Online Now 760

Autzen Audibles

Loudest board in the nation, per capita

On this Board 360
Record: 5214 (1/16/2013)

Online now 692
Record: 5583 (1/22/2012)

Boards ▾

Autzen Audibles

Loudest board in the nation, per capita

Quacks Open Off-Topic Board

The Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Duck tickets here.

Reply

Oregons offer #'s compared

  • I also appreciate the general civility and thoughtfulness that has gone in to most of the posts. This is a subject worth discussing and each side has some valid points.
    I do have a couple of questions for C-Vag et al. The general consensus with the group who thinks our window to garner highly rated recruits is closing; is that we need to make more offers and we needed to make them earlier. Is that a fair assesment of the group position? Assuming that fairly represents your position , what imperical or non-imperical evidence do you have that more or earlier offers would make any difference with how the class has shaped up? It doesn't seem that we have done too well with kids that we were on early and had early offers out to. If we had gotten Vanderdoes, Redfield, Isaac Siaviwhatever, Nico Falah, etc. would we even be having this conversation? The problem with them wasn't that they weren't offered early, it is that they didn't commit to us. So what is there to say more offers mean more high level recruit commits? I know it seems intuitive, but is it?
    Just thought I'd add that element to the discussion.

    This post was edited by Duckwad on 8/8/2012 at 11:04 PM

    Duckwad ●

  • Duckwad said...

    I also appreciate the general civility and thoughtfulness that has gone in to most of the posts. This is a subject worth discussing and each side has some valid points. I do have a couple of questions for C-Vag et al. The general consensus with the group who thinks our window to garner highly rated recruits is closing; is that we need to make more offers and we needed to make them earlier. Is that a fair assesment of the group position? Assuming that fairly represents your position , what imperical or non-imperical evidence do you have that more or earlier offers would make any difference with how the class has shaped up? It doesn't seem that we have done too well with kids that we were on early and had early offers out to. If we had gotten Vanderdoes, Redfield, Isaac Siaviwhatever, Nico Falah, etc. would we even be having this conversation? The problem with them wasn't that they weren't offered early, it is that they didn't commit to us. So what is there to say more offers mean more high level recruit commits? I know it seems intuitive, but is it? Just thought I'd add that element to the discussion.

    That is a fair assessment of my position. There is no way to know if more offers would definitely had led to more commits at this point, but I believe it falls into the "it could not possibly hurt" column. There is empirical evidence to indicate that the high-tier kids are committing earlier this year. Some of the kids who gave verbals elsewhere may have taken pause and at least held off committing if they had an Oregon offer in hand. The kids that you mentioned specifically are mostly 5-star or very high 4-star recruits who would be difficult to land in any circumstance and you hope to get 2-4 of in a given year. My concern is the solid 4-star and even the high 3-star recruits who would very likely either commit or take a very serious look at Oregon if offered. The number of the these kids available is being whittled down quickly...we may poach 1-2 after verbaling elsewhere but they are tougher to get once they have set their sights on another school.

    Agreed...it seems intuitive to me and this is what I believe...is my humble opinion.

    This post was edited by DuxFlav23 on 8/8/2012 at 11:19 PM

    DuxFlav23

  • jriv_from_Otown said...

    Bigget positions of need: RB OL

    How's that goin? Addressing the key needs early, gotta like that. Said it earlier, depth is not our biggest issue right now at many positions. More so, inexperience.

    Good point:

    RB - taking 3 - got 4/5* and 4*
    OL - taking 3 maybe 4 - got two 4* and at OG which is harder than OT IMO.

    SouthOfTheBorderDuck

  • While I strongly disagree with the notion that this class can be construed as a disappointment thus far and the coaches should change course immediately, its pretty hard to refute that changing field conditions should necessitate a change in strategy. There are two important points both sides are making, and reality as always lies in between.

    It is August. Until the NCAA adopts an early signing period, the scores don't count until February. It's like shuffleboard, until the round is over nobody has any points yet. You can question where we stand, but just know that you are just as blind in your criticism as the others are in their faith. Criticizing the method before you know the results is fool hearty. Question yes, criticize...I think you need to see the results.

    The other side of the coin is that using past results as justification for future actions can be as foolish. For one a sound strategy in 2010 would have factored in all the variables present in 2010. What happens when those variables change? Is dogmatically holding on to your methods in the face of changing conditions a strategy you'd want to embrace? I think it is fair for Vag to question whether an adjustment in strategy is necessary given the shrinking pool of commits, but until this class is set you are still questioning methods before you know the results. Given the success of the methods previously, I can't blame Kelly for valuing what his approach to recruiting offers more than the alternative. But I don't think you can say look at DAT look and Armstead, just sit back and the cherry will come to us.

    My hope is that whatever the shift that probably needs to occur is, that it be subtle and still preserve what has made this work so well. While I VEHEMENTLY disagree with the position that Badger made about how we are lucky to have the success we have had and are stuck in a rut till we get some real recruits, the sentiment should illustrate how wildly successful Kelly was given the perceived talent in place. That affords him leeway in establishing a course, but it doesn't give him a status beyond reproach if the results start to change.

    mr_griff

  • mr_griff said...

    While I strongly disagree with the notion that this class can be construed as a disappointment thus far and the coaches should change course immediately, its pretty hard to refute that changing field conditions should necessitate a change in strategy. There are two important points both sides are making, and reality as always lies in between.

    It is August. Until the NCAA adopts an early signing period, the scores don't count until February. It's like shuffleboard, until the round is over nobody has any points yet. You can question where we stand, but just know that you are just as blind in your criticism as the others are in their faith. Criticizing the method before you know the results is fool hearty. Question yes, criticize...I think you need to see the results.

    The other side of the coin is that using past results as justification for future actions can be as foolish. For one a sound strategy in 2010 would have factored in all the variables present in 2010. What happens when those variables change? Is dogmatically holding on to your methods in the face of changing conditions a strategy you'd want to embrace? I think it is fair for Vag to question whether an adjustment in strategy is necessary given the shrinking pool of commits, but until this class is set you are still questioning methods before you know the results. Given the success of the methods previously, I can't blame Kelly for valuing what his approach to recruiting offers more than the alternative. But I don't think you can say look at DAT look and Armstead, just sit back and the cherry will come to us.

    My hope is that whatever the shift that probably needs to occur is, that it be subtle and still preserve what has made this work so well. While I VEHEMENTLY disagree with the position that Badger made about how we are lucky to have the success we have had and are stuck in a rut till we get some real recruits, the sentiment should illustrate how wildly successful Kelly was given the perceived talent in place. That affords him leeway in establishing a course, but it doesn't give him a status beyond reproach if the results start to change.

    This is a really great post. I personally am not in that camp that feels our overall approach is necessarily bad, just difficult to understand. I am smart enough to know that I don't know enough...yet passionate to the point that I want to see that everything is being done to ensure our standing atop the pack. I think what bothers me most about the last year or two is how particular recruits are passed on or left hanging. Let me give an example or two. Let me also interject an opinion here: It has been stated numerous times by the staff that they want players who want to be ducks. With that said I'll use Cole Luke and Troy Williams. Okay okay, here where it gets tricky. All those who want to jump on me with by saying Williams is too short or isn't a good fit, etc...or that Luke may not play the right type of defense that fits our style...I get it. I really do. But it is frustrating to see guys who are considered of high character, perform well during their seasons, perform well at camps, have tremendous offer lists, win awards and become nationally recognized, then talk about how Oregon is their dream school only to never receive an offer and (sorry using a different player here...Willis) say that Oregon has dropped off the map/isn't communicating back/is being difficult, etc. So with this being said, it makes me put an extreme amount of pressure on someone like Chris Seisay. I see Oregon pass on a corner who is considered one of the top 150 players in the country to a player whose offer lists consists of A few Mountain West schools. How about Sam Kamp, TJ Daniel, or Carriger...I get so confused why we jump on an early offer to a dude in Montana or another guy in AZ that seem to have very little options among D1 schools all the while passing on guys who are universally seen as having the talent to succeed at the next level. Is Chip and co just that much smarter and better talent evaluators than almost everybody else? Possibly...will we say that is true if all of these "flier" type recruits sit at 4th string depth chart as they move through their careers at UO? Only time will tell really. Our situation is not the least bit dyer...our class is strong, but the potential for a weak finish is stronger than ever at the moment. We have a little leeway since our overall team is currently young...but who looks at their team and depth chart and says,"hmmm, got a lot of talented and young dudes on our team. Let's not shoot for the best available talented guys this year and just kinda take this recruiting cycle off. We will make up for it next year.". Don't think that is happening.

    Now to finish this blithering rant off...it is so hard to post anything long on your phone as I quickly lose track of the flow of my thoughts. Anyway, I'm the most optimistic guy when it comes to our team on the field. We can be down 50-0 in the 4th quarter and I'll be telling someone how we can still pull the game out...but for some reason I can't find that same optimism in our recruiting. Maybe it is just because we are so in the dark in regards to info and the direction of the staff. We will be fine going forward...problem is, I'm not satisfied with fine. I want great. I want to crush every opponent and make sure the best kids are sitting on the sidelines thinking what it would be like to be a duk some day. I want a National Championship. I want a dynastic run out of our program. Are my desires unrealistic? Maybe...will I be crushed it they don't come to fruition? Nope. Too much other stuff to deal with. But this is my passion and my escape from the daily stresses. I want my escape to be fantastic...I want it to be dreamlike and I won't give up on the possibility that it can be. So, when we settle for players because we miss on our first choices...or when I watch kids who seem to share that same desire about our ducks get shrugged off for a lower tier kid that I've never heard of I get frustrated. Probably frustrated mostly because more often than not the only answer our DT staff can offer is,"not sure why, but the staff has cooled on them." haha, well this has turned into a total brain diarrhea dump. Enough...sorry for my self therapy free writing session!!

    signature image

    97duck ●

  • Haha for those who don't know I'm married with 3 daughters...based on my last post it seems I've had my daily quota of beer and estrogen!!

    signature image

    97duck ●

  • mr_griff said...

    While I strongly disagree with the notion that this class can be construed as a disappointment thus far and the coaches should change course immediately, its pretty hard to refute that changing field conditions should necessitate a change in strategy. There are two important points both sides are making, and reality as always lies in between.

    It is August. Until the NCAA adopts an early signing period, the scores don't count until February. It's like shuffleboard, until the round is over nobody has any points yet. You can question where we stand, but just know that you are just as blind in your criticism as the others are in their faith. Criticizing the method before you know the results is fool hearty. Question yes, criticize...I think you need to see the results.

    The other side of the coin is that using past results as justification for future actions can be as foolish. For one a sound strategy in 2010 would have factored in all the variables present in 2010. What happens when those variables change? Is dogmatically holding on to your methods in the face of changing conditions a strategy you'd want to embrace? I think it is fair for Vag to question whether an adjustment in strategy is necessary given the shrinking pool of commits, but until this class is set you are still questioning methods before you know the results. Given the success of the methods previously, I can't blame Kelly for valuing what his approach to recruiting offers more than the alternative. But I don't think you can say look at DAT look and Armstead, just sit back and the cherry will come to us.

    My hope is that whatever the shift that probably needs to occur is, that it be subtle and still preserve what has made this work so well. While I VEHEMENTLY disagree with the position that Badger made about how we are lucky to have the success we have had and are stuck in a rut till we get some real recruits, the sentiment should illustrate how wildly successful Kelly was given the perceived talent in place. That affords him leeway in establishing a course, but it doesn't give him a status beyond reproach if the results start to change.

    Well said.

    Duckwad ●

  • 97duck said...

    Haha for those who don't know I'm married with 3 daughters...based on my last post it seems I've had my daily quota of beer and estrogen!!

    lol

    Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent

    L Perry ●

  • Caravaggio said...

    We absolutely had a fantastic start. But AGAIN, it's simply a numbers game. There are just not the amount of available blue chip PSA's that there were last year because so many have already committed. The fact that we offers so few players and the fact that so many are committing early are separately not a huge issue, but combined are quite worrisome for this class, imo.

    No offer for Montravious Adams? Laray Smith? LJ Moore? Jaynard Bostwick? Dion Martin? Vita Vea? Priest Willis? etc, etc, etc. You can explain away individual non offers, back problems, grades, personality issues, but all of them?

    Dead on Bro!

    Honey Badger

  • Duckwad said...

    I also appreciate the general civility and thoughtfulness that has gone in to most of the posts. This is a subject worth discussing and each side has some valid points. I do have a couple of questions for C-Vag et al. The general consensus with the group who thinks our window to garner highly rated recruits is closing; is that we need to make more offers and we needed to make them earlier. Is that a fair assesment of the group position? Assuming that fairly represents your position , what imperical or non-imperical evidence do you have that more or earlier offers would make any difference with how the class has shaped up? It doesn't seem that we have done too well with kids that we were on early and had early offers out to. If we had gotten Vanderdoes, Redfield, Isaac Siaviwhatever, Nico Falah, etc. would we even be having this conversation? The problem with them wasn't that they weren't offered early, it is that they didn't commit to us. So what is there to say more offers mean more high level recruit commits? I know it seems intuitive, but is it? Just thought I'd add that element to the discussion.

    The proof is in the pudding. After Texas, which we can all agree is special case, every single team has more offers and more commits. I don't see how anyone could argue that we wouldn't have more commits if we had more offers when literally every single other team(aside from texas) has more offers and more commits. This isn't some random stat with nothing to back it up, it's not cherry picking. There is a direct correlation. It is directly proportional.

    Caravaggio

  • This post is for members of DuckTerritory only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent

    L Perry ●

  • Thanks to everyone for the great discussion.

    Caravaggio

  • This post is for members of DuckTerritory only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
    signature image

    97duck ●

  • jriv_from_Otown said...

    There's more to it than that though. We would have more commits for sure. I for one love the vetting, I hate the negative media of guys like Cliffy, Masoli, Blount, Kiko...etc. We run more of a risk by just throwing out offers. Not to say it wont happen in the future. Hasn't Chip been 100% in relation to academic qualifying?

    Also, just because more offers are put out, doesn't mean the guys the fans want are going to commit to us.

    I prefer the pudding on the field, afterall, that's where it matters. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

    I agree 100%. But when people say things like 2 star JC transfer will do as well as Redfield and Vanderdoes, it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Recruiting matters, period. COACHING matters, period. There isn't some disconnect in between. They are attached at the hip. You can't be a good coach with bad players and you can't be a great player with poor coaching. Oregon has good coaches, they also need good recruits.

    This post was edited by Caravaggio on 8/9/2012 at 1:03 AM

    Caravaggio

  • Caravaggio said...

    I agree 100%. But when people say things like 2 star JC transfer will do as well as Redfield and Vanderdoes, it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Recruiting matters, period. COACHING matters, period. There isn't some disconnect in between. They are attached at the hip. You can't be a good coach with bad players and you can't be a great player with poor coaching. Oregon has good coaches, they also need good recruits.

    Inarguable!

    signature image

    97duck ●

  • This post is for members of DuckTerritory only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent

    L Perry ●

  • jriv_from_Otown said

    I prefer the pudding on the field, afterall, that's where it matters. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

    Yep, on particularly unpleasant recruiting days such as Eddie V picking the condoms I try to remind myself it's just a means to an end. My new favorite GM would say its a player acquisition vehicle. At the end of the day (he'd say that for sure), it's not the size of the recruiting class it's how you use them.

    As long as the team continues to grow and get better, I'll takes losses in August over ones on Satudays.

    mr_griff

  • mr_griff said...

    I'll takes losses in August over ones on Satudays.

    I'll take your quote and raise you one. A wise coach also said,"too many losses in August will lead to too many losses on Saturdays."

    Cheers!

    signature image

    97duck ●

  • 97duck said...

    This is a really great post. I personally am not in that camp that feels our overall approach is necessarily bad, just difficult to understand. I am smart enough to know that I don't know enough...yet passionate to the point that I want to see that everything is being done to ensure our standing atop the pack. I think what bothers me most about the last year or two is how particular recruits are passed on or left hanging. Let me give an example or two. Let me also interject an opinion here: It has been stated numerous times by the staff that they want players who want to be ducks. With that said I'll use Cole Luke and Troy Williams. Okay okay, here where it gets tricky. All those who want to jump on me with by saying Williams is too short or isn't a good fit, etc...or that Luke may not play the right type of defense that fits our style...I get it. I really do. But it is frustrating to see guys who are considered of high character, perform well during their seasons, perform well at camps, have tremendous offer lists, win awards and become nationally recognized, then talk about how Oregon is their dream school only to never receive an offer and (sorry using a different player here...Willis) say that Oregon has dropped off the map/isn't communicating back/is being difficult, etc. So with this being said, it makes me put an extreme amount of pressure on someone like Chris Seisay. I see Oregon pass on a corner who is considered one of the top 150 players in the country to a player whose offer lists consists of A few Mountain West schools. How about Sam Kamp, TJ Daniel, or Carriger...I get so confused why we jump on an early offer to a dude in Montana or another guy in AZ that seem to have very little options among D1 schools all the while passing on guys who are universally seen as having the talent to succeed at the next level. Is Chip and co just that much smarter and better talent evaluators than almost everybody else? Possibly...will we say that is true if all of these "flier" type recruits sit at 4th string depth chart as they move through their careers at UO? Only time will tell really. Our situation is not the least bit dyer...our class is strong, but the potential for a weak finish is stronger than ever at the moment. We have a little leeway since our overall team is currently young...but who looks at their team and depth chart and says,"hmmm, got a lot of talented and young dudes on our team. Let's not shoot for the best available talented guys this year and just kinda take this recruiting cycle off. We will make up for it next year.". Don't think that is happening.

    Now to finish this blithering rant off...it is so hard to post anything long on your phone as I quickly lose track of the flow of my thoughts. Anyway, I'm the most optimistic guy when it comes to our team on the field. We can be down 50-0 in the 4th quarter and I'll be telling someone how we can still pull the game out...but for some reason I can't find that same optimism in our recruiting. Maybe it is just because we are so in the dark in regards to info and the direction of the staff. We will be fine going forward...problem is, I'm not satisfied with fine. I want great. I want to crush every opponent and make sure the best kids are sitting on the sidelines thinking what it would be like to be a duk some day. I want a National Championship. I want a dynastic run out of our program. Are my desires unrealistic? Maybe...will I be crushed it they don't come to fruition? Nope. Too much other stuff to deal with. But this is my passion and my escape from the daily stresses. I want my escape to be fantastic...I want it to be dreamlike and I won't give up on the possibility that it can be. So, when we settle for players because we miss on our first choices...or when I watch kids who seem to share that same desire about our ducks get shrugged off for a lower tier kid that I've never heard of I get frustrated. Probably frustrated mostly because more often than not the only answer our DT staff can offer is,"not sure why, but the staff has cooled on them." haha, well this has turned into a total brain diarrhea dump. Enough...sorry for my self therapy free writing session!!

    I'm with you on Williams and Luke, especially Williams since we are unlikely to take a QB now (I can't help but feel this was Chip's decision alone and he'd take a mulligan here). Despite my spirited defense of Chip, I fear he'll be one season too late on making whatever the necessarily adjustments are needed (I do say those changes are smaller than a lot of the people on that side of the fence would wish for).

    I'm with you on the desire to be great. Of any wish I could pass along to the genie who grants me 3 wishes to be used for college football purposes only (other than winning a natty) it would be to have a historically great season. To just go out and put together the best offensive season in the history of the game. Make your mark at true greatness. It is why we watch. I don't dream of a 4th consecutive BCS game, I dream of Matt Barkely crying at midfield of the conference title game in Autzen after his 3rd pick puts us over 70 on the night.

    Oh and I agree about rambling and incomprehensible mobile device posts. My last one is akin to a thesis and i had to copy the body for fear I'd be like Brendan Fraiser in that lame college movie trying to get his thesis back from Joe Pesci, only instead of talking life lessons with a homeless person Id be cussing in vain at my phone.

    mr_griff

  • mr_griff said...

    I'm with you on Williams and Luke, especially Williams since we are unlikely to take a QB now (I can't help but feel this was Chip's decision alone and he'd take a mulligan here). Despite my spirited defense of Chip, I fear he'll be one season too late on making whatever the necessarily adjustments are needed (I do say those changes are smaller than a lot of the people on that side of the fence would wish for).

    I'm with you on the desire to be great. Of any wish I could pass along to the genie who grants me 3 wishes to be used for college football purposes only (other than winning a natty) it would be to have a historically great season. To just go out and put together the best offensive season in the history of the game. Make your mark at true greatness. It is why we watch. I don't dream of a 4th consecutive BCS game, I dream of Matt Barkely crying at midfield of the conference title game in Autzen after his 3rd pick puts us over 70 on the night.

    Oh and I agree about rambling and incomprehensible mobile device posts. My last one is akin to a thesis and i had to copy the body for fear I'd be like Brendan Fraiser in that lame college movie trying to get his thesis back from Joe Pesci, only instead of talking life lessons with a homeless person Id be cussing in vain at my phone.

    This deserves a bowing emoticon...at least a clapping smiley dude. Alas, my iPhone does not permit me the ability so +1 my friend.

    signature image

    97duck ●

  • jriv_from_Otown said...

    It does, you just have to put the word in the parenthesis

    Clap----->[ ]

    clap

    Your passing of this information to me brings a few things to mind!!!

    Sliced bread, industrial revolution, the renaissance, indoor plumbing....

    What a revelation!!
    clap. Did it work?? banana

    EDIT: woohoo it did

    This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by 97duck on 8/9/2012 at 1:55 AM

    signature image

    97duck ●

  • I can relate to the concerns of our recruiting deficiencies (if you want to call it that) but I'm at a point where I really don't care.

    I'm not beyond questioning our tactics or strategy. I don't think coach Kelly is perfect and, to be quite honest, I think his ego has gotten in the way of better judgment at times. The thing is, what do we have to gain from all of this second guessing?

    The Duck staff does it the way they do it and none of us are going to change that. Why spend all the time and energy worrying about something we can't change?

    I'm at a point where I'm hoping for the best and excited to see what happens.
    It'd be great to get classes like USC and Alabama but it's just not going to happen! And that's ok!

    If we ever do get a top-five class, then great, but I'm cool with what we get and I do have a little faith our staff may know what they're doing because they've produced some killer product without a top-10 class.

    If you want to spend hours researching recruits and crunching numbers, great!

    I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the ride. I know this ride may get bumpy sometimes and, at times, it may seem like we're on the wrong road altogether but it's our ride, our journey. Sometimes you just have to accept it for what it is.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Give em Helfrich!!!

    LetMeSeeYourO

  • Caravaggio said...

    The proof is in the pudding. After Texas, which we can all agree is special case, every single team has more offers and more commits. I don't see how anyone could argue that we wouldn't have more commits if we had more offers when literally every single other team(aside from texas) has more offers and more commits. This isn't some random stat with nothing to back it up, it's not cherry picking. There is a direct correlation. It is directly proportional.

    Texas is an outlier. Perhaps Oregon is also an outlier.

    Everything we do since Kelly took over is different than other schools ... the offense, the uni's, the practices, the facilities, the staff continuity ... why wouldn't recruiting also follow a unique and radical pattern?

    The question is whether big time college football recruiting has suddenly and permanently changed directions, like global warming, warranting a major restructuring of Oregon's idiosyncratic but effective "slow hand" approach from the last several years. It is too early to tell whether the 2013 class is a "one off" caused by USC's unexpected spin of sanctions as a positive recruiting tool or whether nearly all top recruits in future years will start to commit ever sooner to get the school they want.

    If the early commit trend continues or accelerates, our whole strategy ... which relies upon an extraordinarily high commitment rate triggered by an official visit during the football season ... will have to be reexamined and retooled. We cannot use the atmosphere at Autzen, success running the "blur," the facilities and the uni's to help sell kids if they already have decided where they are going to play football prior to the NCAA official visit period.

    My guess is that it is too early to draw conclusions but that Oregon needs to watch recruiting developments this Fall really, really closely and get ready to rethink the 2014 recruiting approach. I'm also going to guess that the 2013 class will be smaller than expected ... perhaps 16 to 18 ... and that the remaining slots will be filled by surprisingly good players who fit the Oregon system.

    I have been totally impressed by the recent video interviews with the 2011 and 2012 recruits. We have definitely been signing smarter more together kids than in the past.

    johnch ●

  • Little late to see this post but had a question if Car still checks in.

    Is your point in all this that the coaches should have made more early offers this season, or that they need to change it for the future. If you are arguing that they need to have out more offers right now, then maybe wait a couple weeks or so and then come back and see how many new offers are out. Since that is what they had their meeting about not that long ago and high school football starts here soon.

    But if you are saying they need to change their policy about offering early maybe looking into how many offers have been put out by other schools right now compared to us would be a better showing of if we have adapted or continue to follow our current recruiting policy.

    Akatheov5

  • Caravaggio said...

    The proof is in the pudding. After Texas, which we can all agree is special case, every single team has more offers and more commits. I don't see how anyone could argue that we wouldn't have more commits if we had more offers when literally every single other team(aside from texas) has more offers and more commits. This isn't some random stat with nothing to back it up, it's not cherry picking. There is a direct correlation. It is directly proportional.

    as someone with a MS in applied mathematics your understanding of correlation is... well... lacking. you still fail to understand how young our team is. we don't need a full class this year, just look at the 2-deep. there is a lot more to sustaining a high performing program than ratings. i personally believe the athletic department has done a good job of communicating this to donors, the result has been an greatly expanded base and more $$$ in the door. i know one thing for sure... there is a lot of effort going into the 2014 class. at the end of the day we'll get what we need... whether that's good enough for you is of little concern.

    DC_DUCK

Oregon
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports