Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Feb 4, 2010 4:04pm
Funny how "USC recruits itself" and yet they went through almost a 20 year period where they were a national player only every once in a while before Petey brought his scam to town.
The head coach does make a difference -- even when all other factors seem to be in play.
Florida was much the same without Spurrier or Urban.
The head coach does make a difference -- even when all other factors seem to be in play.
Florida was much the same without Spurrier or Urban.
j_crazy
Posts: 8,372
Feb 4, 2010 4:06pm
zook recruited extremely well, he just could not coach them.Writerbuckeye wrote: Funny how "USC recruits itself" and yet they went through almost a 20 year period where they were a national player only every once in a while before Petey brought his scam to town.
The head coach does make a difference -- even when all other factors seem to be in play.
Florida was much the same without Spurrier or Urban.
C
centralbucksfan
Posts: 5,111
Feb 4, 2010 5:53pm
Exactly. USC doesn't exactly recruit itself. They have a hard time selling out home games unless its a big game. ITs not the HOT ticket in a city/area of pro teams. It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.Writerbuckeye wrote: Funny how "USC recruits itself" and yet they went through almost a 20 year period where they were a national player only every once in a while before Petey brought his scam to town.
The head coach does make a difference -- even when all other factors seem to be in play.
Florida was much the same without Spurrier or Urban.
There is NO question, USC is the hot school this decade in terms of success and recruiting. But that was because of Sneaky Pete.
And again, Kiffin brought in just a few recruits to a class that Pete had already assembled. I am not giving the guy any credit right now. He hasn't earned it. Time will tell how good of a coach, and how good of a recruiter he is.
darbypitcher22
Posts: 8,000
Feb 4, 2010 5:58pm
question from reading that article.... thought the dead period started Sunday, right? Dead period is a couple weeks isn't it? So how could Kiffin call Henderson? sounds like a violation to me if I understand the rule....
T
Tinkertrain
Posts: 407
Feb 4, 2010 6:06pm
Just throwing this out there but perhaps Seantral has some learning disabilities and the smaller class sizes at USC may have actually been attractive to him. As someone who has LD's himself I know just how much a smaller class size can help a student.
Whenever a kid mention's class size as a reason for favoring a college it tell's me he's aware of his own shortcoming's.
Whenever a kid mention's class size as a reason for favoring a college it tell's me he's aware of his own shortcoming's.
gorocks99
Posts: 10,760
Feb 4, 2010 6:09pm
Seantrel hasn't qualified yet -- needs to raise his ACT score. Not saying he won't, but that's also a factor in play.
D
devil1197
Posts: 6,220
Feb 4, 2010 6:24pm
Considering he doesn't have his ACT scores locked in, you may be right.Tinkertrain wrote: Just throwing this out there but perhaps Seantral has some learning disabilities and the smaller class sizes at USC may have actually been attractive to him. As someone who has LD's himself I know just how much a smaller class size can help a student.
Whenever a kid mention's class size as a reason for favoring a college it tell's me he's aware of his own shortcoming's.
D
dat dude
Posts: 1,564
Feb 4, 2010 6:57pm
I don't think time is necessary to prove how extraordinary of a recruiter Kiffin may be. There is no doubt to me that he is a top 3 recruiter in the nation(Saban, Meyer). If you are going to try and give Pete all the credit for this class, then you have to give credit to Kiffin for pulling in a top 5 class at Tennessee before defecting.centralbucksfan wrote: Time will tell how good of a coach, and how good of a recruiter he is.
Coaching, on the other hand, will take time.
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Feb 4, 2010 8:02pm
It doesn't matter if you buy into it or not. High school players who want to play in the NFL do. Besides Weis who on Notre Dame's staff had the sort of street cred that Monte Kiffin has?centralbucksfan wrote:
Not sure I buy into all that NFL stuff. Many other staffs have NFL experience all over. It didn't always work for Weis. It didn't work for Al Groh. Not only that, Kiffen did it for one year, and was fired, along with being looked at as an absolutely joke by most of the NFL players he coached.
I think much of the Henderson thing goes back to Pete Carrol. As mentioned, he was pretty serious about them before Carrol left. Having lunch on the "beach"!
I am still not so sold on Kiffin. He hasn't proven anything, at any level as a head coach. (except that he is an idiot). Now he is coming on the coat tails of Carrol, who actually had more to do with most of the recruits then Kiffin did. All he did was come in and shore up those that had committed already, and grab a couple extra.
Lane Kiffin was at Oakland more than 1 year, just barely but still. And if you remember Russell actually looked like a QB while Kiffin was out there.
Kiffin hasn't done much, you're right, but you have to remember that Tennessee's cupboard was pretty bare. What you can't take away from Kiffin is his recruiting ability. You can claim that Carroll did all the leg work for Kiffin's class, but how do you explain the haul he had last year at Tennessee
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Feb 4, 2010 8:04pm
It wasn't the beautiful weather, being one of the best programs in the country, great city, and gorgeous cheerleaders/co-eds?centralbucksfan wrote: There is NO question, USC is the hot school this decade in terms of success and recruiting. But that was because of Sneaky Pete.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Feb 4, 2010 8:07pm
I'm not so sure Tressel isn't comfortable with players who don't want to be Buckeyes. He welcomed Justin Boren who was at Michigan.ytownfootball wrote: I feel prsonally that Jim Tressel is more comfortable with players who want to be Buckeyes. I can't say I disagree, you're certainly going to get their best when they are where they want to be.
Too bad Dad seems to be running the show and telling us what Seantrel desires are, who knows at this point if he really would have rather committed to OSU. If he backs out at USC though I wouldn't expect a whole lotta love from players or staff should he come in to Ohio State.
I personally would like it if Henderson decided to come to OSU afterall. He hasn't signed with anyone yet, which means OSU would be his first choice. If he doesn't come, no big deal.
darbypitcher22
Posts: 8,000
Feb 4, 2010 9:09pm
can anyone answer my dead period question?
goosebumps
Posts: 1,058
Feb 4, 2010 9:30pm
I hope he ends up at OSU. I really hate seeing any time of talent going to Lane Kiffin or USC. Now that they're at the same place I can focus most of my hate towards the West Coast.
Second thinking myself... If he goes to OSU my bearcats will have to play against him in 2012... I still would prefer for him to end up in Ohio.
Second thinking myself... If he goes to OSU my bearcats will have to play against him in 2012... I still would prefer for him to end up in Ohio.
Emmett Brown
Posts: 478
Feb 4, 2010 9:31pm
February 1st-4th is a dead perioddarbypitcher22 wrote: can anyone answer my dead period question?
http://collegefootball.about.com/od/rulesofthegame/a/rec-calendar.htm
S
Soda Popinski
Posts: 367
Feb 4, 2010 11:33pm
Then why the hell hasn't anything been made of Kiffin's assault on Henderson's phone.Emmett Brown wrote:February 1st-4th is a dead perioddarbypitcher22 wrote: can anyone answer my dead period question?
http://collegefootball.about.com/od/rulesofthegame/a/rec-calendar.htm
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Feb 4, 2010 11:36pm
Would Latwan Anderson changing his mind to go ahead and visit USC on signing day be anything? Surely he would have to be in some contact with coaches.
V
vball10set
Posts: 24,795
Feb 5, 2010 8:16am
question--exactly what period was USC "nothing for a LONG time",and please give us your definition of "LONG"....I agree that the coach has an influence over where a recruit goes,but my point was that USC has the added advantage of it's climate and locale,and 17/18 year olds are drawn to that..sorry,but I'll try and be a little more specific next time.centralbucksfan wrote: It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.
C
centralbucksfan
Posts: 5,111
Feb 5, 2010 9:37am
After USC won their title, vs OSU in 79...they have been through multiple losing seasons along with a number of coaches. From 1990 through Carroll 1st season, USC was mediocre at best. I believe in the 90's, they had an overall record of 77-49. No so impressive. Google it.vball10set wrote:question--exactly what period was USC "nothing for a LONG time",and please give us your definition of "LONG"....I agree that the coach has an influence over where a recruit goes,but my point was that USC has the added advantage of it's climate and locale,and 17/18 year olds are drawn to that..sorry,but I'll try and be a little more specific next time.centralbucksfan wrote: It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.
H
Hamp89
Posts: 625
Feb 5, 2010 11:32am
And still USC ranks 7th all time in winning percentage with a .706. It's not like they are some "flash in the pan" success. Recent success AND history are on there side - very tough to top that right now no matter how you try to spin it.centralbucksfan wrote:After USC won their title, vs OSU in 79...they have been through multiple losing seasons along with a number of coaches. From 1990 through Carroll 1st season, USC was mediocre at best. I believe in the 90's, they had an overall record of 77-49. No so impressive. Google it.vball10set wrote:question--exactly what period was USC "nothing for a LONG time",and please give us your definition of "LONG"....I agree that the coach has an influence over where a recruit goes,but my point was that USC has the added advantage of it's climate and locale,and 17/18 year olds are drawn to that..sorry,but I'll try and be a little more specific next time.centralbucksfan wrote: It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.
jhay78
Posts: 1,917
Feb 5, 2010 12:25pm
Hamp89 wrote:And still USC ranks 7th all time in winning percentage with a .706. It's not like they are some "flash in the pan" success. Recent success AND history are on there side - very tough to top that right now no matter how you try to spin it.centralbucksfan wrote:After USC won their title, vs OSU in 79...they have been through multiple losing seasons along with a number of coaches. From 1990 through Carroll 1st season, USC was mediocre at best. I believe in the 90's, they had an overall record of 77-49. No so impressive. Google it.vball10set wrote:question--exactly what period was USC "nothing for a LONG time",and please give us your definition of "LONG"....I agree that the coach has an influence over where a recruit goes,but my point was that USC has the added advantage of it's climate and locale,and 17/18 year olds are drawn to that..sorry,but I'll try and be a little more specific next time.centralbucksfan wrote: It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.
They may have tradition and history on their side, but IMO the 2009 season may have been a sign of things to come for SC. They're losing the guy who took them through one of the best runs in college football history, preparing for possible NCAA discipline, welcoming a repeated NCAA rulebreaker who has yet to prove himself as a head coach, losing a few offensive playmakers, and coming off a subpar 9-4 season.
The fact that they're still recruiting like crazy tells you that the "intangibles" like location, weather, etc. play huge factors in these kids' minds. Unfortunately for OSU, Papa Henderson seems to care more about those things than a boring education and his son is following suit.
C
centralbucksfan
Posts: 5,111
Feb 5, 2010 1:11pm
LOL, Spin it? Please..I wasn't spinning it. Lets be honest, USC was NOT VERY good in the 80's, and worse in the 90's. Thats a FACT. I never said they didn't have tradition nor did I say they are a flash in the pan. The only spinning is you towards my comment.Hamp89 wrote:And still USC ranks 7th all time in winning percentage with a .706. It's not like they are some "flash in the pan" success. Recent success AND history are on there side - very tough to top that right now no matter how you try to spin it.centralbucksfan wrote:After USC won their title, vs OSU in 79...they have been through multiple losing seasons along with a number of coaches. From 1990 through Carroll 1st season, USC was mediocre at best. I believe in the 90's, they had an overall record of 77-49. No so impressive. Google it.vball10set wrote:question--exactly what period was USC "nothing for a LONG time",and please give us your definition of "LONG"....I agree that the coach has an influence over where a recruit goes,but my point was that USC has the added advantage of it's climate and locale,and 17/18 year olds are drawn to that..sorry,but I'll try and be a little more specific next time.centralbucksfan wrote: It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Feb 5, 2010 1:20pm
Back on topic a little bit, but am I the only one finding some things odd about this?
Moving the entire family to southern Cali?
Not only is it odd to follow your kid to college (something I would have gone balistic over had my family followed me) but what skillset does this guy posess that he thinks he'll be able to support a family in southern Cali?
Waiting for sanction news?
News or not, there will be restrictions of SOME kind coming down the pike--I'm begining to wonder about his eligibilty
Moving the entire family to southern Cali?
Not only is it odd to follow your kid to college (something I would have gone balistic over had my family followed me) but what skillset does this guy posess that he thinks he'll be able to support a family in southern Cali?
Waiting for sanction news?
News or not, there will be restrictions of SOME kind coming down the pike--I'm begining to wonder about his eligibilty
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Feb 5, 2010 1:22pm
USC was not a national player during most of the 1980s and 90s -- why is that hard for some to accept?
Ohio State was pretty irrelevant nationally in the Earle Bruce era (the 1980s) too. However, they did rebound some during the 1990s under Cooper where USC was still mostly floundering.
Ohio State was pretty irrelevant nationally in the Earle Bruce era (the 1980s) too. However, they did rebound some during the 1990s under Cooper where USC was still mostly floundering.
H
Hamp89
Posts: 625
Feb 5, 2010 1:33pm
You picked a small sample of time to decide that USC has done nothing for a "long time" and compared to OSU who "has never been through something like that".centralbucksfan wrote:LOL, Spin it? Please..I wasn't spinning it. Lets be honest, USC was NOT VERY good in the 80's, and worse in the 90's. Thats a FACT. I never said they didn't have tradition nor did I say they are a flash in the pan. The only spinning is you towards my comment.Hamp89 wrote:And still USC ranks 7th all time in winning percentage with a .706. It's not like they are some "flash in the pan" success. Recent success AND history are on there side - very tough to top that right now no matter how you try to spin it.centralbucksfan wrote:After USC won their title, vs OSU in 79...they have been through multiple losing seasons along with a number of coaches. From 1990 through Carroll 1st season, USC was mediocre at best. I believe in the 90's, they had an overall record of 77-49. No so impressive. Google it.vball10set wrote:question--exactly what period was USC "nothing for a LONG time",and please give us your definition of "LONG"....I agree that the coach has an influence over where a recruit goes,but my point was that USC has the added advantage of it's climate and locale,and 17/18 year olds are drawn to that..sorry,but I'll try and be a little more specific next time.centralbucksfan wrote: It was nothing for a LONG time. Something OSU has never gone through.
OSU in the 80's: 82-35-2
USC in the 80's: 78-36-3
I was just trying to help out as it seems you continually have a difficult time thinking objectively about anything non-OSU.
You're welcome
R
rock_knutne
Feb 5, 2010 2:10pm
Good research Hamp.Hamp89 wrote: You picked a small sample of time to decide that USC has done nothing for a "long time" and compared to OSU who "has never been through something like that".
OSU in the 80's: 82-35-2
USC in the 80's: 78-36-3
I was just trying to help out as it seems you continually have a difficult time thinking objectively about anything non-OSU.
You're welcome
I can remember multiple USC teams that were ranked in the top 10 during the Holz era at ND and even a #1 vs #2 matchup in 1988.