No
It
Keeps
Existing

^

Clever.

(09-29-2015 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Oregon made a living off recruits that would normally go to USC, but the Trojans were on probation, which helped make Oregon an attractive alternative. USC is now off probation, and UCLA is making strides. So many of the more talented kids that the Ducks were getting are now staying closer to home. That's what's going on here.

And Chip Kelly being gone.

(09-29-2015 09:46 AM)Policiious Wrote:  Oregon and Idaho(Boise) produce very little instate talent. Yep they have California to work but competing against 4 instate 12 PAC programs along with 3 instate MWC teams and Cal Poly who is attractive to engineering students and those who actually want to get an education while they play football will make it increasingly harder for programs in states that don't produce much football talent to succeed.

Good one, how many of those are there per 1,000 recruits? Especially recruits that are difference makers?