~/Desktop $ echo "I think @cycjob is a troll" | sed 's/cyc/troll/"
I think @trolljob is a troll.
I think @trolljob is a troll.
Top 40 Recruiting Class
- Thread starter cycjob
- Start date
I think that we should be shooting for top 30 classes. That should be good enough to field a team that can compete for B12 titles. Honestly, we've been competing the past two years, but fell just a game or two short of the title game. Campbell has stacked 3 pretty good classes on top of each other. The depth this coming year at most positions will be better than it's ever been at ISU. But, I think that to get into the top 30, we need another good season and we need to get that new building finished.
While improvement is certainly worth noting, I see us 46 on one site. Let's hope we keep moving up because there are a lot of names ahead of us that nobody wants to see there. A little disappointing after the early season fanfare.
Most recruiting sites base their stars on who is recruiting the kid -if Alabama is offering, up goes their stock, etc.. If we get to top 20 status a few years in a row that would likely have an affect on the kids' star ratings that we offer. Right now an ISU offer doesn't raise the needle much, but as time goes on and we become more relevant, the stars get increased when we offer. If you put 10 running backs on film, they will rank them by who offered which ones, not which ones they think are really the best, IMO.
You can think I'm a troll if you want, but I want to see ISU become an elite team. It's hard to do that if can never get the athletes. I don't think facilities hold us back anymore. I understand it takes time to change perceptions. I just wonder what else we have to do to get the better athletes.
It will be nice when we are competing on an even footing, at least with the TOE. Beating them into submission would give me a warm fuzzy.
Your response is a reflection of your own biases. I want ISU to continue to get better and that was the point of my post.
We started from a big hole, but with new facilities and success, we should be nearly out of that hole and need to be raising our sights.
Campbell does a terrific job of recruiting diamonds in the rough, but eventually competing with the Oklahoma's and Texas' of the world requires that we have comparable athletes.
Understand the OP's sentiment but recruiting rankings are largely a pile of doggie poo. Obviously a 4 or 5 star has considerable potential, but outside a couple dozen kids each year that are freaks and going to one of the blue bloods, there isn't that much difference between number 50 and number 500 on the rankings. (See Lanning, Rose, Butler, Montgomery, Purdy, etc for examples). I look at like - you have the top 10 classes - Bama, Clemson, OU, tOSU - that will get theirs. Then you have 11-40 that get good enough - for those, it depends on how well the coaches can effectively use the talent. That is why a Boise State, Cincinnati, etc can compete year in, year out.
Long Story, Short -
I am completely comfortable CMC can get us to where we want to be with classes in the 25-40 range.
Long Story, Short -
I am completely comfortable CMC can get us to where we want to be with classes in the 25-40 range.
No, I'm not criticizing the success so far. I think Campbell is doing an amazing job. We will need to continue to improve all aspects of the program to meet long term goals and that includes attracting the best athletes.
You are probably correct about recruiting rankings, but thinking back to the Texas game last year it was pretty obvious that we were outmatched on the offensive and defensive lines.
Some of that can be cured by developing players, but we need kids with a high ceiling at least. If they come in with a high floor, then at least when they are developed they are not starting from so far behind our competition.
Agree completely. I would expect/hope we see that gap close some this year. That probably determines if we can be a good team or a conference title contender.
