re: Don’t sugarcoat it

Some of you need to get a grip on reality, and that reality is that when schools like OU, USC, and Bama come calling it’s hard to say no.

No amount of TSF donations or rah-rah antics will ever change that. The reality is that MU football spent the better part of 2 decades dismantling any modicum of a football pedigree. It is not a destination school for most blue chip athletes.

GP did a nice job of fixing some of that stuff, but it’s a tough road to hoe.

Some of these kids probably want to get as far away from Missouri as they can, and from their perspective it probably makes perfect sense.

I think it’s more important to focus on states that develop tons of talent and continue to identify pertinent talent that is interested in coming to Mizzou and coach them up.

I’ll take the occasional 4 or 5*, or the occasional top 25 class, but I just don’t think that’s something to start expecting.

My concern is that BO won’t be able to coach up the talent to the level GP performed. I’m way less concerned about losing some instate guys that left for greener pastures. It’s not like these guys are going to Illinois or Iowa. They are going to blue blood schools for the most part.

I’m not going to worry about any of it, that’s for damn sure. I’ll just watch the games, win or lose. I’m a fan, not a worry wart.

quote:

---

Pinkel's two best teams were based on classes that ranked around 20

---

That's false. Pinkel had one top 25 class his entire tenure in 2010. That was a very good class. It was the backbone of the 13 team. Had 6 4* and 4 of them hit and a bevy of really good 3*. 2011 we were 56 ,12 we were 33 , and 13 we were 43.

That's a four year average of about 38

I didn't go back that far. Point still remains. Pinkel never had an average ranking anywhere close to 20. In fact, his most talented team had an average ranking of 38.

2010 was 20
2007 was 30

There you go, different rating systems l, but in any event the two best teams had average rankings in the mid to upper 30s.

It's identification and development fellas. It always has been and it always will be. It's not the optimal path of course. It's obviously preferable to sign 15-20 straight goons a year, but it CAN be done otherwise. It's just harder and more prone to down years. The truly great years are obviously much fewer and far between but they can happen. You just have to be damn near elite in the other areas.

quote:

---

this is also roughly true

---

It's not goofball. It's nowhere near true. The 4 yr averages of the 07 and 13 teams were nowhere near 20. Much closer to 40 in fact.

It's already been laid out for you 3 times. Why can't/don't you read?

The good news is that we almost beat Vandy in the recruiting wars this year.

Seriously though, a very ho hum class. The bigger problem as I see it, is that there are no players where fans say I'm getting tickets to go watch him. Doesn't mean the team won't be good. Just no buzz. There is no Lock. No Beckner. No Maclin. No nothing.

This is bizarro world. The facts have already been laid out for you. Do you have a fact blocker on your browser? Is it sponsored by Fox News?

For fricks sake my man.

Again, what do you not understand? Do I need to drop this down to a remedial level and go step by step? Would it help if I drew fricking pictures for you? Pop up book? What's it going to take?

Why?

What inherent advantages do we hold over those teams?