Search SiteSearch Options
Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (30 fans in chatroom)

No surpise here - Oregon outperforms recruiting rankings.

Posted: 02/20/2013 10:31 AM

No surpise here - Oregon outperforms recruiting rankings. 

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ankings/slide/2

Do we evaluate better or coach better?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 10:37 AM

Re: No surpise here - Oregon outperforms recruiting rankings. Post Rating (3 votes)

Yes, lol!

---------------------------------------------
--- DuckMastaFunk wrote:

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ankings/slide/2

Do we evaluate better or coach better?

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 12:24 PM

Re: No surpise here - Oregon outperforms recruiting rankings. 



---------------------------------------------
--- DuckMastaFunk wrote:

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ankings/slide/2

Do we evaluate better or coach better?

---------------------------------------------

That is a very good question. I would probably go 65/35 evaluation over coaching.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 3:25 PM

It's right down the middle Post Rating (2 votes)

And IMO they are by products of one another.
DuckMastaFunk wrote: aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ankings/slide/2

Do we evaluate better or coach better?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 7:18 PM

Re: It's right down the middle 

Honestly that is more of indictment on recruiting rankings then anything. All of the bad teams with the exception of UCLA are traditional powers. The rankings automatically give a player higher rankings simply because he is being recruited by a traditional power.

Also player ranking are sometimes irrelevant because more important then talent is how a player fits into a system. Whether Wisconsin recruits better o line "talent" than Oregon doesn't matter because the schools are looking for completely different things.
Reply | Quote