(12-23-2017 11:24 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 11:03 AM)owlman70 Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 10:07 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I shouldn't be amazed at how posters twist themselves into a pretzel trying to avoid reality.

1. I specifically stated that Rice is not in play for the top players; nonetheless, it is reasonable to infer that the better the player, the more likely he is to sign early. Ergo, the players who did not sign early (the pool of remaining players) are likely of lower caliber.

2. If you look at lists of signees per school, there aren't many FBS schools that signed fewer than 15.

So, since Bailiff is gone, I suppose every excuse in the world will be used to give Bloomgren a pass.

Just curious to know what results would make you happy in our situation after Bloom has only been on the job 2 weeks?

It's not a matter of making me happy; rather, it is simply to be objective about the situation. I see nothing wrong in stating both (1) that the recruiting situation is horrible, AND (2) that Bloomgren has some reasons why this has occurred. But, I believe that it is folly to pretend that (1) does not exist.

Your posts read like you believe that the recruiting situation would not be horrible if Bloomgren had done things differently. If so, you are being unreasonable.

Then you bring in a completely spurious point about the lack of blue chips and try to attribute some significance to it.

Next, you deplore the lack of early signees as though it would actually be better to sign somebody, any body -even the fired coach's recruits - just to fill up the spots quick, instead of taking time to do some real recruiting before the February signing period.

Bloomgren hasn't even settled into his office and you're already sharpening your axe. What do you have against him?