The whole washington deal couldve been a money move or leverage move. I will say, seattle has some pretty good talent and down into oregon and even parts of cali. Have you noticed washignton isn't as good once usc got better? When usc was down, washignton feasted on la talent, but now since usc is up, its a no contest unless they have too many players already.
Not on a consistent basis. You have to be able to replace high end talent with high end talent. ND will never be able to stockpile the kind of talent needed to push one out the door and come back with the same type of players. They went to a bcs bowl because they had a clause and got embarrassed and shouldnt have been on the same field. They also had a senior laden team. Go look at the 01 hurricanes and you will see what talent is. They won a title with fre and soph's. Mcghee,portis,gore,and davenport were in the same backfield with parrish,wayne,and johnson,shockey,k2,bryant mckinnie,mcdoyugle,ed reed,dj williams,vilma and others were underclassmen. I'm not saying alot of teams can get to that level, but to maintain a high end program, you have to have the next man basically being all american.
I guess weis,willingham,davie are all r****ds and they're holding nd back. I hope it works out, but living in the past gets you nowhere.
The difference is that none of those schools have the same level of academic standards as Notre Dame. There is just too much against them to ever have them back to their dominant selves. DD
Just like stanford,baylor,smu,rice and all those other high end academic schools and thats what people are missing. If i'm texas and i can go get a blue chipper with a 2.5 and 750 sat guy vs only being able to get a 3.0 1100 sat guy, well there are alot more of those 2.5 750 guys than the latter in the nation.
Most of what you said you're just pulling out of no where. You said in the last thread ND couldn't recruit anymore, I showed you rivals pages of ND having top 10 classes year after year under Weis. You told me well, the rivals pages don't know what theyre talking about. Right. I should trust your opinion of a programs recruiting over a site of paid scouts dedicated to it. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who makes up facts and tries to discount the facts you do provide, so I won't try anymore. Just know that most of the time, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I've always heard that if you want to give a grade on a recruiting class, check back in 3 yrs. Giving a recruiting class a grade is just like giving a draft class a grade which is cray to say the least. Its great for a $5 magazine, but when it comes time for these top 10 recruiting classes, how the nfl aren't drafting those guys? http://www.drafthistory.com/colleges/n.html The proof is in the pudding. You can have a sorry year in college, but scouts will still see and draft nfl talent. If you don't put players in the nfl, you're recruiting classes are garbage.
LOL @ SMU and Baylor being compared to Stanford and Rice. "Academics" are such an overblown excuse; some schools (yes, Notre Dame is one of them) admits talent above the requirements of the famed NCAA sliding scale. Even with that, there will always be exceptional talent to fill the roster, even at Notre Dame. They had exceptional talent this year and in recent years. They just had such a pussified defense it was beyond embarrassing for them. The same "living in the past" comments have been said about Alabama. Same for Nebraska and Miami (those last two appear to be on the way back). Notre Dame can't recruit the Florida or Texas guys effectively, but they will still get top talent, without a doubt. They just need a proven coach.
That's not how it works. A school scores on high on these recruiting grades because they get a number of highly ranked recruits. That doesn't mean that any of these highly ranked recruits will turn out to be high NFL draft picks. ND has shown that they can recruit, their problem is that these kids are not performing like top recruits once they get to school. Maybe it's a problem of scouting, maybe it's a problem of coaching, but it's not a problem of recruiting.
What point are you proving? USC has had a bunch of 1st round picks and many of them have been NFL busts. Miami has had plenty of 1st round picks and many of them have been impact players. In fact there have been more than a few who weren't picked in the first round from a place like Miami and ended up being impact players while undergoing underwhelming coaching (Beason, Hester, Gore, Campbell, and even an undrafted guy like Bruce Johnson for the Giants). The point is I don't think number of players drafted highly or playing in the NFL is a legitimate argument for or against a program's success.
