|
Tater recruits
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2012 10:47 PM
Tater recruits  (3 votes)
Something fishy has been going on in Tater Town for quite some time now and everyone but the NCAA seems to know it. They refuse to investigate anything there ever despite pics posted over the years of new players posing with wads of cash. As well as a seemingly endless list of top flight recruits committing after their team suffers humiliating losses and always at a specific position of need.
Now, after just losing to its instate rival for the 4th year in a row according to their Scout home page they have a Florida commit rethinking his decision and looking at Clemson. I'll admit that I know nothing about this kid or his situation but I find it puzzling that any kid (esp. a defensive player which is what he is) would have ever give Clemson a second thought over teams like Florida or any other SEC school for that matter.
21
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2012 11:17 PM
Re: Tater recruits (3 votes)
yeah Nkemdiche must be holding out for his asking price lol
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 10:15 AM
Re: Tater recruits  (1 vote)
It continues to remain a mystery how the tater staff led by dumbo can recruit so many high profile players so well. Hopefully many of the instate players are beginning to realize that we've become a more powerful program. A lot of schools can sell small town charm and family-like relationships but usually that can only go so far...
Back to Back for the Garnet & Black!
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 10:41 AM
Re: Tater recruits (3 votes)
I think most people believe that the Taters pay their players and just get away with it...there is no other logical reason for a 5 star player to even consider Clemson...it's a joke, but is becoming a more obvious joke as the Taters continue to get great high school players and yet continue to suck as a program... You almost want to laugh out loud when you see some 5 star kid listing his top five teams and it goes..."Alabama. LSU, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and CLEMSON"...WHAT ?????
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 11:01 AM
Re: Tater recruits (1 vote)
anthair wrote: I think most people believe that the Taters pay their players and just get away with it...there is no other logical reason for a 5 star player to even consider Clemson...it's a joke, but is becoming a more obvious joke as the Taters continue to get great high school players and yet continue to suck as a program... You almost want to laugh out loud when you see some 5 star kid listing his top five teams and it goes..."Alabama. LSU, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and CLEMSON"...WHAT ????? "Street agents" is how they do it, in my opinion! Never could understand Watkins decision! ??? Children are flowers that bloom in the heart.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 12:22 PM
Re: Tater recruits (2 votes)
If that is true then why would Robert Nkemdiche decommit and Tramel Terry decide to stay with Georgia? Besides look at the recruiting rankings, according to Rivals.com South Carolina is #11 and Clemson is #18 as of now.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 12:22 PM
Re: Tater recruits  (3 votes)
I am not gonna get into "they pay kids" conversation BUT have you seen how our defense looked this year. They were very young BUT kinda bad too. The reason some of these kids choose Clemson(and USC) over traditional programs is simple. EARLY PLAYING TIME. Its not like it used to be where kids would be ok with sitting the bench for two years and waiting for their "shot". They want to play early and even if you dont wanna admit it they get just as much exposure being at Clemson as they do in other places. They also have an equal shot at making the pros at Clemson.
So...early playing time, good exposure, great fanbase and atmosphere, and an equal shot at making the pros is why tons of these kids are going other places outside of Bama, ND, SoCal, etc. Thats why you see more teams able to compete now with the "big boys". The talent is spread out much more than it was in the past.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 12:40 PM
Re: Tater recruits
We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 12:54 PM
Re: Tater recruits
.......................and for the record, I don't think either school is paying recruits.
We both have enough going for us to attract good players.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 2:07 PM
Re: Tater recruits
Purpletgr wrote: We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture. No it's not, it's "wondering" outloud. It is also trying to find out who on this (eh, hm) "Gamecock" board sees the same things as I do. And as for paying players I seriously doubt that the University itself does but your either naive or not very smart if you think that boosters don't do this - see Scam Newton, Tee Martin, Reggie Bush. BTW, need I remind you that your team has already been busted before for this very thing and was placed on probation. Then you were very close to getting it again and you can say with a straight face that you don't think it's going on? Come on man!
21
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 7:52 PM
Re: Tater recruits
RoosterBooster wrote:
Purpletgr wrote: We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture. No it's not, it's "wondering" outloud. It is also trying to find out who on this (eh, hm) "Gamecock" board sees the same things as I do. And as for paying players I seriously doubt that the University itself does but your either naive or not very smart if you think that boosters don't do this - see Scam Newton, Tee Martin, Reggie Bush.
BTW, need I remind you that your team has already been busted before for this very thing and was placed on probation. Then you were very close to getting it again and you can say with a straight face that you don't think it's going on? Come on man! I'm probably not very smart, but I'm far from naive.
And yes, 31 years ago, we were busted. We don't have Scam Newton, Tee martin, or Reggie. 2 of those are in your conference. Heck, you're on your second probation in 8 years,.......not that it's of any importance to me. I'm not concerned about it. Never have been, nor have I ever brought it up. The NCAA is ridiculous in the way they operate. And yes, it's a "Gamecock" board. Pretty obvious from reading the top of the page. (I'm that smart.) Keep "wondering out loud". It's your board..................and that's what you're good at. I'm simply of the opinion that you're simply finding yet another thing with which to trash Clemson. So, if you have something specific.........post it. If not, then I'm correct.............it's pure conjecture. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:52 PM
Re: Tater recruits  (1 vote)
--------------------------------------------- --- Purpletgr wrote: RoosterBooster wrote:
Purpletgr wrote: We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture. No it's not, it's "wondering" outloud. It is also trying to find out who on this (eh, hm) "Gamecock" board sees the same things as I do. And as for paying players I seriously doubt that the University itself does but your either naive or not very smart if you think that boosters don't do this - see Scam Newton, Tee Martin, Reggie Bush.
BTW, need I remind you that your team has already been busted before for this very thing and was placed on probation. Then you were very close to getting it again and you can say with a straight face that you don't think it's going on? Come on man! I'm probably not very smart, but I'm far from naive.
And yes, 31 years ago, we were busted. We don't have Scam Newton, Tee martin, or Reggie. 2 of those are in your conference. Heck, you're on your second probation in 8 years,.......not that it's of any importance to me. I'm not concerned about it. Never have been, nor have I ever brought it up. The NCAA is ridiculous in the way they operate. And yes, it's a "Gamecock" board. Pretty obvious from reading the top of the page. (I'm that smart.) Keep "wondering out loud". It's your board..................and that's what you're good at. I'm simply of the opinion that you're simply finding yet another thing with which to trash Clemson. So, if you have something specific.........post it. If not, then I'm correct.............it's pure conjecture. --------------------------------------------- I am with you, Purple. Fans get bored between the end of the season and bowl games. There is no reason to trash Clemson. We have won 4 in a row. Play the trashing game on the field. I honestly did not know recruiting was a college sport until Clowney. It is brutal. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2012 4:24 PM
Re: Tater recruits
12thMann wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- Purpletgr wrote:
RoosterBooster wrote:
Purpletgr wrote: We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture. No it's not, it's "wondering" outloud. It is also trying to find out who on this (eh, hm) "Gamecock" board sees the same things as I do. And as for paying players I seriously doubt that the University itself does but your either naive or not very smart if you think that boosters don't do this - see Scam Newton, Tee Martin, Reggie Bush.
BTW, need I remind you that your team has already been busted before for this very thing and was placed on probation. Then you were very close to getting it again and you can say with a straight face that you don't think it's going on? Come on man! I'm probably not very smart, but I'm far from naive.
And yes, 31 years ago, we were busted.
We don't have Scam Newton, Tee martin, or Reggie. 2 of those are in your conference.
Heck, you're on your second probation in 8 years,.......not that it's of any importance to me. I'm not concerned about it. Never have been, nor have I ever brought it up. The NCAA is ridiculous in the way they operate.
And yes, it's a "Gamecock" board. Pretty obvious from reading the top of the page. (I'm that smart.)
Keep "wondering out loud". It's your board..................and that's what you're good at.
I'm simply of the opinion that you're simply finding yet another thing with which to trash Clemson. So, if you have something specific.........post it. If not, then I'm correct.............it's pure conjecture.
---------------------------------------------
I am with you, Purple. Fans get bored between the end of the season and bowl games. There is no reason to trash Clemson. We have won 4 in a row. Play the trashing game on the field.
I honestly did not know recruiting was a college sport until Clowney. It is brutal. You must be wrong about that. Clemson fans on taternet say they didn't want Clowney because he couldn't have qualified academically. Clemson only takes scholarly athletes. From their message board: Nominate | Report Posted: Yesterday 12:45 PM Re: SCar needs to borrow some of UNC's tutors
IOP25 wrote: These are grads rates, what does Clowney have to do with this thread? 'Cause he's DUMB AS A ROCK and had no problem getting in Usuc and they assume that's the kind of players we think they recruit. They are right , of course. How else do they explain the pathetic grad rate? He will NEVER graduate(and the coots know it), but he IS a great football player and that's all they are about any more. This story really should have surprised no one.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2012 5:27 PM
Re: Tater recruits
Every school wanted Clowney.
He's a special player.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2012 9:20 PM
Re: Tater recruits
12thMann wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- Purpletgr wrote:
RoosterBooster wrote:
Purpletgr wrote: We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture. No it's not, it's "wondering" outloud. It is also trying to find out who on this (eh, hm) "Gamecock" board sees the same things as I do. And as for paying players I seriously doubt that the University itself does but your either naive or not very smart if you think that boosters don't do this - see Scam Newton, Tee Martin, Reggie Bush.
BTW, need I remind you that your team has already been busted before for this very thing and was placed on probation. Then you were very close to getting it again and you can say with a straight face that you don't think it's going on? Come on man! I'm probably not very smart, but I'm far from naive.
And yes, 31 years ago, we were busted.
We don't have Scam Newton, Tee martin, or Reggie. 2 of those are in your conference.
Heck, you're on your second probation in 8 years,.......not that it's of any importance to me. I'm not concerned about it. Never have been, nor have I ever brought it up. The NCAA is ridiculous in the way they operate.
And yes, it's a "Gamecock" board. Pretty obvious from reading the top of the page. (I'm that smart.)
Keep "wondering out loud". It's your board..................and that's what you're good at.
I'm simply of the opinion that you're simply finding yet another thing with which to trash Clemson. So, if you have something specific.........post it. If not, then I'm correct.............it's pure conjecture.
---------------------------------------------
I am with you, Purple. Fans get bored between the end of the season and bowl games. There is no reason to trash Clemson. We have won 4 in a row. Play the trashing game on the field.
I honestly did not know recruiting was a college sport until Clowney. It is brutal. Good, so we agree! I'm wondering on this here Gamecock board if anybody else finds it odd that Clempson recruits have been seen on the web with pics of them holding wads of cash. (ps - that's all the "proof" that you need right there. Nothing conjecture about it) BTW I know that you have won the hearts of many of the Gamecock fans on this board with your flattering responses and you're supposed level headed comments about your team and ours. You are obviously smart enough to figure out that you wouldn't last long otherwise. But personally I don't buy into all of that crap and I think it's all a put on. Why? I have no idea other than to get into the middle of our discussions and to cause disagreement among the Carolina faithful. Personally I get enough of Tater opinions all day long here in the upstate so when I come home I want to communicate with other Gamecock fans. And I could care less what you are any other Tater fan thinks. Now you will continue to have people come to your rescue and if that's how they feel then so be it but I'm not buying the whole act.
21
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2012 9:22 PM
Re: Tater recruits
12thMann wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- Purpletgr wrote:
RoosterBooster wrote:
Purpletgr wrote: We certainly might be paying recruits.
But, for that matter, USC might be paying recruits.
Unless you're there, which I'm pretty sure nobody here is, it's all just trashing your rival and pure conjecture. No it's not, it's "wondering" outloud. It is also trying to find out who on this (eh, hm) "Gamecock" board sees the same things as I do. And as for paying players I seriously doubt that the University itself does but your either naive or not very smart if you think that boosters don't do this - see Scam Newton, Tee Martin, Reggie Bush.
BTW, need I remind you that your team has already been busted before for this very thing and was placed on probation. Then you were very close to getting it again and you can say with a straight face that you don't think it's going on? Come on man! I'm probably not very smart, but I'm far from naive.
And yes, 31 years ago, we were busted.
We don't have Scam Newton, Tee martin, or Reggie. 2 of those are in your conference.
Heck, you're on your second probation in 8 years,.......not that it's of any importance to me. I'm not concerned about it. Never have been, nor have I ever brought it up. The NCAA is ridiculous in the way they operate.
And yes, it's a "Gamecock" board. Pretty obvious from reading the top of the page. (I'm that smart.)
Keep "wondering out loud". It's your board..................and that's what you're good at.
I'm simply of the opinion that you're simply finding yet another thing with which to trash Clemson. So, if you have something specific.........post it. If not, then I'm correct.............it's pure conjecture.
---------------------------------------------
I am with you, Purple. Fans get bored between the end of the season and bowl games. There is no reason to trash Clemson. We have won 4 in a row. Play the trashing game on the field.
I honestly did not know recruiting was a college sport until Clowney. It is brutal. Did you actually read theoriginal posts?  If so you got an entirely different message than I was conveying.
21
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2012 3:40 AM
Re: Tater recruits
Yep. I read the original post.
Began with, "Something fishy has been going on in Tater Town for quite some time now and everyone but the NCAA seems to know it"
To me, it sounds similar to many of your other posts.............................with the overwhelming theme that recruits are dumb to consider Clemson, or Clemson is buying players.
It's a Gamecock board. You hate Clemson. You trash Clemson.
Pretty simple, really.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- ObiWanCocksNobi
- Knight of the Realm
- Rating: 3.9/5 this site
- 816 posts this site
|
Posted: 12/7/2012 6:18 AM
Re: Tater recruits
Purpletgr wrote: We don't have Scam Newton, Tee martin, or Reggie. 2 of those are in your conference. I suppose it is an inconvenient fact that Cam and Tee were never determined to have violated NCAA rules. Then again the Reggie deal was far from here and involved neither of our schools or conferences.
So exactly what is the point of your statement? Looks from here like you are attempting to present your conjecture as fact while chiding the OP for an open conjecture.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. ~William F. Buckley, Jr.~
Last edited 12/7/2012 6:29 AM by ObiWanCocksNobi
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2012 7:18 PM
Re: Tater recruits
lol
Yeah, something like that....................
.............or mainly it's just that I don't have much interest in smack.
I realize many do, which is fine.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2012 7:21 PM
Re: Tater recruits
Purpletgr wrote: Yep. I read the original post.
Began with, "Something fishy has been going on in Tater Town for quite some time now and everyone but the NCAA seems to know it"
To me, it sounds similar to many of your other posts.............................with the overwhelming theme that recruits are dumb to consider Clemson, or Clemson is buying players.
It's a Gamecock board. You hate Clemson. You trash Clemson.
Pretty simple, really.
I wasn't even talking to you in this post, I was talking to 12th. 
21
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
