Started By
Message
Bama owns 10% of the nation's Top 100 with ten months to go.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:06 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:06 am
SDS - Bama dominating early recruiting rankings.
Does it even matter in the overall scheme of things in the ultra competitive SEC? It's already been proven that it's not just about recruiting, but about coaching, about chemistry, about getting the bounce of the ball, or the tip of the ball, or the run-back of the ball.
Does it matter that Bama is now doing what Notre Dame used to do decades ago ... select, rather than recruit? Does it mean they'll automatically dominate the immediate foreseeable future?
(Other teams in the SEC might have 5% of the Top 100, or 7% or even 3%, but still have better chemistry, or have a couple of special players at important positions.)
Is Bama overloaded with blue chippers while not having enough blue collar players?
Is it possible that the rankings are skewed based upon who Bama offers even?
Edited: to repair link, expound on question, correct subject line.
quote:
Excerpted as follows:
For a good chunk of 2014, Alabama didn’t occupy the nation’s No. 1 recruiting ranking. But in a one-weekend span, the Crimson Tide reclaimed the driver’s seat and are speeding away from the competition.
It would be tough to see anybody catch them now. That’ll happen when it’s 10 months to national signing day and you already have 10 of the national top 100 already on board.
Goodness gracious.
Continued in link above.
Does it even matter in the overall scheme of things in the ultra competitive SEC? It's already been proven that it's not just about recruiting, but about coaching, about chemistry, about getting the bounce of the ball, or the tip of the ball, or the run-back of the ball.
Does it matter that Bama is now doing what Notre Dame used to do decades ago ... select, rather than recruit? Does it mean they'll automatically dominate the immediate foreseeable future?
(Other teams in the SEC might have 5% of the Top 100, or 7% or even 3%, but still have better chemistry, or have a couple of special players at important positions.)
Is Bama overloaded with blue chippers while not having enough blue collar players?
Is it possible that the rankings are skewed based upon who Bama offers even?
Edited: to repair link, expound on question, correct subject line.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 9:15 am
21
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:07 am to scrooster
It doesn't matter one bit, people put too much stock in recruiting these kids IMO.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:08 am to RT1941
Yep, hasn't helped us one bit. 
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:08 am to scrooster
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:10 am to scrooster
Won't mean a thing if it doesn't translate onto the field. They will struggle at QB and OL this yr. It's what you do with the talent. It's a whole nother world in SEC college ball vs high school.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:10 am to scrooster
10% of the top 10 = 1 player
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:11 am to scrooster
quote:
Bama owns 10% of the nation's Top 10
That's 1 top 10 guy. Nice.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:11 am to scrooster
People would be dumb to think that whole class sticks with ten months to go!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:11 am to SouthOfSouth
quote:
That's 1 top 10 guy. Nice.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:12 am to scrooster
quote:
Does it even matter?
Does getting really good players matter? I'm going to go with yes.
It's certainly not the only thing that matters, but I'll take what Alabama has done the last 5 years all day every day.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:13 am to scrooster
quote:
It's already been proven that it's not just about recruiting
link??
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 9:14 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:19 am to bona fide
quote:
link??
Link to what?
Link to common sense? You need a link to the obvious?
Do #1 classes always translate into eventual national championship games? Or do national championships translate into #1 classes, eventually?
It's a which came first, the chicken or the egg question.
Saban did not have #1 classes at LSU. Nor did he have a team full of #1 classes the first time he won the BCSCG at Bama.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:21 am to scrooster
quote:
Does it even matter
No, of course not. How would getting the most good players help a team?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:22 am to scrooster
You can't bang on other posters after screwing up the thread title so bad
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:22 am to scrooster
quote:
Saban did not have #1 classes at LSU
Yes he did.
quote:
Nor did he have a team full of #1 classes the first time he won the BCSCG at Bama.
Half of the team was a part of a #1 ranked recruiting class.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:24 am to scrooster
quote:
Saban did not have #1 classes at LSU. Nor did he have a team full of #1 classes the first time he won the BCSCG at Bama
Link?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:25 am to scrooster
quote:
Saban did not have #1 classes at LSU. Nor did he have a team full of #1 classes the first time he won the BCSCG at Bama.
you're pitiful
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:26 am to Tuscaloosa
not to worried about it. The degrees of separation in the top 10 or so are pretty small. As long as needs are filled with good to elite talent, you should be fine.
Bama has been stockpiling talent but still has a hole at one of the most important positions on the field. It happens.
Bama has been stockpiling talent but still has a hole at one of the most important positions on the field. It happens.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:27 am to scrooster
quote:
Saban did not have #1 classes at LSU. Nor did he have a team full of #1 classes the first time he won the BCSCG at Bama.
That is a great point. While he did have a great class come in in 2008, most of that team was not 4 or 5 star players. That showed some great coaching to get what he did in 08 and 09.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:27 am to bona fide
What scares me is I have heard Kiffin is the coach in waiting.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News