Relevant to what? ESPN Classics? What does that have to do with anything. Seriously, Wheaton you're not making very much sense here.
I really don't see how you could have confused what I wrote with any other meaning. You asserted that past glories are a factor "when comparing programs" and that many recruits cite that as a reason for choosing a program. I wrote that "the current state of the program and how they do right now, on the field, is more relevant than the past." In other words, while prestige points can be a factor, many other factors are a cumulative bigger influence (location, fit on team, team needs, relationship with coach, current state of team, stability, experience of staff, etc., etc.).
That has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing.
It absolutely does. Every D1 athlete would want to be on a team that wins the NC game. Every fan wants their team to win the NC game.
If no other factors were involved, a player isn't going to choose a team that won NC games in the past but won't with them over a team that hasn't won in the past but will with them.
Well considering your recruiting class compared to ours, I guess you just proved yourself wrong. Nice argument here. Totally proved that recruiting has very little to do with current success.
I disagree. Recruiting involves many factors that paint the final perception of what a recruit thinks their experience will be like at any given program.
As I've written before, I think that UT benefited from being able to sell potential rather than track record as a group. Also, as I've pointed out, there is typically a lag between a good season and the affect on recruiting because recruiting for each class has typically begun before the season has even started. Kids have already established their lists before they have had a chance to see a team doing well.
Yawn. This is getting boring. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about either. This is about recruits -- not fans.
Tell me about. Reading repeated posts about how many NC's UT has is boring and illustrates my point. You guys are the ones that want to talk about that, not me.
It's about both. This thread happens to be titled "Sour Grapes from Oregon" in reference to Oregon fans. The statements I have responded to have been UT fans talking down about the Oregon program. I have simply pointed out that, over the past 10 years, the programs have performed comparably. UT is in no position, given the current state of the programs, to be talking down about Oregon.
I'm not selling UT short. I am relaying to you the reasons we are able to bring in top athletes. Success follows successful recruiting and not vice versa. You can't win the race if you don't have the best horse. I guess when you've had as little success as Oregon has you wouldn't know very much about that though would you? We have a lot of very attractive things to offer recruits. Hell, Fulmer had a 6th rated class before he got canned and we were putting together a 5-7 season! You are overrating success on the field as it has to do with recruiting.
You couldn't have made a more hypocritical statement. On the one hand, you have been harping away at how important past glories are to recruits. In other words, past success is important to recruits. And now you are telling me that past success is not important to recruits.
Following this line of logic, Kiffin will be a better coach than Kelly since he does have claim to one of the most prolific offenses in NCAA history.
I think it's more complicated than that.
They each had different circumstances. Kiffin inherited a team that was probably the most talented in the NCAA. They already had established a winning system with those players. It's difficult to determine whether he was merely pushing buttons or can take much responsibility for that success. If Kiffin was responsible for USC's success. One would think that the Raiders would have done a lot better than they did.
Chip Kelly took over a program that had substantially lower expectations. Most people had written off Dixon as having been a dud. They were pissed off that he missed football practice to play baseball and it was expected to be a bad year for Oregon. But, whatever changes Kelly made, they allowed Dixon to have the break-out year that everyone is familiar with. Dixon himself has attributed his success many times to Kelly.
We will have to see who proves to be the better coach in their current situations. Kiffin has shown that he can recruit. But, I think Kelly's circumstances and track record more clearly indicate what he brings to the table on the field.
