Something is Wrong with this Picture

Saw this on another site, not sure how accurate it is but,,,,, just throwing this out here for everyone’s thoughts.


Number of 4/5 stars per program:

1. OSU - 66
2. Bama - 63
3. UGA - 61
4. USC - 52
5. LSU - 50
6. Clem - 46
7. Aub - 44
7.Mich - 44
7. ND - 44
7. OU - 44
11. FSU - 43
12. Tex - 42
13. PSU - 41
14. UF - 35
14. Tenn - 35
14. TAMU - 35
17. Miami - 34
18. UW - 32
19. Stanford - 31
20. UCLA - 28

Obviously, other than us, the programs sniffing the college playoffs every year are at the top of list

For the pumpers that say things like "any coach would be struggling like Clay Helton" blah blah blah:

4/5 stars:

1. USC - 52
2. Washington - 32
3. Stanford - 31
4. UCLA - 28
5. Oregon - 19
6. Arizona State - 16
7. Utah - 7
7. Cal - 7
9. Colorado - 6
10. Arizona - 3
10. Washington State - 3
12. Oregon State - 2

In our last 2 games we came close to losing to schools that have almost FIFTY fewer 4/5 stars than we do. That is NUTS.

But somehow, a team with NO 5 stars and SEVEN 4 stars (Utah) just manhandled a team with 31 (Stanford) that we only scored 3 points against. I wonder what the reason could be?

 

TCU very few to no 4-5 stars, Michigan state the same, there are a bunch of good to great programs that aren’t recruiting juggernauts. Still beating and hanging with other recruiting powers. SC is more the standard than the exception. Really is LSU really competing forvnational titles? Conference titles? Michigan? FSU, TX??

 

Utah most to Wash St the week prior, LSU lost to Troy just last year, Texas has lost to Maryland the last 2 years, Penn St needed OT to beat a FCS school...the examples are endless. There’s usually not a ton of difference between a 4* and a 3* coming out of HS.

 

Kentucky is rank 13 or was is not even on that top 20 list

 

As I’ve said in the past, like so many have said, no matter how many 4 or 5* recruits we get/have, if the roadgraders aren’t NFL caliber, we don’t do squat!

 

Well, for one thing it's usually about matchups and taking advantage of every mismatch possible. What team A does in a game against team B has no consequence on what team C does against team A or team B if they play them. You have to learn how to look at each game independently and look at why matchups netted a certain result whether it's a win or loss. As for the reason USC isn't getting the maximum result from all of their players is what you're implying and from which I will infer that it's coaching deficiencies.

 

Kyle Wittingham is a bad mofo to do what he does...7 that’s it.

Friking unreal!

 

52 of what? Do you have position numbers?

 

Coaching is probably one of the problems, but I suspect USC has fewer 4/5 stars along the OL and DL, with skill positions inflating the stars.
I would be curious to know how USC compares with the top 20 along both lines.

 

Just going by the stars totals (which is way over-simplistic) ... I'd say Chip Kelly has to be one of the worst coaches in all of college football.

 

This is one of the reasons I kept saying, what could someone like Kyle Wittingham or Mark Dantonio or Gary Paterson do with our recruits? The program would also have been stable, good facilities, we practically recruit ourselves, wouldn't have run off Aranda or Lopui, and our goals would have been realistic. We must stop hiring turkeys around here or pack it in for the rest of our lives as Trojans.

This has been unnecessarily sad for too long now. And to the post above, 4/5 stars are over-simple if you recruit the wrong type of guys or you system is always changing and the pipeline never catches up... That said, we have held this position in recruiting for over a decade, even under sanctions! So there's no way to soft peddle that we've been horribly wasting talent.

 

Colorado too. They are pretty solid considering they have like 2 guys who others wanted.

We should be ashamed the way we are playing (every year) with all that "talent."

 

Merlin4SC said:

"This is one of the reasons I kept saying, what could someone like Kyle Wittingham or Mark Dantonio or Gary Paterson do with our recruits? "

I picked two great lines from an outstanding post.

 

Maybe our recruiting should stress stars less and character more

 

Stars in HS don’t mean they’re great in college, that comes with physical and mental development..

 

When was the last time SC had a 1st round offensive lineman? Sheesh...

 

In the Sugar Bowl in 2009, a Utah team (coached by the same Kyle Whittingham) with no 5 stars (I’m not sure how many 4 stars they had, if any) blew out a Saban coached Alabama team to finish undefeated and #2 in the final rankings.

Poor coaching is not the only reason these things happen.

 

Calling Helix, time to do your annual duty!

There are no absolutes! Just having coaching, or just having talent will not get you to the top...never has. It's always about a formula that gets you to the "100 %". Is it 80% coaching and 20% talent like an Appalachian St. or E. Washington? Is it a 60% coaching and 40% talent like a TCU/Mich. St.? Or is it "hidden talent" that is not recognized by the star system combined with solid coaching...like UCF or Boise St.?

Or is it tOSU/ND/Clemson (and usually Choklohoma), that combine 70% coaching with 70% talent (Bama is off the charts in both)?

Or is underperforming BlueBloods like Texas in the past/Michigan in the past/Miami/Florida in the past/SC this season so far that combined 25% coaching with 60% talent and continue to come up short? It's a mystery how coaches like Harbaugh/Herman could underperform with their given talent, but I suspect it had to do with running up against buzzsaws in tOSU/Wiscy/Pedo St. for Michigan, and Choklohoma/TCU/Baylor for Texas...those programs were just better at that time.

You always want solid coaching with top talent. If you can't get top talent, then you want solid coaching. SC continues to benefit from top talent, but suffered from mediocre to bad coaching/development.

 

Tyron Smith, 2011

 

Wasn't Matt Kalil after him?