re: First to win an SEC title? USC or aTm

quote:

---

In my opinion we should recruit NC the hardest. Ton of talent and we can sell the SEC. We did well last cycle, I hope we get Spain, Scott, and another this time around

---

yea Bryant and Mitch were great gets last year. From what I've heard we're in great shape for Spain and Scott.

quote:

---

I don't disagree that we recruit ATL well but if all else being equal it's us vs. UGA for the recruit I'll have my heart w/ USC but my money on Georgia.

---

fair enough I didn't mean to suggest that we get the best out of ATL but we get great value with guys like Elder, Griffin (kind of a stretch for ATL area) and Mike Davis being the highlights.

Also I really don't want UNC to join the SEC. Could throw a wrench into our recruiting North Carolina

quote:

---

what's the gamecocks average recuiting class ranking the past 10 years?

---

Not sure a/b 10 years but let's say something like 15th-20th over the Spurrier era.

quote:

---

Is LSU going to quit recruiting that area? How about Arkansas? Texas? Baylor? TCU? Houston? Oklahoma?

---

You don't know much.

Today Texas A&M is the king pin in Texas. How long with that last? I don't know. But even during the previous decade of futility, TAMU averaged top 20 classes. A&M will always recruit well, precisely because we're a major school in Texas. That alone establishes a recruiting interest in the state akin to fee.

Texas is our primary competition and always will be. They're the other major in-state school. We'll probably go halvsies with them for the foreseeable future (though again, right now, A&M is pushing their shite in).

LSU will pluck 1-3 good prospects each year.

That's the reality.

Oklahoma's been pushed out of the state almost entirely. As for the other teams, I'll repeat: You don't know much.

quote:

---

This 5* obsession is pointless. There are only a thirty legit 5*s to go around to the entire country each season.

Let's talk about 4*s where everyone's bread is buttered.

We're taking 4* players out of GA, NC, FL, PA, NJ AND keeping most of the ones in SC.

That's what matters.

Saying we are not hitting-on enough 5* is like asking why all of us in this thread have not banged-out at least one super model in our lives. There's only so many of them to go around.

Where big time players are concerned we are getting more than our fair share and not from just within SC borders.

And again I'll ask this same question that I asked earlier in this thread. If 5* players are what it is all about ... then how the hell have we managed to win 31 games in the past three seasons while beating a half dozen programs loaded with 5* players along the way? I mean if you want to limit it to 5* players when gauging the worth of the team, which is nonsense, then Michigan, Florida, Clemson, Georgia and Bama all had more 5* players on their roster when we've beaten them over the past three years.

The key is to always get a healthy mix, fill your needs, find leaders and hard workers who can think on their feet on the field and then coach'em-up.

At any rate, if this conversation is nothing but about the bullshite recruiting services rankings then it's a waste of time for me because I don't believe in them, don't subscribe to them and never will. They are bullshite.

---

You're missing the point. My point is that if there's a 5* on YOUR TURF you should be favored to get him or at least in the convo. There's typically an unusual amount of pressure on 5*'s (esp in smaller states) to stay home and bring the local program some glory.

Our friend said ATL was our turf in describing how fertile recruiting grounds are in this part of the country for USC vis a vis A&M out west. My point was that we can't lay claim to ATL that way. It has been good to us, but we are not the predominant program in the area. A good way to measure that might be to look at how many of the highest ranked recruits you pull (higher ranked recruits generally = more competition for that signature).

247 - 20th, 8th in the SEC

2013 was an unusually down year in talent for the state, and to top it off the #1 prospect took his talents to Athens.

quote:

---

You don't know much.

Today Texas A&M is the king pin in Texas. How long with that last? I don't know. But even during the previous decade of futility, TAMU averaged top 20 classes. A&M will always recruit well, precisely because we're a major school in Texas. That alone establishes a recruiting interest in the state akin to fee.

One of these is a legitimate threat each yearTexas). We'll probably go halvsies with them for the foreseeable future. LSU will pluck 1-3 good prospects each year

That's the reality.

Oklahoma's been pushed out of the state almost entirely. As for the other teams, I'll repeat: You don't know much.

---

lulz

In the last decade you are/vs ...

Texas Tech 5-5 ... and I just counted 76 players from the state of Texas on their roster. Many of those from within the I-45 corridor.

Looks like you've pretty much owned Baylor, 8-2 against them in the past decade. Their roster shows 74 players from Texas, looks like quite a few from the I-45 corridor.

Oklahoma ... you're 2-8 vs the Sooners in the last decade and they have 32 players from Texas on their roster. That's more from Texas than we have from Georgia.

Houston Cougars ..., you've not played them since '95 and it looks like 70 players from Texas and it looks like about 80% of them are withing the 45 corridor.

Arkansas ... you've only played them four times in the past decade and you are 1-3 against them. I counted 12 Texans on their roster which is the same we have North Carolinians on ours.

LSU ... you've played them twice in the past decade and lost both times. They've got seven Texans on their roster all of them from I-45 or east of there. Conversely, I see nine Louisianans on A&M's roster so it appears that y'all trade-off according to need? Or, wonder what would happen if I looked to see, based upon the star rating mind you, who gets the better end of the deal?

A&M fans would you say you are getting better players out of Louisiana, or would LSU fans say they are getting the better, higher rated players, out of Texas head-to-head in the recruiting wars?

My point is, and this is the last time I am going to try to explain it to you ... it does not matter. Recruiting territory is recruiting territory. No one limits anyone to anything. Tennessee won big time in the 90s recruiting nationally. FSU recruits nationally. Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, they all recruit nationally. SoCal recruits nationally. Bama ... Bama doesn't recruit so much anymore as they simply select. They are now what Notre Dame was when I was a kid in the 50s and 60s. But everyone does it these days (recruits nationally) if they are able and have the contacts .... but you have to keep your best players home and you only have so many schollies to offer them. That's the bottom line.

If A&M can out recruit Texas for the instate players and do it consistently, then you'll be doing something. If you can keep LSU out of your back yard, then you'll be doing something. It's the same for South Carolina. We turn out big time players - we are known for turning-out offensive and defensive linemen. We keep those home and fill gaps and needs from border states and SC will be, is, every bit as potent as A&M.

Listen, it's all a mute point until we face-off against one another on the gridiron. We'll see what happens then.

In the meantime I'm done with this thread - it's become a bit of a drag and we're never going to agree on anything evidently so, regards.

quote:

---

You're missing the point. My point is that if there's a 5* on YOUR TURF you should be favored to get him or at least in the convo. There's typically an unusual amount of pressure on 5*'s (esp in smaller states) to stay home and bring the local program some glory.

Our friend said ATL was our turf in describing how fertile recruiting grounds are in this part of the country for USC vis a vis A&M out west. My point was that we can't lay claim to ATL that way. It has been good to us, but we are not the predominant program in the area. A good way to measure that might be to look at how many of the highest ranked recruits you pull (higher ranked recruits generally = more competition for that signature).

---

Okay, I agree with you, I think.

But where did the #1 recruit in the country land last year ... the kid from Georgia? Did Georgia land him? Did Georgia land any players who were #1 at their position in the state of Georgia, or nationally, last year? ... wait, let's stop there and do it this way instead.

Go back and choose whatever recruiting service you want, and compare the final rankings for UGA, SC, Bama, LSU, UT, Florida, Clemson and UNC. I think what you will find is that SCAR, "us," had the lowest aggregate ranking over the course of the past four years compared to all those listed above.

Yet who has won more games, with the exception of LSU and Bama, if not South Carolina?

So again I have to ask, why the obsession with star ratings?

Anyways, I only responded in this thread again because you are a fellow Gamecock fan - thanks for reading. I appreciated yours as well. :)

It's not just star ratings either.

Most of the power in A&M's recruiting class comes in positions of need. From 247's ratings (not composite:

Positions of need - 2013

WR: 1 5-star, 4 4-star, 1 3-star
DL: 4 4-star, 2 3-star
LB: 2 4-star, 3 3-star
DB: 3 4-star, 4 4-star

Other positions

QB: 2 4-star
RB: 1 4-star
TE: 1 3-star
OL: 1 4-star, 2 3-star

As others have noted, both may have a chance this year, but if neither do it this year, USCe probably ought to hurry up if they're going to do it. Their coach is about to be 70 years old and their next coach could be their Vince Dooley... or their Derek Dooley... big risk.. could be worse... could be their Dennis Franchione.

Meanwhile, A&M is the hot new thing in Texas right now with recruiting experiencing a huge uptick and a younger coach that could potentially be there for a while.