Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 48
| visibility 1

Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 3:27 PM

From 2012-2015 247 sports

Tigers 23,15,24,10 - Ave 18
Coots 15,18,16,19 - Ave 17

What went wrong with the coots? LOL I wonder what El Cids rankings were.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


deCootments or academic casualties***


Jul 5, 2016, 3:30 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Re: deCootments or academic casualties***


Jul 5, 2016, 3:33 PM

Academic casualties seems like a reach to me. Maybe they just didn't graduate HS?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Seriously, SCar's classes the last four years have been


Jul 5, 2016, 3:47 PM

decimated with non-qualifiers, transfers, and roster cuts. Those rankings would be in the 30's or worse were they to retroactively assign values after a few years, based solely on attendance, not productivity.

Our recruiting staff, however, does a much better job of assuring that whoever commits is likely to make it to campus also, as well as keep them on campus for years in the system once they do arrive. It's almost a polar opposite of SCar in that respect, as our recent on field results help show.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Seriously, SCar's classes the last four years have been


Jul 6, 2016, 7:42 AM

Agreed, but I think our staff offers a higher academic quality athlete, staying away from those who don't seem to possess the academic skills to make it at Clemson. Take a look at our graduation rate, and it seems pretty obvious that we place more emphasis on the classroom. usuc, not so much.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

academic casualties = non-qualifiers***


Jul 5, 2016, 4:11 PM [ in reply to Re: deCootments or academic casualties*** ]



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Just for funsies


Jul 5, 2016, 3:51 PM

I looked, and they only signed 14 more players than us in that 4 year span. I honestly would have guessed more.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Probation forced them to cut scholarships by 6 over a 3 year


Jul 5, 2016, 9:31 PM

period during that stretch or there would have been more.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good catch.***


Jul 6, 2016, 7:00 AM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 4:02 PM

The issue is you are looking at 247 rankings. Take a look at rivals and ESPN. Those rankings show a bigger gap. And if you look at results I'd say rivals has been the best when it comes to player ratings and team rankings

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've always heard people say that about rivals


Jul 5, 2016, 4:24 PM

but there is zero data to support that rivals is better at predicting. Sure you can find a team where they are better and I'll bet I can find another team where they were worse. Rivals was just better at advertising and putting the information out there in a nice orderly fashion. 247 seems to do a better job now or advertising etc. Rivals started the whole "insider" knowledge scheme and got people to pay for their information, but it really wasn't better information. David Hood has as much and better information than any of the other outlets.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I've always heard people say that about rivals


Jul 6, 2016, 7:45 AM

I agree that Hood seems to do a better and more thorough job of getting things right than many others. He may be ours, but he is pretty darned good, IMO.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 4:03 PM

What are you looking at? Those don't match what I see...we've been ahead of them every year in recruiting on 247, ESPN, and Rivals....Scout is the odd ball a year or two.

247 Sports Composite Recruiting Team Rankings:
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

Clemson:
2016: 11
2015: 9
2014: 17
2013: 15
2012: 15
Average: 13.4

Coots:
2016: 24
2015: 19
2014: 19
2013: 20
2012: 17
Average: 19.8

Rivals:
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2016

Clemson
2016: 6
2015: 4
2014: 13
2013: 14
2012: 14
Average: 10.2

Coots:
2016: 27
2015: 19
2014: 17
2013: 16
2012: 19
Average: 19.6


ESPN:
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/classrankings?class=2016

Clemson:
2016: 8
2015: 4
2014: 12
2013: 13
2012: 10
Average: 9.4

Coots:
2016: 27
2015: 21
2014: 19
2013: 18
2012: 16
Average: 20.2


Scout:
http://www.scout.com/college/football/recruiting/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2016


Clemson:
2016: 15
2015: 15
2014: 28
2013: 12
2012: 17
Average: 17.4

Coots:
2016: 25
2015: 20
2014: 24
2013: 24
2012: 13
Average: 21.2

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 4:11 PM

My bad man I misread your post. Thought those were team rankings.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 4:19 PM

Mine are the team rankings...from all 4 sites. ;)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I used 2012-2015 since the 2016 recruits haven't played yet


Jul 5, 2016, 4:26 PM [ in reply to Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots ]

and therefor do not factor into our past success.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I used 2012-2015 since the 2016 recruits haven't played yet


Jul 5, 2016, 4:33 PM

...but you didn't pull the right numbers it doesn't appear:

you had this:
Tigers 23,15,24,10 (average = 18)
Coots: Coots 15,18,16,19 (average = 17)

247 actually has this:
Tigers 15,15,17,9 (average = 14)
Coots: 17,20,19,19 (average = 18.75)


http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I used 2012-2015 since the 2016 recruits haven't played yet


Jul 5, 2016, 4:36 PM



Note, 2012, Clemson was ranked #15, not #23 as you have down

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I used 2012-2015 since the 2016 recruits haven't played yet


Jul 5, 2016, 4:45 PM

Do you notice the 23 directly under the 15 by any chance?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: I used 2012-2015 since the 2016 recruits haven't played yet


Jul 5, 2016, 5:10 PM [ in reply to Re: I used 2012-2015 since the 2016 recruits haven't played yet ]

He is using 247 ranking not composite ranking.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I think JC Shurburt is a big reason 247 estimates of the


Jul 5, 2016, 9:39 PM [ in reply to Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots ]

Coots recruiting is high. But, your last one showing Scout's rankings proves one of the things I have said many times on here. Every player we recruit has a lower evaluation on Scout than all of the others. I cannot remember a Clemson player being rated higher on Scout than say Rivals, ESPN, etc.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We've recruited better than 18th. Some of the services count too many recruits


Jul 5, 2016, 4:12 PM

which values quantity (sec over signing) vs quality.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 4:32 PM

Difference between playing in the SEC and ACC ;)

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


The SEC is just Bama followed by a bunch of mediocre teams with terrible QB's***


Jul 5, 2016, 4:35 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Where does the SoCon fit in there?***


Jul 5, 2016, 4:39 PM [ in reply to Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots ]



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 4:46 PM [ in reply to Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots ]

and i mean NO ONE, considers that to be true at all. usuck would have a chance against wake, and possibly bc. probably much like the wake vs bc game last yr. every other acc team would beat you. unless of course someone decided to hand you the game like carolina did last yr.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I for one am glad you are stopping. You are one of the most ignorant posters ever. You obviously think very highly of your own opinion, unlike the rest of us - RockHillTiger


Re: funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 4:53 PM

I was being funny but we did beat the ACC coastal champion and only lost to the ACC Champion by 5 points...

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Whatever helps you sleep at night princess***


Jul 5, 2016, 5:11 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Re: funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 5:42 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

well, i almost banged....fill in the blank. is that seriously what usuck hangs their hat on? you lost to the f'n citadel. you don't hear tigers saying "we only lost by 5" in championship do you? #### no. do you know why?? because a loss is a loss. that's by far the most absurd statement ever

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I for one am glad you are stopping. You are one of the most ignorant posters ever. You obviously think very highly of your own opinion, unlike the rest of us - RockHillTiger


Re: funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 6:29 PM

Actually I've read that line a lot on here...

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Ive heard that a lot actually.


Jul 5, 2016, 9:56 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

Along with "Bama got lucky" and "the better team lost."

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Ive heard that a lot actually.


Jul 6, 2016, 8:56 AM

Good lord man can you make it any more obvious you are a shamecock lover? Why don't you just admit it already, it's not like you're fooling anyone.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Don't forget only lost to the SoCon runner up by 1.


Jul 5, 2016, 5:49 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

While listing accomplishments.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 5:59 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

You mean by 5 points when scoring a touchdown with ONE second left in the game? UNC handed that game to you on a platter. Wait, let's talk Citadel. Those previous excuses are getting real old as neither hold a lot of water. Idiot.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 9:05 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

Did you actually watch the games ? UNC dominated you and gave the game away with interceptions and the UNC dominated you and gave the game away with interceptions in the red zone. You were dead in the water against Clemson, we just took the foot off the gas and let it become close

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: funny how no one


Jul 5, 2016, 9:45 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

We also barely beat Syracuse. We also went undefeated untill the natty. You also went 3-9. A W is a W. We all know we dominated that game but y'all had some plays and put up a fight. We beat plenty of ranked teams and dominated every game we played.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Dude, you lost to The Citadel. You beat UNC game one of the


Jul 5, 2016, 9:53 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

year, when they threw the ball STRAIGHT to SKAI,( I mean, he would have had to have ducked not to get hit in the chest)not once , but TWICE, and then a third time to somebody else. And then, if their idiot coach had not for some unknown reason put his best tailback, who was running it down your throat, on the bench, you would have lost that game after being what, PLUS 4 in the turnover department. As far as our game, it was our 10th in a row. 10th. We gave you the last 7. You never, after we went up 10, had the ball with a chance to take the lead. Not once. And, you know, you spent two weeks preparing for us. The Citadel game is proof of that. And if you didn't spend the two weeks preparing for us, what does that say about your loss to The Citadel?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Dude, you lost to The Citadel. You beat UNC game one of the


Jul 5, 2016, 10:05 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

year, when they threw the ball STRAIGHT to SKAI,( I mean, he would have had to have ducked not to get hit in the chest)not once , but TWICE, and then a third time to somebody else. And then, if their idiot coach had not for some unknown reason put his best tailback, who was running it down your throat, on the bench, you would have lost that game after being what, PLUS 4 in the turnover department. As far as our game, it was our 10th in a row. 10th. We gave you the last 7. You never, after we went up 10, had the ball with a chance to take the lead. Not once. And, you know, you spent two weeks preparing for us. The Citadel game is proof of that. And if you didn't spend the two weeks preparing for us, what does that say about your loss to The Citadel?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Even Spurrier didn't think your team should've


Jul 5, 2016, 11:17 PM [ in reply to Re: funny how no one ]

beat UNC, here's the video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0y2ay-bbxoE
I would post his post game comments from our game, but he quit on your school by then.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 2:08 PM [ in reply to Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots ]

LOL difference between playing what??????? That's pretty lame, even for you. THere isn't a single team in the $EC least that could win the Atlantic Div in the ACC.Youve got Alabama and LSWHO, the rest are about even....and average. Take that crap somewhere else.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Didn't the second place team in our division


Jul 5, 2016, 11:22 PM [ in reply to Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots ]

beat the first place team in your division 27-2 at their place?
We could only hope to play such a soft schedule.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Coaching also, perhaps?


Jul 5, 2016, 4:38 PM

I seem to recall several players that came to us as 3 stars that performed equal to or better than some 4 (and even 5) star recruits (Jarrett, Norton, Dodd to name a few)... think it says something about the ability of the coaches to get them to a higher level, perhaps?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Whatever choice(s) you make makes you. Choose wisely.


247 rankings are terrible in terms for Clemson.***


Jul 5, 2016, 4:41 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Re: 247 rankings are terrible in terms for Clemson.***


Jul 5, 2016, 4:46 PM

Bad this is they aren't the worst of the 4...Scout's are absolutely off-the-wall bad.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 247 rankings are terrible in terms for Clemson.***


Jul 5, 2016, 5:56 PM

Clemson 4 13 14 14
Usuck 19 17 16 19

This is Rivals. (2015-2012) I still think they coots got a bump just for being $EC.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

247 is just a composite of the various sites, incl Scout.***


Jul 5, 2016, 7:08 PM [ in reply to Re: 247 rankings are terrible in terms for Clemson.*** ]



badge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 247 is just a composite of the various sites, incl Scout.***


Jul 5, 2016, 7:56 PM

Not exactly. 247 posts their own rankings as well as a 4-ranking composite. They'd be wise to leave Scout out of there, though.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Why is that?***


Jul 6, 2016, 8:04 AM [ in reply to 247 rankings are terrible in terms for Clemson.*** ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Previous 4 years recruiting Tigers vs Coots


Jul 5, 2016, 9:42 PM

Our 24 rank should be much higher just with how DW has been! Crazy how things work out. DW is deff the best from that class. The year before Gallman turned out as good as any 5*.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 48
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic