You know the person to blame for all this is Casey Kasem. He would always end his broadcast with "Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars". Damn him all to hell.
you're just a poser. I don't do the math, but I would be willing to bet that they (USC) have signed more than double the 5-stars than LSU or Texas or OU, etc... but they have the same amount of titles, and it's still always arguable as to if they would have gotten that title playing an SEC schedule, but that's for another day. they are good, but i'm just showing that having 5-stars doesn't guarantee you can show up and destroy who you're playing. Just ask Stanford. Don't get me wrong. you're misconstruing what I am saying, because they're a class program. and don't get me wrong, if i had the choice of 2 5-star guys or 2 3-star guys, i'd take the 2 5-stars, but that doesn't mean the 2 other guys can't play either. and also, how is the keiland/hester thing a bad example? is it because ignorant fans here think he should be starting without being able to understand that his "5-star" brain hasn't been able to grasp all of the plays, blocking schemes and such yet? How would I know that, though. i'm not a sports writer, remember? :nope: you go and troll around rivals drooling over the 5-stars interested in LSU. I'll trust a guy with a 29-5 record at LSU over you who couldn't even emulate that on NCAA Football 08.
clair's examples are both legitimate and relevant to the topic at hand. USC has averaged about four 5 star recruits over the past 5-6 recruiting seasons. I guess the other issue is the bias that recruiting services have for these California kids. Are they really all that?
Nope, not legit at all. It's apples and oranges. Hester is a senior and get's more PT. KW is sophmore and get's much less PT for some reason unknown. That in no way indicates that Hester has turned out to be the better player despite star ranking. As for the USC/BCS comment, he couldn't be more off. His argument is that USC has had limited succes despite having top recruiting classes (reason being they've only had one BCS title) That only holds water if BCS titles were the only way to measure success. USC has had two Heisman winners, BCS and AP title, and three NC appearances. It's ridiculous to imply that their top recruiting classes haven't translated to success because "they only have one BCS title". You and clair are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.
If it was all about star ratings USC would destroy everyone they play. No one else is even remotely close to them in 5 star players.
for whatever reason, you're blinded. b/c the majority here see things the way we do (not just me and ISL) how many times do i have to say that USC is a good program. listen, i said you could win and have a good TEAM (team being the key word) with a lineup full of 3 and 4 star guys. I could care less how many heismans and how many other things USC has. that's individual goals that I could care less about. That is also part of why USC is having problems this year. They have too many "next Heisman's" jocking for playing time and it's hurting their locker room. but the fact of the matter is the big-time. 2nd place is the 1st loser and success ultimately is measured in W's and L's, and USC has 1 NC and so does LSU in the span at question. If you want to translate it to total W/L, LSU is 29-5 in the last 34. USC is 29-4 in that same span. All I am trying to say is that if a 29-5 guy trusts 3-star scrubs like Jesse Daniels, Johnathan Zenon, Chris Jackson, Chevis Jackson, Tyson Jackson, Quinn Johnson, Curtis Taylor, Ciron Black, Trindon Holliday, Brandon LaFell, Danny McCray, Jacob Cutrera, etc... all of the above of which were 3-stars, then I trust the new batch he has coming in, too. USC is doing it with the #1 class damn near every year, signing 4-5 5 stars with 10-12 4-stars. LSU is doing it with 1-2 5-stars, with the rest evenly scattered among 3 and 4 stars. LSU plays a much tougher schedule year in and year out. All I am saying is I trust the man who is 29-5 with the "scrubs" i listed above more than some recruiting guru whom you apparently worship, b/c you take everything they put on their pretty little site to be golden. edit: Trindon Holliday is a sophomore who is undersized and who is a 3-star, and he plays a higher percentage of snaps than your big-time 5-star sophomore back. is that more of a "legit" analogy for you?
My point was not to defend the star ratings. I've been down that road a few times on this forum. I'm over that, it is what it is. My whole point was that if you are going to make the argument against star ratings, you have to come up with better examples than you did. Comparing Hester and KW to make you argument is a stretch and the USC argument is lame, I don't care how you spin it. Like I said, I am not defending the whole star ratings, we've beat that horse already.
Re: Why has LSU wasted so many schlorships on these bad three star recruits Ryan Baker comes to mind. :hihi: I read where he was only a three star when we recruited him but he's up to a four star rating and getting a lot of attn. So far, our early interest in him when, at the time, others weren't, carries a lot of weight. Hope his loyalty doesn't faulter and we end up with him. He's now being touted as one of the top prospects in the State of Florida. Props to the coaches for, once again, recognizing talent and not being star blind.
