@89ute the actual total for clemson is just guys that they signed, we did not account for attrition of those four and five star players in that case.
For pac12 teams I can easily provide you detail on every team in the conference for how many active four and five star players they recruited and currently have on roster; however, I am in the middle of nowhere right now and don't have the data sheets I use to keep track of that shit.
Thank you. I was kind of hoping one of you had something like that. The amount of brain damage involved if someone like me were to try to do this by pecking through rosters and signing classes on scout/rivals.com and trying to compile it on my yellow pad is just plain fucked up. My spreadsheet abilities are less than limited. That's what lead the the whole Steve Poole thing, I thought for sure someone was going to tell me to "look it up yourself buttfucker.
@89ute the actual total for clemson is just guys that they signed, we did not account for attrition of those four and five star players in that case.
For pac12 teams I can easily provide you detail on every team in the conference for how many active four and five star players they recruited and currently have on roster; however, I am in the middle of nowhere right now and don't have the data sheets I use to keep track of that shit.
Ma!!! The fucking spread sheet with 4/5 star players by PAC School!!! We want it -now!! Gosh - what are doing in there?
@89ute the actual total for clemson is just guys that they signed, we did not account for attrition of those four and five star players in that case.
For pac12 teams I can easily provide you detail on every team in the conference for how many active four and five star players they recruited and currently have on roster; however, I am in the middle of nowhere right now and don't have the data sheets I use to keep track of that shit.
Thank you. I was kind of hoping one of you had something like that. The amount of brain damage involved if someone like me were to try to do this by pecking through rosters and signing classes on scout/rivals.com and trying to compile it on my yellow pad is just plain fucked up. My spreadsheet abilities are less than limited. That's what lead the the whole Steve Poole thing, I thought for sure someone was going to tell me to "look it up yourself buttfucker.
Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
There are no 5 stars on the roster.
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
Your having fantasies about being raped by Steve Poole. Thanks for sharing.
I may have used it incorrectly. I was clued in by someone (not IrishDawg22, even though I tried) that KOMO 4 BUTTFUCKER meant look it up yourself. I later learned on my own that Komo 4 is one of your TV stations, then I later learned that the man in the photo is Steve Poole who is some newsguy or something for Komo 4, so I figured this pic meant look it up yourself.
@89ute the actual total for clemson is just guys that they signed, we did not account for attrition of those four and five star players in that case.
For pac12 teams I can easily provide you detail on every team in the conference for how many active four and five star players they recruited and currently have on roster; however, I am in the middle of nowhere right now and don't have the data sheets I use to keep track of that shit.
Thank you. I was kind of hoping one of you had something like that. The amount of brain damage involved if someone like me were to try to do this by pecking through rosters and signing classes on scout/rivals.com and trying to compile it on my yellow pad is just plain fucked up. My spreadsheet abilities are less than limited. That's what lead the the whole Steve Poole thing, I thought for sure someone was going to tell me to "look it up yourself buttfucker.
As much room as we have for improvement in recruiting - i.e., no more BC in state OL guys are allowed to leave again EVER - the dramatic uptick in "rostered BC's" for our Program is a big positive. I was counting 29 (per Scout) but I'd trust @CokeGreaterThanPepsi figure of 28 over mine. And 19 of the 29 are from 2016 and 17, so we are making solid progress, to say the least, to getting to that 40 number Climpson had last season.
What jumps out at me is Cal has the 3rd most players in the NFL (34) next to Oregon (35) and USC (43)
I've known this for a long time about Cal but I thought it was because they had a shitload of talent but could never do anything with it. Looking at this list of raw talent it would appear that Cal is developing talent. Conclusion, Cal has incredible coaching, but can't win. That makes no sense.
Look at UCLA, tons of talent, relatively few NFL players (29). Easily chalk this up to shitting coaching, easy to understand.
I can filter my data by year, but I am too lazy to turn on my laptop again... I suspect the NFL influx of talent was during the Tosh/Tedford glory years and now they are shit. I'll look tomorrow and report back.
What jumps out at me is Cal has the 3rd most players in the NFL (34) next to Oregon (35) and USC (43)
I've known this for a long time about Cal but I thought it was because they had a shitload of talent but could never do anything with it. Looking at this list of raw talent it would appear that Cal is developing talent. Conclusion, Cal has incredible coaching, but can't win. That makes no sense.
Look at UCLA, tons of talent, relatively few NFL players (29). Easily chalk this up to shitting coaching, easy to understand.
Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
There are no 5 stars on the roster.
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.
Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
There are no 5 stars on the roster.
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?
Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
There are no 5 stars on the roster.
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?
That would be easier to explain than the Steve Pool meme, which makes little sense even when fully explained.
Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
There are no 5 stars on the roster.
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?
That would be easier to explain than the Steve Pool meme, which makes little sense even when fully explained.
Yeah, I'm still a little confused. Does it mean - I can't provide a link because I watched it live or - look it up yourself, or both?
Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
There are no 5 stars on the roster.
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?
That would be easier to explain than the Steve Pool meme, which makes little sense even when fully explained.
Yeah, I'm still a little confused. Does it mean - I can't provide a link because I watched it live or - look it up yourself, or both?
@89ute The furthest I could go back for Cal was the 2010 class (not the prime of the Tedford years...), but that was the first year we started tracking this data for the rest of the conference. Cal's breakdown from 2010-2012 (Dykes took over in 2013) was: 0/1 star: 2 2 star: 4 3 star: 31 4 star: 16 5 star: 3
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).
UCLA is the biggest fraud ever and their only Heisman winner won because of racism. True Story. @BallSacked
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).
UCLA is the biggest fraud ever and their only Heisman winner won because of racism. True Story. @BallSacked
Seriously. That is Climpson level recruiting there, and only eclipsed by Michigan, Ohio State, Bama and USC (barely). UCLA has absolutely no excuse for not being in the PAC12 conversation every year. Except their coaching sucks. Ass.
Comments
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
I've known this for a long time about Cal but I thought it was because they had a shitload of talent but could never do anything with it. Looking at this list of raw talent it would appear that Cal is developing talent. Conclusion, Cal has incredible coaching, but can't win. That makes no sense.
Look at UCLA, tons of talent, relatively few NFL players (29). Easily chalk this up to shitting coaching, easy to understand.
Cal is an enigma. What the fuck?
This is where I counted up the NFL players.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/college
Thank you for your work @MrsPetersen, I appreciate it.
0/1 star: 2
2 star: 4
3 star: 31
4 star: 16
5 star: 3
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).