DC Candidates?

Blackshirt96 said:
kchusker_chris said:
Blackshirt96 said:
Less then 20 = lower ranking also correct???
Click to expand...
no, when you're less than 20 you definately get penalyzed. You want to be close to 20, without using lowly ranked players to get there (obviously) :)
Click to expand...
Then how can you compare Bo's classes which have had to be smaller to Callahan's classes which were always over 20. It is apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
because Bo's haven't been under 20. 28, 20, 22, 20. and mainly I was just referencing the quality of that 2005 class. A lot of people dog on it (or say it was only highly ranked because of the count)...but that class had a bunch of highly talented players. not all were used correctly (chris brooks, lucky)...but they still had very successful careers. If pelini can get a class that has 8-9 players like lucky, bowman, suh, brooks, dillard, glenn, octavient (he was in the 05' class), potter, slauson,z. taylor,b. turner... - I won't be worried.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iowa released a statement that Kaczenski is officially leaving. Ferentz released a statement that he is leaving for "another coaching oppurtunity."

Via Sean Callahan's twitter

 
Rocketsocks said:
There's just a level of negativity that I can't stomach. The constant bitching about Pelini, how he's not good enough, not as good as the next guy, blah blah blah. It gets tiresome. People talk about benchmarks which are often arbitrary and based on chance as much as anything.
Click to expand...
It sure as hell does.

The bitching, whining, sobbing & crying here overflows the Missouri river. Bo s*cks, Tmart s*cks, Barney s*cks, TO s*cks, etc, etc. Every single day.

If we were in the Clownahan era it would makes sense. But the same genius crowd that cheered on firing Frank/Bo for "only" winning ten games in 2003 is fully primed for another blood bath. If they're successful again, be prepared for another dark era. Quite possibly a far longer dark era.

 
kchusker_chris said:
Blackshirt96 said:
kchusker_chris said:
Blackshirt96 said:
Less then 20 = lower ranking also correct???
Click to expand...
no, when you're less than 20 you definately get penalyzed. You want to be close to 20, without using lowly ranked players to get there (obviously) :)
Click to expand...
Then how can you compare Bo's classes which have had to be smaller to Callahan's classes which were always over 20. It is apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
because Bo's haven't been under 20. 28, 20, 22, 20. and mainly I was just referencing the quality of that 2005 class. A lot of people dog on it (or say it was only highly ranked because of the count)...but that class had a bunch of highly talented players. not all were used correctly (chris brooks, lucky)...but they still had very successful careers. If pelini can get a class that has 8-9 players like lucky, bowman, suh, brooks, dillard, glenn, octavient (he was in the 05' class), potter, slauson,z. taylor,b. turner... - I won't be worried.
Click to expand...
Top guy. He signed in '04.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=665&yr=2004

I understand that Pelini has been over 20, but in the formula you take the top 20. So if I sign 30 players & you take the top 20, chances are there will be a higher average then if I only sign 20 & have to use the whole class.

I agree that Callahan brought in some great talent, but was not good at developing it. His biggest problem was his loyalty to his friends. If he would have fired Cosgrove & brought in someone who could have returned the Blackshirts to a respectable form. He may still be coaching here.

Anyways in better news Mohammed Seisay is N

 
It's not the stars behind the names. We spent thirty years under Osborne and Solich learning that. People who get all concerned about our stars and recruiting class rank are just looking for entertainment. You can have a lot of fun keeping track of this or that player, who signs where, all that stuff. Good harmless fun (for 99.9% of those who follow recruiting). Me, I don't care what number of stars a guy has from some recruiting service. It's all arbitrary, and has nothing to do with how they'll perform in college. We've all seen hundreds of examples of five stars that fizzled or two stars that became all-conference. It's about coaching and the kid's own will to work and grow.

 
knapplc said:
It's not the stars behind the names. We spent thirty years under Osborne and Solich learning that. People who get all concerned about our stars and recruiting class rank are just looking for entertainment. You can have a lot of fun keeping track of this or that player, who signs where, all that stuff. Good harmless fun (for 99.9% of those who follow recruiting). Me, I don't care what number of stars a guy has from some recruiting service. It's all arbitrary, and has nothing to do with how they'll perform in college. We've all seen hundreds of examples of five stars that fizzled or two stars that became all-conference. It's about coaching and the kid's own will to work and grow.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.

 
knapplc said:
It's not the stars behind the names. We spent thirty years under Osborne and Solich learning that. People who get all concerned about our stars and recruiting class rank are just looking for entertainment. You can have a lot of fun keeping track of this or that player, who signs where, all that stuff. Good harmless fun (for 99.9% of those who follow recruiting). Me, I don't care what number of stars a guy has from some recruiting service. It's all arbitrary, and has nothing to do with how they'll perform in college. We've all seen hundreds of examples of five stars that fizzled or two stars that became all-conference. It's about coaching and the kid's own will to work and grow.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you to an extent, but there is a reason Bama, LSU, and Oregon are where they are.... They get the top kids.... They dont all pan out, but the more 5 star, and 4 star guys you get, the better you'll be....

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top