57 versus 15 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 2, 2006

57 versus 15

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Actually, this year's recruiting class is one of the better ones in recent years. USM has never been able to recruit many highly visible blue chip high school players. We get mostly good kids with good attitudes that haven't fully developed yet in hopes that some work out, and some do. Bret Favre was not highly recruited out of high school. That's also true of Sammy Winder, Reggie Collier, Louis Lipps, and Adalius Thomas.

What has changed is that the big time programs with great resources have gotten more sophisticated at locating and identifying talent which makes it harder for the second tier programs to recruit those diamonds in the rough. In recent years State and Ole Miss have also struggled at recruiting against the likes of Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Florida State. In light of recent history, the success of Ole Miss this year is astounding.

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Mitch wrote:

Ole Miss football had an outstanding recruiting season (ranked 15 or 16 nationally), whereas ours was ranked 57 (which is okay for a non-championship bowl conference team). Being a member of Conf USA seems to be the barrier that will always limit our recruitment prospects, and hence our ability to compete at national level. Others have defected from Conf USA. Will this ever be in our cards?

I submit to you that there is quite a bit of bias toward the BCS in the recruiting rankings...But bottom line is what you do with the recruits when they get on campus...year in and year out, Bower has taken unherald recruits and molded them into a team that is competitive...He has done well making sure that they graduate as well...

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Mitch wrote:

Ole Miss football had an outstanding recruiting season (ranked 15 or 16 nationally), whereas ours was ranked 57 (which is okay for a non-championship bowl conference team). Being a member of Conf USA seems to be the barrier that will always limit our recruitment prospects, and hence our ability to compete at national level. Others have defected from Conf USA. Will this ever be in our cards?

As much as it pains me to admit this, I don't see moving out of CUSA as a viable option. Due to geography and media markets, we are not as attractive to the Big East as say Memphis, ECU, Marshall, or UCF. However, you never know as they are certainly weakened in respect to football after the exit of VT, Miami, and BC.

Academics would likely keep us out of the ACC (and probably many others) although we make sense geographically. The SEC would be foolish to have three teams from the least populated state in the South in its league (UM and MSU would block any such move if they were that foolish). Geography and travel issues make it impossible to move to most other conferences. People have talked about forming some type of mega conference between some members of CUSA and the MWC or the WAC. CUSA is already spread out too much and the travel costs associated with such an arrangement would put the nail in the coffin for USM in terms of our small athletic budget. The Big 12 is really the only other conference that I could see as remotely being interested and that too is a pipe dream. However, there have been grumblings that some institutions are not happy with the Big 12 and might bolt for the Pac 10, Big 10, or the SEC. If that happens, we could win the lotter so to speak. But just like the lottery, the odds are not good.

I think the most realistic goal is to make CUSA as competitive as possible. I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of Tulsa, UTEP, and UCF this season. Marshall needs to get back to where the were 2-3 years ago (so do we BTW). I also think that the Big East is an unstable conference. Basketball-wise, it is top drawer. Football is on par with CUSA or below. Too bad UL, UC, TCU, and USF couldn't stay put long enough to force a merger of sorts between the best of the remaining Big East and CUSA. That would have been a nice conference, but it wasn't to be. Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. Just surprised to see a sincere question about USM football and jumped on it!

Date: Feb 2, 2006

StillAnEagle wrote:

As much as it pains me to admit this, I don't see moving out of CUSA as a viable option. Due to geography and media markets, we are not as attractive to the Big East as say Memphis, ECU, Marshall, or UCF. However, you never know as they are certainly weakened in respect to football after the exit of VT, Miami, and BC. Academics would likely keep us out of the ACC (and probably many others) although we make sense geographically. The SEC would be foolish to have three teams from the least populated state in the South in its league (UM and MSU would block any such move if they were that foolish). Geography and travel issues make it impossible to move to most other conferences. People have talked about forming some type of mega conference between some members of CUSA and the MWC or the WAC. CUSA is already spread out too much and the travel costs associated with such an arrangement would put the nail in the coffin for USM in terms of our small athletic budget. The Big 12 is really the only other conference that I could see as remotely being interested and that too is a pipe dream. However, there have been grumblings that some institutions are not happy with the Big 12 and might bolt for the Pac 10, Big 10, or the SEC. If that happens, we could win the lotter so to speak. But just like the lottery, the odds are not good. I think the most realistic goal is to make CUSA as competitive as possible. I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of Tulsa, UTEP, and UCF this season. Marshall needs to get back to where the were 2-3 years ago (so do we BTW). I also think that the Big East is an unstable conference. Basketball-wise, it is top drawer. Football is on par with CUSA or below. Too bad UL, UC, TCU, and USF couldn't stay put long enough to force a merger of sorts between the best of the remaining Big East and CUSA. That would have been a nice conference, but it wasn't to be. Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. Just surprised to see a sincere question about USM football and jumped on it!

Why would academics keep us out of the ACC? BTW, I'd vote to give up the Polymer Program if the funds would be used to get us into the Big 12!

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Mitch wrote:

Why would academics keep us out of the ACC? BTW, I'd vote to give up the Polymer Program if the funds would be used to get us into the Big 12!

Well, I think I detect sarcasm in your response, but in case you are sincere....I think the ACC has pretty high standards for its member institutions. SEC, Big 12, et al. do too, but I think the ACC is probably more renown for this. There were concerns about Miami's and FSU's academics when they were admitted. I would bet USM would really cause them heart burn.

Date: Feb 2, 2006

I have to disagree with one comment in the long post above, that being that the Big East is on par, or worse, than C-USA in football.

Secondly, everyone is discussing USM's #57 ranking on rivals.com when scout.com has us in the 80s. The Birmingham News just did a study indicating that scout.com is much better at rating than rivals.com, using winning 4 years out.

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Going forward in our athletic program requires creative leadership. If Giannini had a serious or innovative thought regarding LEADERSHIP his skull would crack front to back. Couldn't take the pressure.