ADVERTISEMENT

2018 FB Recruiting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately for your argument, Pitt and Louisville had pretty strong teams. NCST almost always beats Clemson and Troy should have won, but they just caught Clemson off guard. I don't see us sneaking up on them.

NCST has won 1 time since 2004 (a hilarious butt cutting in Raleigh) so if you want to call one win in over a decade "always" that's cool. Factually incorrect, but cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiger tim1471
NCST has won 1 time since 2004 (a hilarious butt cutting in Raleigh) so if you want to call one win in over a decade "always" that's cool. Factually incorrect, but cool.
He did say "almost" lol

The Gamecocks almost won the last three years to make it 8 in a row
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornstock84
NCST has won 1 time since 2004 (a hilarious butt cutting in Raleigh) so if you want to call one win in over a decade "always" that's cool. Factually incorrect, but cool.
Don't really care who actually won, but having a friend who is a state grad, I know that with the exception of Watson's freshman year, all of those games have been close.
 
Unfortunately for your argument, Pitt and Louisville had pretty strong teams. NCST almost always beats Clemson and Troy should have won, but they just caught Clemson off guard. I don't see us sneaking up on them.

Clemson has won 11 of the past 12 games against NCST. Many of those wins have been Clemson blowouts.
 
Clemson has won 11 of the past 12 games against NCST. Many of those wins have been Clemson blowouts.

Wrong.

October 7, 2000 Clemson, SC Clemson 34–27
October 13, 2001 Raleigh, NC Clemson 45–37
October 24, 2002 Clemson, SC NC State 38–6
October 16, 2003 Raleigh, NC NC State 17–15
October 30, 2004 Clemson, SC Clemson 26–20
October 13, 2005 Raleigh, NC Clemson 31–10
November 11, 2006 Clemson, SC Clemson 20–14
September 22, 2007 Raleigh, NC Clemson 42–20
September 13, 2008 Clemson, SC Clemson 27–9
November 14, 2009 Raleigh, NC Clemson 43–23

November 6, 2010 Clemson, SC Clemson 14–13
November 19, 2011 Raleigh, NC NC State 37–13
November 17, 2012 Clemson, SC Clemson 62–48
September 19, 2013 Raleigh, NC Clemson 26–14
October 4, 2014 Clemson, SC Clemson 41–0
October 31, 2015 Raleigh, NC Clemson 56–41
85 October 15, 2016 Clemson, SC Clemson 24–17OT
 
Unfortunately for your argument, Pitt and Louisville had pretty strong teams. NCST almost always beats Clemson and Troy should have won, but they just caught Clemson off guard. I don't see us sneaking up on them.

lawd hayah muhcy:mad::confused::mad:
 
I agree with you that anything can happen on any given Saturday, Clemson is losing a great qb who made them much better, a good tough runner. But at this point, their DC is showing he is one of the best in college football at making adjustments, I am not sold on their OC just yet, much of their offense was drop back, look around and Watson running for a first down, basically playground ball. I think Dabo is clueless as a coach, he is more a cheerleader, but he is great at hiring assistants, especially cooridnators.. Clemson will still have an elite defense, unless you are a power team and then they tend to back off a little, look at the differenece when Scarbourgh went out, last time we played, they weren't even trying to tackle Gurley or Chubb in the 4th quarter, But they are one of the more talented rosters in college, Dabo's goofy ways, or whatever it is keeps kids coming in at a high level. Until they are caught cheating again, and I think most believe they are, why else would a kid from want to spend time at a place where the vast majority of their fans wouldn't give them a ride if they were walking down the road in a lightening storm? USC will have a tough time pullling out a win this fall against them, but I do think they drop off a good bit offensively.

I love this guy... his passionate pursuit of potato perfection is impressive. Don't stop bringing the lulz, lapdog.
 
And they only plan on taking 10-12 players. So 1/4 of that class could be 5* talent? Ridiculous. Muschamp better start maximizing the gray area if we plan on competing.

I think it's going to be a little bit bigger than that. 9 SRs + a few leaving early for the NFL + a couple of transfers. I would guess 14-15.
 
Do you know what almost means?

Do you know what grammar means. "NCST almost always beats Clemson" meaning most always, it does not work the other way around to be "NCST always almost beats Clemson"

Please tell me you do not have a degree from Carolina

edit: crap, went back and looked, trolled again. Nice 16 posts tater
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornstock84
Do you know what grammar means. "NCST almost always beats Clemson" meaning most always, it does not work the other way around to be "NCST always almost beats Clemson"

Please tell me you do not have a degree from Carolina

edit: crap, went back and looked, trolled again. Nice 16 posts tater
I did actually, 2012. And I'm afraid we are not going to see eye to eye on this very insignificant detail of the original thought.

And PS, not a tater, just new to the board. I have the degree which I'm convinced is something you will never possess.
 
You are talking in circles...Talent is relative...It's not like they have it all and we have none..We don't play seven game series...It's who plays the best on gameday...Coaching, mistakes, turnovers and yes talent go into determining the outcomes of games..If the most talented team always won, Alabama would win it every year and Ohio St would be right behind them...

I don't think the so called "talent gap" is as huge a some think..Last season they were certainly more talented...The big difference was they were more experienced and physically stronger in the trenches...Those issues must be addressed during the off season...We have enough talent to beat them...We will see how fast our young players can grow up and get a little nasty in them

I agree with several of your points. Superior talent will obviously give a team an advantage, but it is far from the only factor that determines the outcome of the game.

I am glad that you pointed out that the talent difference between the two programs has been consistently over-exaggerated. Recruiting rankings, whether they come from Rivals, ESPN, 24/7, or Scout, are certainly a very inexact science, but these are the easiest way to at least compare the perceived talent gap between two programs.

Recruiting did take a step back over Spurrier's last couple years, but on paper the decline was much smaller than what the peception is. There clearly have not been the same number of top tier recruits like Gilmore, Lattimore, Clowney, etc., but the overall class ratings and rankings only declined by a small amount.

The problem has been that many of the top players over the past few years haven't managed to reach what seemed to be their potential. This could be due to inaccurate evaluations or a reduction in the level of coaching, but regardless, there have been several players that were expected to be cornerstones for the program that have never been ore than minor role-players.

This factor along with the number of recruits that never actually enrolled because they were unable to qualify or have left the program due to other types of attrition have hindered the program to a large degree over the past few years.

For a more quantitative analysis, 24/7 has a team talent ranking that uses their composite rankings from all four major HS scouting services. Comparing the rosters from 2016 shows Clemson to be ranked 10th nationally with 80 nationally ranked recruits (four 5 stars, thirty-seven 4 stars) on their roster with an average rating of 89.00. The Gamecocks were ranked 23rd with 76 nationally ranked recruits (zero 5 stars, twenty-four 4 stars) with an average rating of 86.61.

Based on these metrics, Clemson is unsurprisingly the more talented team, but the Cocks #23 ranking isn't as low as many perceive it to be. If not for the high level of attrition, this gap would be much smaller.

Just compare the initial classes of each program for the last few recruiting cycles. For 2013 Clemson's class was ranked 15th compared to 20th for South Carolina. During the subsequent 2014 cycle Clemson's incoming class was ranked 17th compared to USC's 19th ranked class (USC was actually #16 to Clemson's #24 using 24/7's own rankings rather than the composite of all four services).

The Gamecocks began to fall farther behind the Tigers during the 2015 cycle that resulted in a #9 ranking for Clemson and #19 for USC, but the class was actually very similar to those in previous years under Steve Spurrier.

Following Spurrier's mid-season resignation in 2015, Muschamp was somehow able to keep the Gamecocks 2016 class at #25 with a completely revamped coaching staff, save Shawn Elliott. While the talent gap did increase with Clemson bringing in the #11 class, the fact that Boom was able to bring in 27 recruits with a top 25 national class ranking following the 3-9 debacle with all new coaches in that short amount of time should not go unnoticed. I would argue that this would be more impressive than if he were to bring in a class just outside the top 10 next year.

Getting back to the topic at hand, given South Carolina's hasn't been as far behind Clemson as most believe for the past couple years. However, the downside is that the talent gap has been increasing significantly. As of next year, the Tigers roster will have a large advantage with their 2nd and 3rd year players coupled with a smaller advantage in their freshman and senior classes. As a result of the bump from the recent national championship, their 2018 class, although predicted to be as small as 12-14 players, will likely consist almost entirely of blue chip recruits. Their likely larger 2019 class will still be feeling the boost from the win over Bama.

As bad as that may seem on the surface, things are not as bad as they appear at first glance. Muschamp and his staff have proven their abilities as recruiters at their respective stops over the years, and it is quite probable that the Gamecocks will improve their national talent ranking to at least a few spots higher than last year's #23 ranking. So while Clemson will likely be moving up from their 10th ranking, at least the Gamecocks will be improving from a national perspective relative to the rest of the competition.

And as I stated at the beginning of this diatribe, talent alone does not guarantee victories. Just look at some of the down years in recent memory experienced by Southern California and Auburn despite routinely finishing well inside the top 10 in recruiting.

Georgia was 6th in talent last year but still lost 5 games. Notre Dame was perhaps the nation's biggest disappointment, stumbling to a 4-8 mark with the 9th ranked team talent. Ole Miss also had a dismal year finishing 5-7 despite having the 14th most talented team. UCLA was even worse (4-8) with even more talent (#13). Texas continued to underachieve with their 5-7 record despite having the 11th most talented roster. Oregon and Michigan State both had losing record with top 25 talent.

Less talented team on paper win games against teams made up of higher rated players all the time. A quick glance at the team talent rankings reveals that Clemson beat four teams ranked ahead of them in talent this year alone on their way to the national title (Bama, tOSU, FSU, Auburn).The same is true for the Gamecocks, especially during the three year run of 33-6. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee (even during their down years) have always been more talented than South Carolina on paper, but that didn't prevent several victories over the years.

To wrap up this insanely long essay, it's time for fans to use the excuse of inferior talent for losses and to stop blaming Spurrier for leaving the roster devoid of capable players. There's absolutely no excuse for quitting on a group of 18-21 year olds when the going gets tough, but the notion that he left the cupboard completely bare is simply false.

*****END RANT*****

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coppertopp
I'm not sure if you meant to type something else or you're just misinformed.

I think I remember hearing that Clemson had beaten NC State like 8 or 9 times in the past 10 years. I remember NC State blowing them out pretty bad back in 2011 after they had started the season winning the first 7 or 8 games.


I just looked it up to make sure I wasn't confusing NC State with someone else. Clemson has beaten them 12 of the last 13 years and leads the alll-time series 56-28-1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_Bowl
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyfisher29640
Wrong.

October 7, 2000 Clemson, SC Clemson 34–27
October 13, 2001 Raleigh, NC Clemson 45–37
October 24, 2002 Clemson, SC NC State 38–6
October 16, 2003 Raleigh, NC NC State 17–15
October 30, 2004 Clemson, SC Clemson 26–20
October 13, 2005 Raleigh, NC Clemson 31–10
November 11, 2006 Clemson, SC Clemson 20–14
September 22, 2007 Raleigh, NC Clemson 42–20
September 13, 2008 Clemson, SC Clemson 27–9
November 14, 2009 Raleigh, NC Clemson 43–23

November 6, 2010 Clemson, SC Clemson 14–13
November 19, 2011 Raleigh, NC NC State 37–13
November 17, 2012 Clemson, SC Clemson 62–48
September 19, 2013 Raleigh, NC Clemson 26–14
October 4, 2014 Clemson, SC Clemson 41–0
October 31, 2015 Raleigh, NC Clemson 56–41
85 October 15, 2016 Clemson, SC Clemson 24–17OT


I would say that 5 blowouts since 2004 would constitute many.
 
I agree with several of your points. Superior talent will obviously give a team an advantage, but it is far from the only factor that determines the outcome of the game.

I am glad that you pointed out that the talent difference between the two programs has been consistently over-exaggerated. Recruiting rankings, whether they come from Rivals, ESPN, 24/7, or Scout, are certainly a very inexact science, but these are the easiest way to at least compare the perceived talent gap between two programs.

Recruiting did take a step back over Spurrier's last couple years, but on paper the decline was much smaller than what the peception is. There clearly have not been the same number of top tier recruits like Gilmore, Lattimore, Clowney, etc., but the overall class ratings and rankings only declined by a small amount.

The problem has been that many of the top players over the past few years haven't managed to reach what seemed to be their potential. This could be due to inaccurate evaluations or a reduction in the level of coaching, but regardless, there have been several players that were expected to be cornerstones for the program that have never been ore than minor role-players.

This factor along with the number of recruits that never actually enrolled because they were unable to qualify or have left the program due to other types of attrition have hindered the program to a large degree over the past few years.

For a more quantitative analysis, 24/7 has a team talent ranking that uses their composite rankings from all four major HS scouting services. Comparing the rosters from 2016 shows Clemson to be ranked 10th nationally with 80 nationally ranked recruits (four 5 stars, thirty-seven 4 stars) on their roster with an average rating of 89.00. The Gamecocks were ranked 23rd with 76 nationally ranked recruits (zero 5 stars, twenty-four 4 stars) with an average rating of 86.61.

Based on these metrics, Clemson is unsurprisingly the more talented team, but the Cocks #23 ranking isn't as low as many perceive it to be. If not for the high level of attrition, this gap would be much smaller.

Just compare the initial classes of each program for the last few recruiting cycles. For 2013 Clemson's class was ranked 15th compared to 20th for South Carolina. During the subsequent 2014 cycle Clemson's incoming class was ranked 17th compared to USC's 19th ranked class (USC was actually #16 to Clemson's #24 using 24/7's own rankings rather than the composite of all four services).

The Gamecocks began to fall farther behind the Tigers during the 2015 cycle that resulted in a #9 ranking for Clemson and #19 for USC, but the class was actually very similar to those in previous years under Steve Spurrier.

Following Spurrier's mid-season resignation in 2015, Muschamp was somehow able to keep the Gamecocks 2016 class at #25 with a completely revamped coaching staff, save Shawn Elliott. While the talent gap did increase with Clemson bringing in the #11 class, the fact that Boom was able to bring in 27 recruits with a top 25 national class ranking following the 3-9 debacle with all new coaches in that short amount of time should not go unnoticed. I would argue that this would be more impressive than if he were to bring in a class just outside the top 10 next year.

Getting back to the topic at hand, given South Carolina's hasn't been as far behind Clemson as most believe for the past couple years. However, the downside is that the talent gap has been increasing significantly. As of next year, the Tigers roster will have a large advantage with their 2nd and 3rd year players coupled with a smaller advantage in their freshman and senior classes. As a result of the bump from the recent national championship, their 2018 class, although predicted to be as small as 12-14 players, will likely consist almost entirely of blue chip recruits. Their likely larger 2019 class will still be feeling the boost from the win over Bama.

As bad as that may seem on the surface, things are not as bad as they appear at first glance. Muschamp and his staff have proven their abilities as recruiters at their respective stops over the years, and it is quite probable that the Gamecocks will improve their national talent ranking to at least a few spots higher than last year's #23 ranking. So while Clemson will likely be moving up from their 10th ranking, at least the Gamecocks will be improving from a national perspective relative to the rest of the competition.

And as I stated at the beginning of this diatribe, talent alone does not guarantee victories. Just look at some of the down years in recent memory experienced by Southern California and Auburn despite routinely finishing well inside the top 10 in recruiting.

Georgia was 6th in talent last year but still lost 5 games. Notre Dame was perhaps the nation's biggest disappointment, stumbling to a 4-8 mark with the 9th ranked team talent. Ole Miss also had a dismal year finishing 5-7 despite having the 14th most talented team. UCLA was even worse (4-8) with even more talent (#13). Texas continued to underachieve with their 5-7 record despite having the 11th most talented roster. Oregon and Michigan State both had losing record with top 25 talent.

Less talented team on paper win games against teams made up of higher rated players all the time. A quick glance at the team talent rankings reveals that Clemson beat four teams ranked ahead of them in talent this year alone on their way to the national title (Bama, tOSU, FSU, Auburn).The same is true for the Gamecocks, especially during the three year run of 33-6. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee (even during their down years) have always been more talented than South Carolina on paper, but that didn't prevent several victories over the years.

To wrap up this insanely long essay, it's time for fans to use the excuse of inferior talent for losses and to stop blaming Spurrier for leaving the roster devoid of capable players. There's absolutely no excuse for quitting on a group of 18-21 year olds when the going gets tough, but the notion that he left the cupboard completely bare is simply false.

*****END RANT*****

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

The talent level hasn't been that close the last couple of years. Just look at the records they have been 28-2 over the last 2 yrs vs us at 9-16. If you need to go beyond record just look at the fact they had 9 players just invited to the combine. We had zero players invited. Go to the draft they had 9 players drafted last season to our 3.

They literally had 4 players drafted in the first 2 rounds and we had a 4th, 6th, 7th round total. They have had as many 1st and 2nd round draft picks in the last 2 years as we have had total over all draft picks and our highest guy was a 3rd rounder in Cann.

I don't see how anyone could with a straight face say our talent level difference has been exaggerated. It was pretty drastic the last 2-3 yrs. especially last season when they physically dominated us for 60 mins.
 
On some of the above posts about talent level. The talent level based on stars and rankings is closer than most expected. But what the taters are doing better is "evaluating" their talent takes and "developing" it as well. They are culling out recruits based on character and red flags, laziness and entitlement. Not all but most. We need to do the same. Recruit to what we do and stand for. Hopefully that started last year. We shall see.
 
For us poor evaluations played a huge role. We had too many 4 stars that never panned out. This staff seems much better at evaluating. They spend lot more time with camps etc
 
I agree with several of your points. Superior talent will obviously give a team an advantage, but it is far from the only factor that determines the outcome of the game.

I am glad that you pointed out that the talent difference between the two programs has been consistently over-exaggerated. Recruiting rankings, whether they come from Rivals, ESPN, 24/7, or Scout, are certainly a very inexact science, but these are the easiest way to at least compare the perceived talent gap between two programs.

Recruiting did take a step back over Spurrier's last couple years, but on paper the decline was much smaller than what the peception is. There clearly have not been the same number of top tier recruits like Gilmore, Lattimore, Clowney, etc., but the overall class ratings and rankings only declined by a small amount.

The problem has been that many of the top players over the past few years haven't managed to reach what seemed to be their potential. This could be due to inaccurate evaluations or a reduction in the level of coaching, but regardless, there have been several players that were expected to be cornerstones for the program that have never been ore than minor role-players.

This factor along with the number of recruits that never actually enrolled because they were unable to qualify or have left the program due to other types of attrition have hindered the program to a large degree over the past few years.

For a more quantitative analysis, 24/7 has a team talent ranking that uses their composite rankings from all four major HS scouting services. Comparing the rosters from 2016 shows Clemson to be ranked 10th nationally with 80 nationally ranked recruits (four 5 stars, thirty-seven 4 stars) on their roster with an average rating of 89.00. The Gamecocks were ranked 23rd with 76 nationally ranked recruits (zero 5 stars, twenty-four 4 stars) with an average rating of 86.61.

Based on these metrics, Clemson is unsurprisingly the more talented team, but the Cocks #23 ranking isn't as low as many perceive it to be. If not for the high level of attrition, this gap would be much smaller.

Just compare the initial classes of each program for the last few recruiting cycles. For 2013 Clemson's class was ranked 15th compared to 20th for South Carolina. During the subsequent 2014 cycle Clemson's incoming class was ranked 17th compared to USC's 19th ranked class (USC was actually #16 to Clemson's #24 using 24/7's own rankings rather than the composite of all four services).

The Gamecocks began to fall farther behind the Tigers during the 2015 cycle that resulted in a #9 ranking for Clemson and #19 for USC, but the class was actually very similar to those in previous years under Steve Spurrier.

Following Spurrier's mid-season resignation in 2015, Muschamp was somehow able to keep the Gamecocks 2016 class at #25 with a completely revamped coaching staff, save Shawn Elliott. While the talent gap did increase with Clemson bringing in the #11 class, the fact that Boom was able to bring in 27 recruits with a top 25 national class ranking following the 3-9 debacle with all new coaches in that short amount of time should not go unnoticed. I would argue that this would be more impressive than if he were to bring in a class just outside the top 10 next year.

Getting back to the topic at hand, given South Carolina's hasn't been as far behind Clemson as most believe for the past couple years. However, the downside is that the talent gap has been increasing significantly. As of next year, the Tigers roster will have a large advantage with their 2nd and 3rd year players coupled with a smaller advantage in their freshman and senior classes. As a result of the bump from the recent national championship, their 2018 class, although predicted to be as small as 12-14 players, will likely consist almost entirely of blue chip recruits. Their likely larger 2019 class will still be feeling the boost from the win over Bama.

As bad as that may seem on the surface, things are not as bad as they appear at first glance. Muschamp and his staff have proven their abilities as recruiters at their respective stops over the years, and it is quite probable that the Gamecocks will improve their national talent ranking to at least a few spots higher than last year's #23 ranking. So while Clemson will likely be moving up from their 10th ranking, at least the Gamecocks will be improving from a national perspective relative to the rest of the competition.

And as I stated at the beginning of this diatribe, talent alone does not guarantee victories. Just look at some of the down years in recent memory experienced by Southern California and Auburn despite routinely finishing well inside the top 10 in recruiting.

Georgia was 6th in talent last year but still lost 5 games. Notre Dame was perhaps the nation's biggest disappointment, stumbling to a 4-8 mark with the 9th ranked team talent. Ole Miss also had a dismal year finishing 5-7 despite having the 14th most talented team. UCLA was even worse (4-8) with even more talent (#13). Texas continued to underachieve with their 5-7 record despite having the 11th most talented roster. Oregon and Michigan State both had losing record with top 25 talent.

Less talented team on paper win games against teams made up of higher rated players all the time. A quick glance at the team talent rankings reveals that Clemson beat four teams ranked ahead of them in talent this year alone on their way to the national title (Bama, tOSU, FSU, Auburn).The same is true for the Gamecocks, especially during the three year run of 33-6. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee (even during their down years) have always been more talented than South Carolina on paper, but that didn't prevent several victories over the years.

To wrap up this insanely long essay, it's time for fans to use the excuse of inferior talent for losses and to stop blaming Spurrier for leaving the roster devoid of capable players. There's absolutely no excuse for quitting on a group of 18-21 year olds when the going gets tough, but the notion that he left the cupboard completely bare is simply false.

*****END RANT*****

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
Cliffs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyelikechicken420
No shot at White, IMHO, it's a UGA vs Clemson battle with Bama as a darkhorse.

Ok i stand corrected, Clemson is running 3rd

Zeus34 ‏@zeus1_34 3h3 hours ago
Top 4
1f608.png
1. Georgia 2.Alabama 3. Clemson 4. North Carolina
 
Well, we can share the same excuse as the taters when he narrows it to 3......we backed off

I wish we had a shot but it is hard to compete @ RB success when you measure against UGA.

Best of luck to the young man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT