GoldenToTheGrave
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 772
Going off the "over-signing" thread in relation to South Carolina:
While this board often bemoans how hard it can be producing a top tier football program with the admissions/academic restrictions we face, the grass isn't always greener. With the exception of the Alabama's and LSU's (you could arguably put FSU, Southern Cal, etc in there) who can be stocked at most positions, practices like oversigning and taking JuCo's are far from panaceas in building deep and talent rosters. There are also considerable downsides to going the "football factory" route, which even the Alabama's and LSU's haven't completely been able to overcome despite the level of NFL talent they have. These are:
(1) When you have no recruiting standards except what shows up on the field, you're going to get more washouts, transfers, arrests, etc. While permissive environments in most football factory schools protect most players outside to most egregious cases, the impact is still non-trivial.
(2) Recruiting "Football first" players are also usually on the 3 year plan, which consequently leads to perpetually "talented but inexperienced" rosters. See: LSU for the last three years. While having elite athletes on the field is vital, so is leadership and effective role players. In a lot of football factories these elements are constantly in flux.
I'm not going to rehash "RKG's" debate, but there is little doubt that recruiting good program players that fit off the field and on are valuable. Between freshman growing pains, injuries, and announcing early for the NFL, most teams are lucky to get 1-2 good seasons of play from 5* elite talents. Meanwhile teams like Stanford and Michigan State have been powerhouses in recent years based off savvy veteran squads stocked with players in it for the long haul. There are obviously arguments both ways but lowering standards is certainly a mixed bag.
While this board often bemoans how hard it can be producing a top tier football program with the admissions/academic restrictions we face, the grass isn't always greener. With the exception of the Alabama's and LSU's (you could arguably put FSU, Southern Cal, etc in there) who can be stocked at most positions, practices like oversigning and taking JuCo's are far from panaceas in building deep and talent rosters. There are also considerable downsides to going the "football factory" route, which even the Alabama's and LSU's haven't completely been able to overcome despite the level of NFL talent they have. These are:
(1) When you have no recruiting standards except what shows up on the field, you're going to get more washouts, transfers, arrests, etc. While permissive environments in most football factory schools protect most players outside to most egregious cases, the impact is still non-trivial.
(2) Recruiting "Football first" players are also usually on the 3 year plan, which consequently leads to perpetually "talented but inexperienced" rosters. See: LSU for the last three years. While having elite athletes on the field is vital, so is leadership and effective role players. In a lot of football factories these elements are constantly in flux.
I'm not going to rehash "RKG's" debate, but there is little doubt that recruiting good program players that fit off the field and on are valuable. Between freshman growing pains, injuries, and announcing early for the NFL, most teams are lucky to get 1-2 good seasons of play from 5* elite talents. Meanwhile teams like Stanford and Michigan State have been powerhouses in recent years based off savvy veteran squads stocked with players in it for the long haul. There are obviously arguments both ways but lowering standards is certainly a mixed bag.
