I think you may be missing the idea that its slightly more difficult to convince kids from other regions that Mississippi is a place they'd like to spend the next 4 years as opposed to South Carolina.
Rebel recruiting gets better and better. They are
- Thread starter AlSwearengen
- Start date
Kansas and Kansas also have similar institutions to compete against, and lesser overall competition. Also located in a JUCO heavy state.
Clemson actually has decent history, recent history at that. 1981 National Champs. And they compete in the ACC, which requires less talent than the SEC.
At the end of the day, we're likely in the middle of the Kansas/South Carolina comparison. We have more talent than Kansas, but not as much as South Carolina. We compete in a harder conference than the Big 12 with approximately the same resources as Kansas/K-State. So hoping for Carolina/Clemson success is a little much. Put it this way, we are DAMN lucky that we have a big talent pool in Mississippi per capita.
Clemson actually has decent history, recent history at that. 1981 National Champs. And they compete in the ACC, which requires less talent than the SEC.
At the end of the day, we're likely in the middle of the Kansas/South Carolina comparison. We have more talent than Kansas, but not as much as South Carolina. We compete in a harder conference than the Big 12 with approximately the same resources as Kansas/K-State. So hoping for Carolina/Clemson success is a little much. Put it this way, we are DAMN lucky that we have a big talent pool in Mississippi per capita.
Goat, I am considering gross talent totals. The last distribution I saw, the state of South Carolina produced about the same amount of NFL draft picks each year as Mississippi when you look at high school talent.
You explained away Clemson, but how do you explain South Carolina and their recruiting improvement followed by on field improvement? Their program has as little or less tradition than both of our programs. They essentially replaced UT in the SEC East elite recently though, and they have stacked up quite a few Top 10 classes, which actually started before they hit it big on the field.
Just saying that it isn't impossible to make a move. Sustaining it is the hard part, because you either need a coach that really likes your job and isn't interested in leaving, or you have to be able to replace that coach with another good one when he does leave, which is a challenge.
Oregon is an interesting one when you look at coaching changes. Admittedly, the Nike money played a role in their upward mobility, but Belotti built the resurgence, and when he was done they hired Kelly from within. Now that Kelly left, they've hired from within again. Point being, it doesn't take a earth shattering hire to continue a solid program if it gets going, just smart hires.
You explained away Clemson, but how do you explain South Carolina and their recruiting improvement followed by on field improvement? Their program has as little or less tradition than both of our programs. They essentially replaced UT in the SEC East elite recently though, and they have stacked up quite a few Top 10 classes, which actually started before they hit it big on the field.
Just saying that it isn't impossible to make a move. Sustaining it is the hard part, because you either need a coach that really likes your job and isn't interested in leaving, or you have to be able to replace that coach with another good one when he does leave, which is a challenge.
Oregon is an interesting one when you look at coaching changes. Admittedly, the Nike money played a role in their upward mobility, but Belotti built the resurgence, and when he was done they hired Kelly from within. Now that Kelly left, they've hired from within again. Point being, it doesn't take a earth shattering hire to continue a solid program if it gets going, just smart hires.
