Decommiting shows ambition. I want that!

[markb]

It is not all negative that some players have/will announce de-commiting. It also means that they are ambitious and they are winners and they want what's best for them.

They want to be a winner and play for a winner. I want that. I want those players.

The new coach will be in line with this thinking and will want them too.

 

[what what]

if that was the case, we wouldn't get anybody because we are 3-7

 

[OHvol40]

Is that why Nunes went to Stanford? Is Stanford gonna beat USC anytime soon?

 

[dickens821]

Is that why Nunes went to Stanford? Is Stanford gonna beat USC anytime soon?

you mean like last season?

 

[Bassmanbruno]

They want to be winners? Then why are they decommitting? They'd be winners in hopefully 2-3 years. Why did they commit to Fulmer in the first place if that was the case.

 

[OHvol40]

you mean like last season?

That'll happen again.:good!:

 

[markb]

Im being positive. There is a lot of negativity towards the recruits that decommit.

I feel strongly that the new coach will be contacting these young men and will have a good chance at getting them back because the new coach will be a proven winner himself.

what what: in my opinion, one bad year doesn't affect recruiting as much as coaching changes do. If anything a bad year may spike recruit interest as they see themselves more valuable to a struggling team.

BassmanBruno: Fulmer was a proven winner, that's why he got those players.

 

[OHvol40]

"Decommiting shows ambition. I want that!"

I better not ever hear this phrase again.......EVER!:banghead2:
It makes me want to eat my own arm.

 

[The Dude]

That'll happen again.:good!:

They were 40 point dogs on the road last year. To act like more talent at Stanford makes an upset less likely is stupid. You fail.

 

[Bassmanbruno]

Im being positive. There is a lot of negativity towards the recruits that decommit.

I feel strongly that the new coach will be contacting these young men and will have a good chance at getting them back because the new coach will be a proven winner himself.

what what: in my opinion, one bad year doesn't affect recruiting as much as coaching changes do. If anything a bad year may spike recruit interest as they see themselves more valuable to a struggling team.

BassmanBruno: Fulmer was a proven winner, that's why he got those players.

That is not why he got those players. He got those players because he's a "heck of a recruiter". We haven't won an SEC championship in a decade - do you think he's still getting the recruits by bragging about our National championship?

He makes good relationships and is a recognized figure. NOT because we're winning. The guys we got are the guys that are telling themselves they're going to turn the program around - not like 5 or 6 years ago when the goal was to win a NC, not turn the program around.

 

[OHvol40]

They were 40 point dogs on the road last year. To act like more talent at Stanford makes an upset less likely is stupid. You fail.

You said it.... UPSET

You made my case for me. You are automaticly assuming that Stanford winning is an upset just proves my point.

Any upset means that the underdog is less likely to win. To suggest otherwise is stupid. :crazy:

Why does this really matter anyways?