re: Can Georgia becomes the Alabama of the east?

quote:

---

To someone born, and reared here....it should be.

---

Do you know how many grammar errors there are in the sentence you wrote?

Edits to correct grammar errors in sentence I wrote about grammar in previous sentence.

No. They can't becomes Bama

I honestly think parity is coming to college football. The playing field is getting level because everyone is doing so much with technology in getting players ready in high school and college. There will always be some separation in talent but not on the level it is today. The players across the board will be more inline with each other. It's a "coach em up, and work em up" platform even with the elite players going through it. Talent without work ethic is ...well a fail !

quote:

---

I honestly think parity is coming to college football. The playing field is getting level because everyone is doing so much with technology in getting players ready in high school and college. There will always be some separation in talent but not on the level it is today. The players across the board will be more inline with each other. It's a "coach em up, and work em up" platform even with the elite players going through it. Talent without work ethic is ...well a fail !

---

I predict the teams with the bigger and faster players will still win way more often than not.

The parity notion is exactly the type of thing you'd expect to hear from a non big 6 fan. "We won't need to catch up because everyone will come back to us and even out!"

Not a chance. There will always be new training methods. Players will continue to get bigger and stronger. Better programs will continue to be better programs.

quote:

---

However, the number of "bigger and faster players" is growing by leaps and bounds in the South as evidenced by the growing number of four and five star prospects in the South each year.

---

There will always be a small subset of those players that are bigger and faster than the others. There is no evidence of growing parity on the field, at least at the national championship contending level.

quote:

---

That's true but here's what you may have failed to take into account. The number of teams in the SEC is static ... meaning, there're only 14 and it's likely to be stay that way for awhile. Same for the ACC, which is pertinent because they are in our recruiting footprint. However, the number of "bigger and faster players" is growing by leaps and bounds in the South as evidenced by the growing number of four and five star prospects in the South each year. Each program can only sign 25 players per year. Each program in the $130 million club, and eight of those are in the SEC, is catching-up or has caught-up in terms of facilities and amenities. The SEC is now loaded with young, energetic, coaches for the first time in decades. So, theoretically at least eight programs in the SEC will have bigger, stronger, faster players than most in the country. At that point it becomes more about crowd atmosphere (homefield advantage), favorable schedules, bounces of the balls and lucky breaks, being coached-up and player development ... the last being key to the first four.

---

Haha, you are way over thinking this.

First, there will never be 8 programs in the SEC that are all on equal footing.

Second, you need to stop grouping USCe with the better programs. The numbers you talk about in regards to revenue have you closer to Kentucky and Arkansas than you are to the big 6 + A&M.

Third, no recruit is coming to a particular school because of their revenue numbers from the prior year.

Fourth, the other poster was right. It's the difference makers that matter. Even if there are more big, strong, and fast prospects to go around, there are still a limited number of kids that stand out from that pack as difference makers. Those are the kids that matter for championships and always will. If you're not signing those kids, which South Carolina historically hasn't, then your chances of winning anything of substance are over before the season begins.

quote:

---

by reservoir_dawg

---

I'll type this quickly and make it simple for you.

1) Nowhere in my post did I make a singular case for South Carolina that you just implied or assumed .... which makes you a total fricking idiot.

2) You're a total fricking idiot.

3) There will never be "8 teams in the SEC on equal footing" but, there will be two or three, sometimes different teams, in the SEC on equal footing. Much like there is in basketball and baseball in this Conference now. It is inevitable.

4) Revenue is not the issue ... it's the things that programs build and provide with said revenue that attracts recruits.

5) Since you want to make this personal, you fricking idiot, then allow me to show what a fricking idiot you are. South Carolina signs "difference makers." Lattimore, Clowney, Ingram, Jeffrey, Ellington, Cooper, Shaw, et al, and the list goes on and on. It's all about who gets the most and then coaches'em-up and makes good team chemistry, gets some bounces and favorable calls, has manageable schedules, etc. I could easily contend that the SEC totally fricked SC in 2012 or 2013 with the scheduling ... but the fact is regardless, we lost to Kentucky and that null and voided the argument. Still, it is an argument that could be made because it played a role in the outcome of the season.

With other programs that have been loaded but underachieved it may have been a rash of injuries, or bad bounces, or any number of foreseen or unforeseen issues ... because that's football.

So anyone who believes, and tries to sit here and contend that the only reason and team wins or loses is because of the number of "bigger, faster players" on their roster .... that person is a fricking idiot.

Case in point. Central Florida last year. Were they national championship caliber? No ... but honestly, who knows what might have happened had they made the playoffs (which they honestly didn't deserve to-do imho). But who knows?

So if you want to debate like an adult, that's fine, debate like an adult and think before you engage in a discussion like this. But don't come at this like a fricking idiot. It's a waste of time.

quote:

---

I'll type this quickly and make it simple for you. 1) Nowhere in my post did I make a singular case for South Carolina that you just implied or assumed .... which makes you a total fricking idiot. 2) You're a total fricking idiot. 3) There will never be "8 teams in the SEC on equal footing" but, there will be two or three, sometimes different teams, in the SEC on equal footing. Much like there is in basketball and baseball in this Conference now. It is inevitable. 4) Revenue is not the issue ... it's the things that programs build and provide with said revenue that attracts recruits. 5) Since you want to make this personal, you fricking idiot, then allow me to show what a fricking idiot you are. South Carolina signs "difference makers." Lattimore, Clowney, Ingram, Jeffrey, Ellington, Cooper, Shaw, et al, and the list goes on and on. It's all about who gets the most and then coaches'em-up and makes good team chemistry, gets some bounces and favorable calls, has manageable schedules, etc. I could easily contend that the SEC totally fricked SC in 2012 or 2013 with the scheduling ... but the fact is regardless, we lost to Kentucky and that null and voided the argument. Still, it is an argument that could be made because it played a role in the outcome of the season. With other programs that have been loaded but underachieved it may have been a rash of injuries, or bad bounces, or any number of foreseen or unforeseen issues ... because that's football. So anyone who believes, and tries to sit here and contend that the only reason and team wins or loses is because of the number of "bigger, faster players" on their roster .... that person is a fricking idiot. Case in point. Central Florida last year. Were they national championship caliber? No ... but honestly, who knows what might have happened had they made the playoffs (which they honestly didn't deserve to-do imho). But who knows? So if you want to debate like an adult, that's fine, debate like an adult and think before you engage in a discussion like this. But don't come at this like a fricking idiot. It's a waste of time.

---

Man, you are sensitive. Is this what you do normally? Hear some criticism of your viewpoint and program and you just lose your shite?

I really do hope I can one day act like an adult like you.