*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (2 Viewers)

[gump]

Official Coaches Poll will be out today at noon.

I'm going to take a wild guess....1) USC 2) LSU 3) UA

 

[The Commish]

Official Coaches Poll will be out today at noon.I'm going to take a wild guess....1) USC 2) LSU 3) UA

probably

 

[The Commish]

Michigan will be in the top 10 for the first weekend hype, but should probably be down in the 15-20 range.

 

[boubucarow]

For comparisons sake, Phil Steele's preseason top 25 (which if you aren't aware, it isn't a prediction, it is simply a power rating sort of thing).

1. Florida State

2. LSU

3. USC

4. Alabama

5. Oklahoma

6. Oregon

7. Texas

8. Florida

9. Georgia

10. Ohio State

11. Arkansas

12. Oklahoma State

13. Wisconsin

14. Stanford

15. Michigan

16. Nebraska

17. Michigan State

18. Clemson

19. Notre Dame

20. South Carolina

21. Tennessee

22. TCU

23. West Virginia

24. Virginia Tech

25. Kansas State

 

[ATC1]

And while we're at it...can one of our LSU faithful explain LSU's acceptance of Bolden? Do they plan on changing his position or something?

Admittedly, been out of touch a bit this offseason; but everything I've read is that Miles wants more depth at QB2. The 2 freshman aren't there yet.I've seen a bit of Bolden's stats....and if he can't do much vs. Big10 defenses, how's he going to hold up in the SEC. That being said, maybe a good OL and great running game could help

He's worse than Jefferson. You'd have to have a RR level defense to have him shine in a good way. That's why I was asking. I just can't believe they want him at the QB position. He'd be an awesome WR or defensive back (safety etc).

Miles said in his press conference yesterday that Bolden's HS coach contacted him 3 months ago about a transfer. He would have had to sit out a year, so there may have been time to make packages to use in in certain situations his senior year. However, now that the scholorship won't count against LSU, I don't see why they wouldn't bring him in.

 

[The Commish]

And while we're at it...can one of our LSU faithful explain LSU's acceptance of Bolden? Do they plan on changing his position or something?

Admittedly, been out of touch a bit this offseason; but everything I've read is that Miles wants more depth at QB2. The 2 freshman aren't there yet.

I've seen a bit of Bolden's stats....and if he can't do much vs. Big10 defenses, how's he going to hold up in the SEC. That being said, maybe a good OL and great running game could help

He's worse than Jefferson. You'd have to have a RR level defense to have him shine in a good way. That's why I was asking. I just can't believe they want him at the QB position. He'd be an awesome WR or defensive back (safety etc).

Miles said in his press conference yesterday that Bolden's HS coach contacted him 3 months ago about a transfer. He would have had to sit out a year, so there may have been time to make packages to use in in certain situations his senior year. However, now that the scholorship won't count against LSU, I don't see why they wouldn't bring him in.

Why wouldn't it? Bolden was dismissed prior to the sanctions coming down. Did the NCAA give a "pardon" to any athlete that ever played there or just the ones that were on the current roster? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

 

[ATC1]

And while we're at it...can one of our LSU faithful explain LSU's acceptance of Bolden? Do they plan on changing his position or something?

Admittedly, been out of touch a bit this offseason; but everything I've read is that Miles wants more depth at QB2. The 2 freshman aren't there yet.

I've seen a bit of Bolden's stats....and if he can't do much vs. Big10 defenses, how's he going to hold up in the SEC. That being said, maybe a good OL and great running game could help

He's worse than Jefferson. You'd have to have a RR level defense to have him shine in a good way. That's why I was asking. I just can't believe they want him at the QB position. He'd be an awesome WR or defensive back (safety etc).

Miles said in his press conference yesterday that Bolden's HS coach contacted him 3 months ago about a transfer. He would have had to sit out a year, so there may have been time to make packages to use in in certain situations his senior year. However, now that the scholorship won't count against LSU, I don't see why they wouldn't bring him in.

Why wouldn't it? Bolden was dismissed prior to the sanctions coming down. Did the NCAA give a "pardon" to any athlete that ever played there or just the ones that were on the current roster? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

What I hear from the radio is that he asked for a transfer, but Joe Pa won't give it too him. There is talk that he would be eligble this season, so I took it he was still with them.

 

[The Commish]

And while we're at it...can one of our LSU faithful explain LSU's acceptance of Bolden? Do they plan on changing his position or something?

Admittedly, been out of touch a bit this offseason; but everything I've read is that Miles wants more depth at QB2. The 2 freshman aren't there yet.

I've seen a bit of Bolden's stats....and if he can't do much vs. Big10 defenses, how's he going to hold up in the SEC. That being said, maybe a good OL and great running game could help

He's worse than Jefferson. You'd have to have a RR level defense to have him shine in a good way. That's why I was asking. I just can't believe they want him at the QB position. He'd be an awesome WR or defensive back (safety etc).

Miles said in his press conference yesterday that Bolden's HS coach contacted him 3 months ago about a transfer. He would have had to sit out a year, so there may have been time to make packages to use in in certain situations his senior year. However, now that the scholorship won't count against LSU, I don't see why they wouldn't bring him in.

Why wouldn't it? Bolden was dismissed prior to the sanctions coming down. Did the NCAA give a "pardon" to any athlete that ever played there or just the ones that were on the current roster? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

What I hear from the radio is that he asked for a transfer, but Joe Pa won't give it too him. There is talk that he would be eligble this season, so I took it he was still with them.

hmmm...interesting. Can a player be dismissed from the team and still need a transfer? Again...I dunno.

 

[gump]

I was off.

1. LSU (18) 13-1 1,403 2

2. Alabama (20) 12-1 1,399 1

3. Southern California (19) 10-2 1,388 NR

4. Oklahoma 10-3 1,276 15

5. Oregon 12-2 1,258 4

6. Georgia 10-4 1,061 20

7. Florida State 9-4 1,055 23

8. Michigan 11-2 1,023 9

9. South Carolina 11-2 981 8

10. Arkansas 11-2 948 5

11. West Virginia 10-3 833 18

12. Wisconsin 11-3 743 11

13. Michigan State 11-3 717 10

14. Clemson 10-4 598 22

15. Texas 8-5 549 NR

16. Nebraska 9-4 501 24

17. TCU 11-2 499 13

18. Stanford 11-2 497 7

19. Oklahoma State 12-1 476 3

20. Virginia Tech 11-3 461 17

21. Kansas State 10-3 398 16

22. Boise State 12-1 271 6

23. Florida 7-6 250 NR

24. Notre Dame 8-5 166 NR

25. Auburn 8-5 66 NR

 

[Tom Servo]

And while we're at it...can one of our LSU faithful explain LSU's acceptance of Bolden? Do they plan on changing his position or something?

Admittedly, been out of touch a bit this offseason; but everything I've read is that Miles wants more depth at QB2. The 2 freshman aren't there yet.

I've seen a bit of Bolden's stats....and if he can't do much vs. Big10 defenses, how's he going to hold up in the SEC. That being said, maybe a good OL and great running game could help

He's worse than Jefferson. You'd have to have a RR level defense to have him shine in a good way. That's why I was asking. I just can't believe they want him at the QB position. He'd be an awesome WR or defensive back (safety etc).

Miles said in his press conference yesterday that Bolden's HS coach contacted him 3 months ago about a transfer. He would have had to sit out a year, so there may have been time to make packages to use in in certain situations his senior year. However, now that the scholorship won't count against LSU, I don't see why they wouldn't bring him in.

Why wouldn't it? Bolden was dismissed prior to the sanctions coming down. Did the NCAA give a "pardon" to any athlete that ever played there or just the ones that were on the current roster? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

PSU fan here. Bolden was already told that he'd be 3rd string on the QB depth chart. Previously, JoePa had refused to release him from his scholarship when he got pissy before last season. When the hammer came down, he was able to transfer without penalty. His scholarship does count against LSUs total IIRC, much like Silas Redd's does at USC and Anthony Fera at Texas.

 

[Slider6]

I was off. 1. LSU (18) 13-1 1,403 2 2. Alabama (20) 12-1 1,399 13. Southern California (19) 10-2 1,388 NR 4. Oklahoma 10-3 1,276 15 5. Oregon 12-2 1,258 4 6. Georgia 10-4 1,061 20 7. Florida State 9-4 1,055 23 8. Michigan 11-2 1,023 9 9. South Carolina 11-2 981 8 10. Arkansas 11-2 948 5 11. West Virginia 10-3 833 18 12. Wisconsin 11-3 743 11 13. Michigan State 11-3 717 10 14. Clemson 10-4 598 22 15. Texas 8-5 549 NR 16. Nebraska 9-4 501 24 17. TCU 11-2 499 13 18. Stanford 11-2 497 7 19. Oklahoma State 12-1 476 3 20. Virginia Tech 11-3 461 17 21. Kansas State 10-3 398 16 22. Boise State 12-1 271 6 23. Florida 7-6 250 NR 24. Notre Dame 8-5 166 NR 25. Auburn 8-5 66 NR

Only 5 SEC teams in the top 10?!?

 

[gump]

This the first time since USA TODAY Sports began administering the coaches' poll in 1991 that the No. 1 team in the preseason had fewer first-place votes than the runner-up. The 15-point spread between first and third is also the tightest of any preseason poll in that span.

This marks only the second time in the BCS era, which began with the 1998 season, that teams that played in the previous BCS title game began the season Nos. 1 and 2 in the coaches' poll. The other time was 1999 with Florida State opening No. 1, followed by Tennessee. FSU was No. 1 every week that season en route to the national title.

Five teams in this year's preseason top 10 — Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, Oregon and Florida State — were in the top 10 to start last season. Alabama, LSU and Oregon still were in the top 10 when the 2011 season ended.

 

[The Commish]

And while we're at it...can one of our LSU faithful explain LSU's acceptance of Bolden? Do they plan on changing his position or something?

Admittedly, been out of touch a bit this offseason; but everything I've read is that Miles wants more depth at QB2. The 2 freshman aren't there yet.

I've seen a bit of Bolden's stats....and if he can't do much vs. Big10 defenses, how's he going to hold up in the SEC. That being said, maybe a good OL and great running game could help

He's worse than Jefferson. You'd have to have a RR level defense to have him shine in a good way. That's why I was asking. I just can't believe they want him at the QB position. He'd be an awesome WR or defensive back (safety etc).

Miles said in his press conference yesterday that Bolden's HS coach contacted him 3 months ago about a transfer. He would have had to sit out a year, so there may have been time to make packages to use in in certain situations his senior year. However, now that the scholorship won't count against LSU, I don't see why they wouldn't bring him in.

Why wouldn't it? Bolden was dismissed prior to the sanctions coming down. Did the NCAA give a "pardon" to any athlete that ever played there or just the ones that were on the current roster? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

PSU fan here. Bolden was already told that he'd be 3rd string on the QB depth chart. Previously, JoePa had refused to release him from his scholarship when he got pissy before last season. When the hammer came down, he was able to transfer without penalty. His scholarship does count against LSUs total IIRC, much like Silas Redd's does at USC and Anthony Fera at Texas.

Thanks!

 

[The Commish]

I'll be so glad when these polls get marginalized.

 

[jb1020]

Good to see those sanctions have set USC back a few years...

 

[gump]

Good to see those sanctions have set USC back a few years...

First remember that the scholarship reductions just began. But its also a unique situation. They have little competition for big time recruits west of Texas right now. That allowed them to load up while they were appealling the reductions (but not appealling the ban bowl). So right now they are full of big time players.Last year, in the first year of the reductions....they signed a bunch of big name kids...but only 15. A few of those were early enrollees....so that allows them to sign up to 18 this year (15 max plus 3 back counters). Still a small number but will be loaded with talent.Rinse and repeat....and they can sign 18 next year too.So what you have this year and the next 3-5 is a talented, but very thin roster. If they suffer a lot of injuries or miss on a decent number of recruits, they'll struggle. If not, they won't.I don't think any other school in the country could keep their top-tier talent up like this other than Texas. An SEC or Big 10 school would get buried by their neighboring competition.

 

[Tom Servo]

Good to see those sanctions have set USC back a few years...

First remember that the scholarship reductions just began. But its also a unique situation. They have little competition for big time recruits west of Texas right now. That allowed them to load up while they were appealling the reductions (but not appealling the ban bowl). So right now they are full of big time players.Last year, in the first year of the reductions....they signed a bunch of big name kids...but only 15. A few of those were early enrollees....so that allows them to sign up to 18 this year (15 max plus 3 back counters). Still a small number but will be loaded with talent.Rinse and repeat....and they can sign 18 next year too.So what you have this year and the next 3-5 is a talented, but very thin roster. If they suffer a lot of injuries or miss on a decent number of recruits, they'll struggle. If not, they won't.I don't think any other school in the country could keep their top-tier talent up like this other than Texas. An SEC or Big 10 school would get buried by their neighboring competition.

Plus they got Silas Redd to transfer in. IIRC, he can qualify as having a scholarship LAST year (don't ask me how; I read it somewhere). Essentially, some kid who would have gotten a ride last year gets bumped out of it for Redd. Not too shabby for Troy.

 

[GDogg]

Good to see those sanctions have set USC back a few years...

First remember that the scholarship reductions just began. But its also a unique situation. They have little competition for big time recruits west of Texas right now. That allowed them to load up while they were appealling the reductions (but not appealling the ban bowl). So right now they are full of big time players.Last year, in the first year of the reductions....they signed a bunch of big name kids...but only 15. A few of those were early enrollees....so that allows them to sign up to 18 this year (15 max plus 3 back counters). Still a small number but will be loaded with talent.

Rinse and repeat....and they can sign 18 next year too.

So what you have this year and the next 3-5 is a talented, but very thin roster. If they suffer a lot of injuries or miss on a decent number of recruits, they'll struggle. If not, they won't.

I don't think any other school in the country could keep their top-tier talent up like this other than Texas. An SEC or Big 10 school would get buried by their neighboring competition.

Nope, they are limited to 15 regardless. Because they only signed 12 for last year's class, the max they can sign this year is 18, as you stated. But, they need 3 of them to enroll early. And, 3 is also the max that can enroll early because they were limited to 15 last year (12 + 3 obviously equals 15).

So, say they sign 18 this year and three go into the 2012 class, then they are completely full for this year at 15. They can't move them around. Next year, assuming those 15 enroll, they will be only allowed to sign 15 because they will have filled up that 15 limit for 2012.

So, yes, they are bringing in really talented kids, but if you look at their upperclassmen, they are actually going to start losing more players in the program than they can sign in the next two recruiting classes. And, that's not even taking into account any medical retirements or players leaving early (Woods and Lee, etc.). As a result, they are going to bring in 15 in the next two classes and are allowed to have 75 total, but they will be below that 75 limit because the 15 they bring in won't completely fill the rides that are departing that count against the 75 limit. I read an analysis that has them being around 70 best case and maybe as low as 66 or 67 when the sanctions are over.

So, they can't afford any injuries, transfers or early departures because they simply can't replace any of the bodies they have in the program other than via other transfers (which is probably what they'll end up doing). And, as you pointed out, with the low numbers, they can't afford for many, if any, of the guys they do sign to end up busts.

 

[GDogg]

I don't think any other school in the country could keep their top-tier talent up like this other than Texas. An SEC or Big 10 school would get buried by their neighboring competition.

I don't know about that. At the risk of praising Southern Cal too much, their neighboring competition has little to do with this. The fact that they are in L.A. obviously helps as this area is a big draw. However, they aren't just loading up on local kids, and beating out Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, etc. for them. They are recruiting nationally and beating out everyone for the cream of the crop.I don't think any other school in the country could keep this up period because I can't remember a school that has been able to pluck more or less whoever they want nationally like they seemingly are.And, if you look at the amount of commits they have, they are now full. But, they are still trying to upgrade those 17 (of the 18) four and five star players and some of their current commits are being encouraged to "look around." It's incredible.

 

[gump]

Nope, they are limited to 15 regardless. Because they only signed 12 for last year's class, the max they can sign this year is 18, as you stated. But, they need 3 of them to enroll early. And, 3 is also the max that can enroll early because they were limited to 15 last year (12 + 3 obviously equals 15).So, say they sign 18 this year and three go into the 2012 class, then they are completely full for this year at 15. They can't move them around. Next year, assuming those 15 enroll, they will be only allowed to sign 15 because they will have filled up that 15 limit for 2012.So, yes, they are bringing in really talented kids, but if you look at their upperclassmen, they are actually going to start losing more players in the program than they can sign in the next two recruiting classes. And, that's not even taking into account any medical retirements or players leaving early (Woods and Lee, etc.). As a result, they are going to bring in 15 in the next two classes and are allowed to have 75 total, but they will be below that 75 limit because the 15 they bring in won't completely fill the rides that are departing that count against the 75 limit. I read an analysis that has them being around 70 best case and maybe as low as 66 or 67 when the sanctions are over.So, they can't afford any injuries, transfers or early departures because they simply can't replace any of the bodies they have in the program other than via other transfers (which is probably what they'll end up doing). And, as you pointed out, with the low numbers, they can't afford for many, if any, of the guys they do sign to end up busts.

Thanks for clarifying....that makes sense.Thats also why I've read some criticism of the Redd transfer. He takes the place of a kid who could play at USC for 4 years...so when he leaves after this year or next, thats another shortage.

 

[GDogg]

Nope, they are limited to 15 regardless. Because they only signed 12 for last year's class, the max they can sign this year is 18, as you stated. But, they need 3 of them to enroll early. And, 3 is also the max that can enroll early because they were limited to 15 last year (12 + 3 obviously equals 15).So, say they sign 18 this year and three go into the 2012 class, then they are completely full for this year at 15. They can't move them around. Next year, assuming those 15 enroll, they will be only allowed to sign 15 because they will have filled up that 15 limit for 2012.So, yes, they are bringing in really talented kids, but if you look at their upperclassmen, they are actually going to start losing more players in the program than they can sign in the next two recruiting classes. And, that's not even taking into account any medical retirements or players leaving early (Woods and Lee, etc.). As a result, they are going to bring in 15 in the next two classes and are allowed to have 75 total, but they will be below that 75 limit because the 15 they bring in won't completely fill the rides that are departing that count against the 75 limit. I read an analysis that has them being around 70 best case and maybe as low as 66 or 67 when the sanctions are over.So, they can't afford any injuries, transfers or early departures because they simply can't replace any of the bodies they have in the program other than via other transfers (which is probably what they'll end up doing). And, as you pointed out, with the low numbers, they can't afford for many, if any, of the guys they do sign to end up busts.

Thanks for clarifying....that makes sense.Thats also why I've read some criticism of the Redd transfer. He takes the place of a kid who could play at USC for 4 years...so when he leaves after this year or next, thats another shortage.

Right. It hurts them for future seasons, but I think Kiffin is going for broke this year. This Barkley's last year and probably Robert Woods' last year, as well. They've got talented kids behind both of them, but it's unrealistic to expect them to be as good as two projected top 10 NFL draft picks.So, the theory is that you aren't winning a championship next year or the year after, so might as well burn those years for the one year (this year) that you do have a shot by bringing in a short term fix at a huge position of weakness with Redd.

 

[gump]

I don't think any other school in the country could keep their top-tier talent up like this other than Texas. An SEC or Big 10 school would get buried by their neighboring competition.

I don't know about that. At the risk of praising Southern Cal too much, their neighboring competition has little to do with this. The fact that they are in L.A. obviously helps as this area is a big draw. However, they aren't just loading up on local kids, and beating out Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, etc. for them. They are recruiting nationally and beating out everyone for the cream of the crop.I don't think any other school in the country could keep this up period because I can't remember a school that has been able to pluck more or less whoever they want nationally like they seemingly are.

I'm going to disagree here because of their first tight class last year of 15 (they signed 30 in '11)...12 were from CA....1 from Washington....2 from Florida. Of their 18 this year....11 are from CA or WA. None from Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, etc.Alabama for example has signed kids this year from CA, NY, NJ, Tx, VA, and Utah.But as great a recruiter as Saban is, Alabama could not pull off what USC is doing with LSU, Florida, UGA, and Auburn within spitting distance.

 

[Tiger Fan]

First game only 4 weeks away

 

[GDogg]

I don't think any other school in the country could keep their top-tier talent up like this other than Texas. An SEC or Big 10 school would get buried by their neighboring competition.

I don't know about that. At the risk of praising Southern Cal too much, their neighboring competition has little to do with this. The fact that they are in L.A. obviously helps as this area is a big draw. However, they aren't just loading up on local kids, and beating out Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, etc. for them. They are recruiting nationally and beating out everyone for the cream of the crop.I don't think any other school in the country could keep this up period because I can't remember a school that has been able to pluck more or less whoever they want nationally like they seemingly are.

I'm going to disagree here because of their first tight class last year of 15 (they signed 30 in '11)...12 were from CA....1 from Washington....2 from Florida. Of their 18 this year....11 are from CA or WA. None from Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, etc.Alabama for example has signed kids this year from CA, NY, NJ, Tx, VA, and Utah.But as great a recruiter as Saban is, Alabama could not pull off what USC is doing with LSU, Florida, UGA, and Auburn within spitting distance.

I disagree and I also think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Look at the ranks of the individual recruits. These are national recruits that had offers from everyone. They don't need to be from specific states. I'm saying Southern Cal is going after the top ranked guys at their positions, regardless of location, and, for the most part, reeling in who they want.And, you don't think 7 out of 18 recruits from out of state is recruiting nationally? And, I'm giving you Max Browne, the #1 ranked QB who is from nowhere remotely close to Southern California up in Washington. They have commits from kids in CA, KY, TX, TN, MD, IL and WA. 13 of their 18 commits this season are from guys ranked in the Top 10 nationally at their position, including three guys ranked #1 at their position (QB, RB and S) and three others ranked #2. It's not because they are recruiting against the Pac-12 that they are getting these guys. It's because they are recruiting at a level unlike any school has ever recruited before. You don't think they were going up against LSU, Florida, UGA, Alabama and Auburn for all of these guys, including the guys from KY, TX and TN?And, you don't think Oregon and Stanford are just as difficult to recruit against as LSU, Florida, UGA and Auburn right now? Stanford lands almost everyone they offer (because it's Stanford) and they are going after a high caliber recruit right now.For the record, I hope they lose every game this season and all these players jump ship, so we no longer have to have such a revolting discussion about that school.

 

[gump]

I disagree and I also think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Look at the ranks of the individual recruits. These are national recruits that had offers from everyone. They don't need to be from specific states. I'm saying Southern Cal is going after the top ranked guys at their positions, regardless of location, and, for the most part, reeling in who they want.

A lot depends on what rankings you look at. 247 has Alabama ranked right behind USC right now, both with 18 signees. And the ranks of their individual recruits are similar.

And, you don't think 7 out of 18 recruits from out of state is recruiting nationally? And, I'm giving you Max Browne, the #1 ranked QB who is from nowhere remotely close to Southern California up in Washington. They have commits from kids in CA, KY, TX, TN, MD, IL and WA. 13 of their 18 commits this season are from guys ranked in the Top 10 nationally at their position, including three guys ranked #1 at their position (QB, RB and S) and three others ranked #2. It's not because they are recruiting against the Pac-12 that they are getting these guys. It's because they are recruiting at a level unlike any school has ever recruited before.You don't think they were going up against LSU, Florida, UGA, Alabama and Auburn for all of these guys, including the guys from KY, TX and TN?

They are recruiting nationally, and beating out great schools in the recruits back yard....as I said....but they are not alone in doing that.

And, you don't think Oregon and Stanford are just as difficult to recruit against as LSU, Florida, UGA and Auburn right now? Stanford lands almost everyone they offer (because it's Stanford) and they are going after a high caliber recruit right now.

No...I don't think Stanford + Oregon = LSU, Florida, UGA, Auburn, and FSU.I'm sure we're both regionally biased....but I think other schools have recruited recently at a similar level...and I also think those schools would have a much tougher time under the same sanctions due to the region they're in.

 

[GDogg]

I disagree and I also think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Look at the ranks of the individual recruits. These are national recruits that had offers from everyone. They don't need to be from specific states. I'm saying Southern Cal is going after the top ranked guys at their positions, regardless of location, and, for the most part, reeling in who they want.

A lot depends on what rankings you look at. 247 has Alabama ranked right behind USC right now, both with 18 signees. And the ranks of their individual recruits are similar.

And, you don't think 7 out of 18 recruits from out of state is recruiting nationally? And, I'm giving you Max Browne, the #1 ranked QB who is from nowhere remotely close to Southern California up in Washington. They have commits from kids in CA, KY, TX, TN, MD, IL and WA. 13 of their 18 commits this season are from guys ranked in the Top 10 nationally at their position, including three guys ranked #1 at their position (QB, RB and S) and three others ranked #2. It's not because they are recruiting against the Pac-12 that they are getting these guys. It's because they are recruiting at a level unlike any school has ever recruited before.

You don't think they were going up against LSU, Florida, UGA, Alabama and Auburn for all of these guys, including the guys from KY, TX and TN?

They are recruiting nationally, and beating out great schools in the recruits back yard....as I said....but they are not alone in doing that.

And, you don't think Oregon and Stanford are just as difficult to recruit against as LSU, Florida, UGA and Auburn right now? Stanford lands almost everyone they offer (because it's Stanford) and they are going after a high caliber recruit right now.

No...I don't think Stanford + Oregon = LSU, Florida, UGA, Auburn, and FSU.I'm sure we're both regionally biased....but I think other schools have recruited recently at a similar level...and I also think those schools would have a much tougher time under the same sanctions due to the region they're in.

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level? I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

Last year, Florida St. was tops with a 3.95 average. Texas in 2011 led with 3.86. Southern Cal in 2010 led with 4.15. They led in 2009 with 3.94. Notre Dame led in 2008 with 3.96. Southern Cal led in 2007 with 4.39 and Florida is the only school that has come close, and it was in that same year with a 4.22 average. In 2006, Southern Cal led with 4.17. In 2005, they led with 4.25. They led in 2004 with a 4.00 average.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

 

[Christo]

OU taking more hits. JUCO signees Latu OL and Gardner WR fail to make grades. Latu was just depth. But Gardner was expected to contribute. RS Frosh Dismuke OL career over before it got started with bum knee.

 

[Tiger Fan]

I still think Kiffin is not a good coach. Might be a helluva recruiter...but not a good coach. USC will not be winning the NC this year.

 

[gump]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level? I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28. ..Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama. Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

 

[gump]

I still think Kiffin is not a good coach. Might be a helluva recruiter...but not a good coach. USC will not be winning the NC this year.

Dooley recruited at a very similar level at their first years in Tennessee. And Kiffin had the same staff....while Dooley was trying to hold the trainwreck Kiffin left together, and he started a month later.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

 

[madhatter]

First game only 4 weeks away

I've never been this excited for a Thursday night Vandy-S Carolina matchup before.

 

[Tom Servo]

I posted this in the Penn State thread, but I thought I'd repost it here as it is also good information for fans of other teams.

Here's a list of transfers I've cobbled together (to the best of my knowledge):(JR) Silas Redd - RB to USC(JR) Anthony Fera - PK to Texas(JR) Rob Bolden - QB to LSU (no loss there)(JR) Khairi Fortt - LB to Cal(True FR) Jamil Pollard - DT to Rutgers(JR) Kevin Haplea - TE to Florida State(Redshirt FR) Ryan Nowicki - OL to Illinois(Redshirt FR) Tim Buckley - S to NC StateJustin Brown is thinking about transferring; his likely destination would be Oklahoma.

 

[The Commish]

I posted this in the Penn State thread, but I thought I'd repost it here as it is also good information for fans of other teams.

Here's a list of transfers I've cobbled together (to the best of my knowledge):(JR) Silas Redd - RB to USC(JR) Anthony Fera - PK to Texas(JR) Rob Bolden - QB to LSU (no loss there)(JR) Khairi Fortt - LB to Cal(True FR) Jamil Pollard - DT to Rutgers(JR) Kevin Haplea - TE to Florida State(Redshirt FR) Ryan Nowicki - OL to Illinois(Redshirt FR) Tim Buckley - S to NC StateJustin Brown is thinking about transferring; his likely destination would be Oklahoma.

Ross Douglas transferred to Michigan.

 

[GDogg]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

 

[GDogg]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

Apples to oranges? How many of those guys actually enrolled?Total signees over the last 5 years: Alabama - 141 (32, 27, 29, 25, 28), Texas - 113 (20, 20, 25, 22, 26), Southern Cal - 102 (19, 18, 20, 30, 15).

As I said, in terms of the average quality of their recruits, Southern Cal is recruiting on a level that only they have done (six times) over the past 10 years.

Southern Cal does have the hotbeds of its homestate to help. Unfortunately, they haven't really needed it.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

 

[GDogg]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

Probably UCLA and they are located 15.3 miles away, give or take.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

Probably UCLA and they are located 15.3 miles away, give or take.

And the next closest would be?

 

[GDogg]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

Probably UCLA and they are located 15.3 miles away, give or take.

And the next closest would be?

Stanford and Cal and they are located about 362 miles, and 378 miles away, respectively.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

Probably UCLA and they are located 15.3 miles away, give or take.

And the next closest would be?

Stanford and Cal and they are located about 362 miles, and 378 miles away, respectively.

Thanks. I think gump's point is that while USC has to "battle" with Cal, Stanford and UCLA, teams like Alabama have to "battle" with teams like Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Florida, FSU, etc who are that close or closer. I'd consider that a positive for USC when comparing them to Alabama (no offense to Cal, Stanford or UCLA fans).

 

[GDogg]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

Probably UCLA and they are located 15.3 miles away, give or take.

And the next closest would be?

Stanford and Cal and they are located about 362 miles, and 378 miles away, respectively.

Thanks. I think gump's point is that while USC has to "battle" with Cal, Stanford and UCLA, teams like Alabama have to "battle" with teams like Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Florida, FSU, etc who are that close or closer. I'd consider that a positive for USC when comparing them to Alabama (no offense to Cal, Stanford or UCLA fans).

Ok. But, that wasn't your point. And, I was replying to you.You said Southern Cal (and Texas) are insulted by 500+ miles of not having any schools that were comparable. I don't think that's true at all.

If you want to go to Southern Cal and you are a California kid, UCLA offers all of the same things as Southern Cal (other than the great football program right now), but in a much nicer area of Los Angeles. None of those schools you mentioned with Alabama are remotely as close to Alabama as Southern Cal and UCLA are. UCLA and Southern Cal are often finalists for a lot of the California kids. Southern Cal has won many more of those battles over the last 10 years, but UCLA certainly has brought in a lot of talented players that considered Southern Cal (and the interest was reciprocated). I know you're new to following football recruiting, but just look at UCLA's recruit rankings over the last 5 years. Outside of a down 2011 class, they've brought in great talent, many of which Southern Cal would have liked to have had.

Texas A&M is a little over 100 miles from Texas.

If you are now saying there are more schools within a 500 mile radius, then I'll agree. But, that's not what you said.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

What do you mean? The majority of the kids they have commitments from this season are from about 500 miles away or further (only 7 of their 18 are from SoCal).I'm not comparing UCLA to Southern Cal on the football field recently, but they are a Pac-12 school that has been historically very good and has actually recruited extremely well even in these terrible times on the field (CFB Matrix has their recruiting on par with schools that have played in the BCS title game over the past 12 years). UCLA, located in the same city as Southern Cal, isn't comparable? I can't think of many schools where that's the case.

Let me try a different way. Who's USC's biggest competition in recruiting and how close are they to USC?

Probably UCLA and they are located 15.3 miles away, give or take.

And the next closest would be?

Stanford and Cal and they are located about 362 miles, and 378 miles away, respectively.

Thanks. I think gump's point is that while USC has to "battle" with Cal, Stanford and UCLA, teams like Alabama have to "battle" with teams like Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Florida, FSU, etc who are that close or closer. I'd consider that a positive for USC when comparing them to Alabama (no offense to Cal, Stanford or UCLA fans).

Ok. But, that wasn't your point. And, I was replying to you.You said Southern Cal (and Texas) are insulted by 500+ miles of not having any schools that were comparable. I don't think that's true at all.

If you want to go to Southern Cal and you are a California kid, UCLA offers all of the same things as Southern Cal (other than the great football program right now), but in a much nicer area of Los Angeles. None of those schools you mentioned with Alabama are remotely as close to Alabama as Southern Cal and UCLA are. UCLA and Southern Cal are often finalists for a lot of the California kids. Southern Cal has won many more of those battles over the last 10 years, but UCLA certainly has brought in a lot of talented players that considered Southern Cal (and the interest was reciprocated). I know you're new to following football recruiting, but just look at UCLA's recruit rankings over the last 5 years. Outside of a down 2011 class, they've brought in great talent, many of which Southern Cal would have liked to have had.

Texas A&M is a little over 100 miles from Texas.

If you are now saying there are more schools within a 500 mile radius, then I'll agree. But, that's not what you said.

It appears that our definitions of "comparable" are different...and, no, that's not a slap at UCLA. I tend to believe there are more schools closer closer to Alabama who are also closer in quality of program. When UCLA gets rolling, and I suspect they will, USC will then have ONE (maybe two schools if Stanford doesn't regress) comparable to the to compete with. The same can't be said for most other schools.

 

[prefontaine]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

Really confused why everyone keeps including Texas in this list. The vast majority of talent in the state of Texas is located in three areas: DFW, Houston, East Texas. - DFW is about equidistant between OU and UT (as well as A&M and Ok State and Arkansas is not much further)

- Houston is a lot closer to A&M and LSU is only a bit further away than Austin

- East Texas is closer to Arkansas or LSU in many cases, and A&M in all cases

And these are just vs the major programs (though to be fair, outside of that list I doubt UT loses any recruiting battles even with an average coach). Very little talent is from Austin or any area west of Austin where there are no real D1 competitors outside of Tech (nor is there real population base). UT's success is because (a) Mack Brown is a phenomenal recruiter, (b) UT is historically a very good program, and © there is a bit of an inherent bias towards Texas kids on recruiting sites (the founder of Rivals is a UT grad. He went on to found 247 as well...they have more sources from UT itself than most other schools).

Otoh, much of the top talent in Cali is from Southern Cal, the higher density area that USC sits in the middle of

 

[GDogg]

I hate Southern Cal, so I am loathe to give them any credit, but which schools have recruited recently at a similar level?

I'm not able to look up all sites right now, but according to Scout, Southern Cal has 13 of their 18 commits ranked in the top 100 nationally with 6 five stars, 11 four stars and 1 three star (who is the #2 ranked C in the country). Their average star per commit is an astounding 4.28.

.

.

Since 2003, only Florida in one year (2007) has recruited close to the level of recruit that Southern Cal has. Southern Cal is the only school to have had multiple seasons (or any seasons for that matter other than Florida) of an average star per recruit of 4 or above and they've done it six times since 2003.

I realize SEC schools have pulled in great recruiting classes, too, (as have Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-12 schools) but no school has brought in the average amount of 4 and 5 star talent (looking at star averages) that Southern Cal has since 2003.

Total 4 and 5 stars over the last 5 years: Alabama 90, Texas 80, USC 77. Back to my original point...if you are spreading as far as Oregon when looking at USC's 'local' competition....you have to include schools like Clemson, Miami, South Carolina in addition to LSU, UGA, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Tennessee, etc for Alabama.

Texas and USC have the natural insulaton of their home state hotbeds to help thru rough times. Florida has it to a smaller degree. Georgia and LSU to an even smaller degree. Alabama doesn't have it all.

This is the key to the discussion IMO. I don't think there's any question that all these schools recruit good players, but both USC and Texas have a leg up when it comes to the "close to home" factor. For a lot of kids who are considering USC or Texas, the next comparable institution is 500+ miles from them. I can't think of any other schools where that's the case.

Really confused why everyone keeps including Texas in this list. The vast majority of talent in the state of Texas is located in three areas: DFW, Houston, East Texas. - DFW is about equidistant between OU and UT (as well as A&M and Ok State and Arkansas is not much further)

- Houston is a lot closer to A&M and LSU is only a bit further away than Austin

- East Texas is closer to Arkansas or LSU in many cases, and A&M in all cases

And these are just vs the major programs (though to be fair, outside of that list I doubt UT loses any recruiting battles even with an average coach). Very little talent is from Austin or any area west of Austin where there are no real D1 competitors outside of Tech (nor is there real population base). UT's success is because (a) Mack Brown is a phenomenal recruiter, (b) UT is historically a very good program, and © there is a bit of an inherent bias towards Texas kids on recruiting sites (the founder of Rivals is a UT grad. He went on to found 247 as well...they have more sources from UT itself than most other schools).

Otoh, much of the top talent in Cali is from Southern Cal, the higher density area that USC sits in the middle of

I guess it depends on what you mean by "much of the top talent." While there are more talented players in SoCal by virtue of the fact that there are more people down here, NoCal, particularly the Sacramento area recently, has a lot of talent. The talent base in California is pretty much in L.A./Orange County, the Inland Empire, and the Bay Area/Sacto region. Arguably the top HS football program of the last 20+ years in the country is located in the Bay Area - Concord De La Salle.

 

[prefontaine]

But a place like IE is as close to USC as any other BCS level program. They have a base where a number of top players are from and other areas (LV is another hotbed) that are equidistant. IMO there are several programs that have this situation (Miami, LSU come to mind) but none to quite the degree.

I guess I'd put it like this. Here is the Rivals 100 from 2012

Cali kids:

4. Shaq Thompson (Sacramento)

19. Kyle Murphy (LA)

21. Ellis McCarthy (LA)

27. Aziz ####tu (Inland)

29. Jordan Simmons (LA)

40. Jabari Ruffin (LA)

44. Zach Kline (Bay Area)

46. Max Tuerk (LA)

49. Deontay Greenberry (Inland)

61. Arik Armstead (Sacramento)

76. Tee Shepherd (Inland)

78. Erik Magnuson (SD)

81. Bryce Treggs (LA)

82. Kevon Seymour (LA)

87. Gabriel Marks (LA)

93. Jordan Payton (LA)

Tx kids

3. Mario Edwards (DFW)

5. Johnathan Gray (DFW)

15. Trey Williams (Houston)

26. Malcolm Brown (east TX)

34. Thomas Johnson (DFW)

39. Kendall Sanders (east TX)

41. Cayleb Jones (Austin)

65. Javonte Magee (San Antonio)

67. Kennedy Estelle (Houston)

69. Devante Harris (DFW)

86. Ladarrell McNeil (DFW)

96. Curtis Riser (DFW)

So looking at that, there were 9 players from the LA area in the top 100 players in the country. There were 12 total from the entire state of Texas

 

[GDogg]

But a place like IE is as close to USC as any other BCS level program. They have a base where a number of top players are from and other areas (LV is another hotbed) that are equidistant. IMO there are several programs that have this situation (Miami, LSU come to mind) but none to quite the degree.

I guess I'd put it like this. Here is the Rivals 100 from 2012

Cali kids:

4. Shaq Thompson (Sacramento)

19. Kyle Murphy (LA)

21. Ellis McCarthy (LA)

27. Aziz ####tu (Inland)

29. Jordan Simmons (LA)

40. Jabari Ruffin (LA)

44. Zach Kline (Bay Area)

46. Max Tuerk (LA)

49. Deontay Greenberry (Inland)

61. Arik Armstead (Sacramento)

76. Tee Shepherd (Inland)

78. Erik Magnuson (SD)

81. Bryce Treggs (LA)

82. Kevon Seymour (LA)

87. Gabriel Marks (LA)

93. Jordan Payton (LA)

Tx kids

3. Mario Edwards (DFW)

5. Johnathan Gray (DFW)

15. Trey Williams (Houston)

26. Malcolm Brown (east TX)

34. Thomas Johnson (DFW)

39. Kendall Sanders (east TX)

41. Cayleb Jones (Austin)

65. Javonte Magee (San Antonio)

67. Kennedy Estelle (Houston)

69. Devante Harris (DFW)

86. Ladarrell McNeil (DFW)

96. Curtis Riser (DFW)

So looking at that, there were 9 players from the LA area in the top 100 players in the country. There were 12 total from the entire state of Texas

I think you need to brush up on your LA area knowledge. I'll count Orange County as LA. And, I'd even give you the IE, but I'm not sure you are clear on where/what the IE is.Tee Shepherd and Deontay Greenberry are from Fresno. That's not the IE or LA-area. It's the central valley and is much closer to the Bay Area than LA.

Aziz ####tu is from Atwater, which is in Merced County up near Sacramento. It's not in the IE, either. It's not remotely close.

I'm not denying that LA is hotbed for talent. I'm saying that the Bay Area/Sacto is also a hotbed for talent and those guys are just as likely to go elsewhere as Southern Cal. If you note, none of the guys from outside SoCal went to Southern Cal: Shaq Thompson (UW), Aziz ####tu (Stanford), Zach Kline (Cal), Deontay Greenberry (Houston), Arik Armstead (Oregon), and Tee Shepherd (Notre Dame and now a JC).

And, of the LA guys, only Simmons, Ruffin, Seymour and Tuerk went to Southern Cal. The rest went to UCLA (McCarthy, Payton), Stanford (Murphy), Cal (Treggs), or UW (Marks).

 

[prefontaine]

I think you need to brush up on your LA area knowledge. I'll count Orange County as LA.

Just trying to make it easier geographically than saying OC vs LA or North Texas vs DFW (most in DFW would not include Aledo for instance) or East Tx (Brenham is more central but whatever). If you want to nitpick, have at it.

And, of the LA guys, only Simmons, Ruffin, Seymour and Tuerk went to Southern Cal. The rest went to UCLA (McCarthy, Payton), Stanford (Murphy), Cal (Treggs), or UW (Marks).

And? There are 100 reasons why a kid chooses the school he goes to. Proximity is one. Actually being offered a scholarship is another. I'm not arguing that USC hasn't done a good job. But ten of the top 100 players in the country went to high school a stone's throw from their campus. And no other BCS school outside of UCLA is even remotely near. It's fairly ludicrous to me to not acknowledge these amazing natural resources have a good deal to do with their recruiting success

 

[shader]

USC could recruit in a 50 mile radius only and field a 8-9 win team. No other team has the inherent advantages that they do.

 

[GDogg]

I think you need to brush up on your LA area knowledge. I'll count Orange County as LA.

Just trying to make it easier geographically than saying OC vs LA or North Texas vs DFW (most in DFW would not include Aledo for instance) or East Tx (Brenham is more central but whatever). If you want to nitpick, have at it.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm pointing out that three of the players you identified as from the IE, which I acknowledged is part of the LA-area, are from places that are either north of the Bay Area or from the Central Valley, which is closer to the Bay Area. Orange County is part of LA for recruiting purposes as well.

And, of the LA guys, only Simmons, Ruffin, Seymour and Tuerk went to Southern Cal. The rest went to UCLA (McCarthy, Payton), Stanford (Murphy), Cal (Treggs), or UW (Marks).

And? There are 100 reasons why a kid chooses the school he goes to. Proximity is one. Actually being offered a scholarship is another. I'm not arguing that USC hasn't done a good job. But ten of the top 100 players in the country went to high school a stone's throw from their campus. And no other BCS school outside of UCLA is even remotely near. It's fairly ludicrous to me to not acknowledge these amazing natural resources have a good deal to do with their recruiting success

I'm not sure we disagree.Where did I not acknowledge that LA is a hotbed of talent or that Southern Cal (and UCLA) is not fortunate to have that? My point is that Southern Cal focuses on the top guys at their positions, regardless of location, but is obviously going to go after the local studs, too. The fact that many are in SoCal is a sweet bonus. Those guys are going to be more inclined to stay local. But, on top of that, unlike Texas or Alabama or Florida or anyone else, Southern Cal is going across the country and plucking several guys that are four and five star kids that are being recruited by all of the big time schools.