Football Recruiting 2017

DfromCT · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:19 pm

OK, Zombie. Let's settle this on the field! I'll give you the 2013 team versus the 1998 team.

I say there's a damned good chance the 2013 team gets beat by more than 4 TD's, and ZERO chance the 2013 team wins. And not for nothing, but the 2013 team probably goes 7-5 versus the 1998 schedule. They weren't that good, nor were they well coached.

swampnik · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:36 pm

The "Katrina" team of CCS could have made some history that year too with Ricard and Co. One can only dream of what might have been had Katrina not hit.

JerseyWave · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:41 pm

The 2013 team played several schools that didn't have Football programs in 1998: South Alabama, Texas San Antonio, Florida Atlantic and they lost to all three.

anEngineer · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:54 pm

Is this thread ever going to get back to recruiting news?

Bigschtick · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:55 pm

anEngineer wrote:Is this thread ever going to get back to recruiting news?

Probably not!

Aberzombie1892 · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:58 pm

DfromCT wrote:OK, Zombie. Let's settle this on the field! I'll give you the 2013 team versus the 1998 team. I say there's a damned good chance the 2013 team gets beat by more than 4 TD's, and ZERO chance the 2013 team wins. And not for nothing, but the 2013 team probably goes 7-5 versus the 1998 schedule. They weren't that good, nor were they well coached.

Haha - if only that were possible. My overall point here is a lot of Tulane fans heap praise on the 1998 team that played a weak schedule, yet, at the same time, argue that the 2013 team shouldn't receive praise because it compiled its winning record a weak schedule. While the 1998 team does deserve recognition for several reasons - not least of which was an undefeated season and a Tulane QB getting drafted - it would be difficult to seriously (quantifiably/objectively) argue that its schedule was more difficult than the 2013 team.

On recruiting news, isn't Tulane's latest commit, Willie Langham, still going to visit Vanderbilt and USA this month? It's not surprising to see him visit Vanderbilt, but USA seems like an odd one.

golfnut69 · Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:44 pm

anEngineer wrote:Is this thread ever going to get back to recruiting news?

gineer

only if you Engineer that way

winwave · Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:48 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:
DfromCT wrote:OK, Zombie. Let's settle this on the field! I'll give you the 2013 team versus the 1998 team. I say there's a damned good chance the 2013 team gets beat by more than 4 TD's, and ZERO chance the 2013 team wins. And not for nothing, but the 2013 team probably goes 7-5 versus the 1998 schedule. They weren't that good, nor were they well coached.
Haha - if only that were possible. My overall point here is a lot of Tulane fans heap praise on the 1998 team that played a weak schedule, yet, at the same time, argue that the 2013 team shouldn't receive praise because it compiled its winning record a weak schedule. While the 1998 team does deserve recognition for several reasons - not least of which was an undefeated season and a Tulane QB getting drafted - it would be difficult to seriously (quantifiably/objectively) argue that its schedule was more difficult than the 2013 team.

On recruiting news, isn't Tulane's latest commit, Willie Langham, still going to visit Vanderbilt and USA this month? It's not surprising to see him visit Vanderbilt, but USA seems like an odd one.

The reason for the different treatment is we saw both teams play and one was dominant and one was average at best.

Aberzombie1892 · Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:04 pm

winwave wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
DfromCT wrote:OK, Zombie. Let's settle this on the field! I'll give you the 2013 team versus the 1998 team. I say there's a damned good chance the 2013 team gets beat by more than 4 TD's, and ZERO chance the 2013 team wins. And not for nothing, but the 2013 team probably goes 7-5 versus the 1998 schedule. They weren't that good, nor were they well coached.
Haha - if only that were possible. My overall point here is a lot of Tulane fans heap praise on the 1998 team that played a weak schedule, yet, at the same time, argue that the 2013 team shouldn't receive praise because it compiled its winning record a weak schedule. While the 1998 team does deserve recognition for several reasons - not least of which was an undefeated season and a Tulane QB getting drafted - it would be difficult to seriously (quantifiably/objectively) argue that its schedule was more difficult than the 2013 team.

On recruiting news, isn't Tulane's latest commit, Willie Langham, still going to visit Vanderbilt and USA this month? It's not surprising to see him visit Vanderbilt, but USA seems like an odd one.
The reason for the different treatment is we saw both teams play and one was dominant and one was average at best.

Maybe that's where we are all not on the same page. No one is saying that the 1998 team wasn't good - the only thing being said is that the 1998 schedule was quantifiably weak and the information available doesn't support the argument that the 2013 schedule was inferior to that schedule.

winwave · Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:00 pm

Actually the information does support it. Statistics are for losers. We saw us play those teams. No one was embarrassed by the 98 schedule. It had respectable teams and by that I mean based on their play that season. The 2103 schedule was an embarrassment. It's only saving grace was everyone believed it was so weak even we could get Bowl eligible.And it was.

golfnut69 · Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:12 pm

Stop The Madness...Please, someone, somebody post something regarding recruiting on this thread !!!!

Jaxwave · Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:33 pm

Luke McCreery, OL from Texas decommitted from Tulane today.
You asked for info!

sader24 · Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:03 am

Several teams we played in 2013 didn't have their starting QB and it showed. The 98 team would've mutilated the 2013 schedule. Including a bad Syracuse team that beat us by 40. The 97 team had a good Syracuse beat on the road. Much better Cuse team than 2013.

winwave · Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:55 am

Exactly. There were other key players other than QB's who also missed games against us in 2013. It took a perfect storm if you will to manage a barely Bowl eligible season against that weak schedule.

RobertM320 · Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:25 am

I wonder if all these players decommitting is because of the dead period? I don't mean just with us, I mean everywhere? You're in a period of time where they aren't being contacted by any coaches, so they become more influenced by people in their personal environment. Maybe friends or family talking to them. Just wondering.

anEngineer · Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:49 am

RobertM320 wrote:I wonder if all these players decommitting is because of the dead period? I don't mean just with us, I mean everywhere? You're in a period of time where they aren't being contacted by any coaches, so they become more influenced by people in their personal environment. Maybe friends or family talking to them. Just wondering.

In the bigger picture, that's the reason why all this commit/decommit crap is so silly in the Summer and Fall. January is where recruiting is won and lost. Even at that, NOTHING is "real" until the first Wednesday in February. I didn't believe my own kids half of the time when they were 18, why should I blindly believe some stranger's 18-year-old?

RobertM320 · Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:53 am

anEngineer wrote:
RobertM320 wrote:I wonder if all these players decommitting is because of the dead period? I don't mean just with us, I mean everywhere? You're in a period of time where they aren't being contacted by any coaches, so they become more influenced by people in their personal environment. Maybe friends or family talking to them. Just wondering.
In the bigger picture, that's the reason why all this commit/decommit crap is so silly in the Summer and Fall. January is where recruiting is won and lost. Even at that, NOTHING is "real" until the first Wednesday in February. I didn't believe my own kids half of the time when they were 18, why should I blindly believe some stranger's 18-year-old?

Lol! So true!

lurker123 · Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:16 am

anEngineer wrote:
RobertM320 wrote:I wonder if all these players decommitting is because of the dead period? I don't mean just with us, I mean everywhere? You're in a period of time where they aren't being contacted by any coaches, so they become more influenced by people in their personal environment. Maybe friends or family talking to them. Just wondering.
In the bigger picture, that's the reason why all this commit/decommit crap is so silly in the Summer and Fall. January is where recruiting is won and lost. Even at that, NOTHING is "real" until the first Wednesday in February. I didn't believe my own kids half of the time when they were 18, why should I blindly believe some stranger's 18-year-old?

Because if it's on the internet, it must be factual!

ajcalhoun · Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:47 am

RobertM320 wrote:I wonder if all these players decommitting is because of the dead period?

Maybe they're just sick of hearing about 1998.

JerseyWave · Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:54 am

Fritz and his staff better kick some a$$ over the next three weeks. Hopefully these decommitments are mutual because our coaches are going after bigger fish in the pond.

GreenPuddleSplash · Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:36 am

JerseyWave wrote:Fritz and his staff better kick some a$$ over the next three weeks. Hopefully these decommitments are mutual because our coaches are going after bigger fish in the pond.

Yeah the string of de-commits makes me a bit nervous, but it's the dead period. I am reserving pushing my panic button till Jan 13th when the dead period ends. If we see a few more de-commits after Jan. 13th, we might want to bring out the red panic button.

RobertM320 · Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:02 pm

Jaxwave wrote:Luke McCreery, OL from Texas decommitted from Tulane today.
You asked for info!

Just did a check. Not real sure how he feels this is in his best interests (according to his Twitter announcement). His other offers are from Fresno State, Liberty, UL-L and Toledo.

http://247sports.com/Recruitment/Luke-M ... tInterests

Jaxwave · Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:59 pm

I had read that his family are big Longhorn fans so he may be getting a grey shirt or preferred walkon offer from them with the understanding that when a scholarship comes open they will take him.

DfromCT · Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:02 pm

Jaxwave wrote:I had read that his family are big Longhorn fans so he may be getting a grey shirt or preferred walkon offer from them with the understanding that when a scholarship comes open they will take him.

I'm curious: what's the difference between a grey shirt or preferred walk-on? And does either (or both) get help with the admissions process?

golfnut69 · Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:18 pm

DfromCT wrote:
Jaxwave wrote:I had read that his family are big Longhorn fans so he may be getting a grey shirt or preferred walkon offer from them with the understanding that when a scholarship comes open they will take him.
I'm curious: what's the difference between a grey shirt or preferred walk-on? And does either (or both) get help with the admissions process?

I think the "grey shirt" U enroll's as a walk on, and a schollie is given to U the spring semester ...so he would count against the 2018 total, not 2017..it is somewhat a "gray area"