|
djskillz -> RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) (2/9/2015 1:22:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: McMurfy
quote:
ORIGINAL: djskillz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro
quote:
ORIGINAL: McMurfy
quote:
ORIGINAL: djskillz
Not surprising, but pretty fascinating nonetheless:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/top-ten-signing-classes-are-necessary-for-national-titles-020515
On the other hand, Oregon has never had a Top 15 class and played in two title games and also has the best record in the past 10 years of D-1 Football.
Clearly they have not won it all.
One thing it does do is it makes Oregon as easy team to root for.
I think if they continue to be in the hunt their recruit ranking will be on the rise.
I doubt it, Bill. They've been a very good program for 10-15 years now and have an exciting offense, and it still hasn't translated. I think they'll just always be at a recruiting disadvantage to teams like USC, etc., regionally. There's just not as much talent in the Northwest to pull from (partly due to just sheer population, partly due to football's place in sports, etc.) compared to a lot of other places. The south, Texas, Ohio, and California will always have huge advantages in recruiting because there's just more HS talent in those areas in football.
I'm sure Murf can correct me on this, but IMO Oregon's strengths will always be 1) Nike connection and its money/marketing, 2) the facilities (which stem from #1) which are top notch, and 3) the system itself. But I'm not sure we'll see them ever suddenly reeling in top 10 classes each year. They can still compete and overcome that in other ways, as they have.
I agree with all of this, but you left out #5, tradition.
Not tradition like me as a 40 year old knows, but tradition to a 14-18 year old.
All that age group has ever known is a Top10 school, year in and year out, an exciting offense, they win most of their games, and they've played for the title twice.
One other note,
Oregon was tied for Top -10 in most NFL players last year, and
and this is big,
They had more defensive than offensive players in the NFL.
True, Murf. Those are solid points. I guess I just feel their regional disadvantage is always going to be big. Football's just a lot bigger in the South, SoCal, Texas, and Ohio/Michigan. That may change some, but it's always going to effect at some level because sometimes loyalties are formed at a young age. If you're a kid from Louisiana, chances are your parents are big LSU fans, or Bama/Miss/Ga/UT, etc. Same for USC or Texas/Texas A&M. And I guess I just feel that they've already been on top for a while now (10 years or so) so what else do they have to do to gain? But maybe so. Like I said, either way it's impressive that they've found a way to overcome.
|
|
|
|