Recruiting imbalance

[Sean Miller Fan]

College football recruiting has gotten so lopsided and the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else has continued to widen. I know some foolish people thinks stars and recruiting rankings dont matter but as we know they clearly do. Look at this from the 2019 class:

- In the ACC, FSU and Clemson signed 25 4 and 5 star recruits. Take out Miami (7 4 stars, their class took a hit when Diaz left) and the Noles and Tigers signed as many 4/5 stars than the other 11 ACC teams combined.

- The gap in the Big Ten is even more drastic. Michigan, PSU, and OSU signed 41 4/5 stars. The bottom 11 signed 32 with 8 of those coming from Nebraska.

College football has become so much like the English Premier League where you only have 5-6 teams capable of winning it and everyone else is playing for entertainment purposes.

It continues to boggle my mind that these players, who only get roughly 50 college games to play would choose to sit out 30-40 of them just to be a part of a better program and yea I know the "better program" thing is a big deal but players want to play, at least I thought so.

We are quickly approaching the point where teams like Clemson, FSU, Mich, OSU, and PSU will have as much or more talent than an ACC or Big Ten All-Star team of the have-nots.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

It’s almost like top kids want a chance to play for championships
How unusual

 

[GT74]

There will never be parity in college football. As a good friend said 'in the NFL, worst picks first, in college, best picks first'. How true. elite remains elite, mediocrity struggles to move up, and the worst teams have little chance. There are exceptions when a team finds lightning in a bottle, but for the most part, one could go to sleep for a period of time, and wake up to the same teams competing for the college football championship. But, what can be done? Not all, but many of the best recruits want to go to the best teams to get that trophy.

 

[joeydavid]

When has this ever not been the case?

College football recruiting has gotten so lopsided and the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else has continued to widen. I know some foolish people thinks stars and recruiting rankings dont matter but as we know they clearly do. Look at this from the 2019 class:

- In the ACC, FSU and Clemson signed 25 4 and 5 star recruits. Take out Miami (7 4 stars, their class took a hit when Diaz left) and the Noles and Tigers signed as many 4/5 stars than the other 11 ACC teams combined.

- The gap in the Big Ten is even more drastic. Michigan, PSU, and OSU signed 41 4/5 stars. The bottom 11 signed 32 with 8 of those coming from Nebraska.

College football has become so much like the English Premier League where you only have 5-6 teams capable of winning it and everyone else is playing for entertainment purposes.

It continues to boggle my mind that these players, who only get roughly 50 college games to play would choose to sit out 30-40 of them just to be a part of a better program and yea I know the "better program" thing is a big deal but players want to play, at least I thought so.

We are quickly approaching the point where teams like Clemson, FSU, Mich, OSU, and PSU will have as much or more talent than an ACC or Big Ten All-Star team of the have-nots.

 

[ratking17]

I agree with SMF that the gap between the have and have nots has continued to grow. I also hate the dinosaur thinking trying to justify this gap as something that has always existed and then they state "hey northwestern and Michigan state have been big10 champs. " it reminds me of the same people that try to tell you that MLB doesn't need a salary cap because look at the little Milwaukee brewers and oakland A's that can make the playoffs.

I don't think you will see the death of college football but I do think attendance declines can be attributed to this issue in some respects. In order for the sport to become the current beast schools sold their rivalries and history down the river for a larger slice of the pie.

That is why I believe you will see a growth of the playoffs at least to 8 in the very near future. The sport needs more than the same 8-10-12 teams fighting for playoff access.

 

[NCanton Panther]

I agree with SMF that the gap between the have and have nots has continued to grow. I also hate the dinosaur thinking trying to justify this gap as something that has always existed and then they state "hey northwestern and Michigan state have been big10 champs. " it reminds me of the same people that try to tell you that MLB doesn't need a salary cap because look at the little Milwaukee brewers and oakland A's that can make the playoffs.

I don't think you will see the death of college football but I do think attendance declines can be attributed to this issue in some respects. In order for the sport to become the current beast schools sold their rivalries and history down the river for a larger slice of the pie.

That is why I believe you will see a growth of the playoffs at least to 8 in the very near future. The sport needs more than the same 8-10-12 teams fighting for playoff access.

Call me a dinosaur, not trying to justify anything, I just don’t see things currently being any different than they’ve always been. It has always been the rich get richer in college FB. It has always been the majority of the 4 and 5 stars flicking to the elite programs. Only thing that changes is that every so often the fortunes of some of the rich or elite teams change for the good or bad because of a head coaching change.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

It's definitely become more concentrated. SMF is right. And I am not even so sure it is "winning championships" as the motivation as much as hanging out with the other cool kids. Also, the ridiculous focus and attention of some schools towards their football teams.

"Best pick first" is also a great analogy in the difference between the pros. It is why I always say it is the most Darwinist of sports. College BB has the same thing, but it also has a great leveler, with many of these big time kids and classes only staying around for a year, a team with good talent and experience can often best a Fab 5 freshman class for a championship.

It's going to continue as these football factories continue to go "all in" with football. These are mostly state schools, without NFL influence around them. I am interested to now see how the two LA franchises affect USC, especially if like the Rams, they become good.

But also, the preseason top 10's in 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015 and likely 2025, at least 2/3's of those teams will be the usual suspects.

I think in the 70's when they capped the scholarships, there was a temporary entry into the fun group by a bunch of teams who decided to play the game with the big boys (Pitt was one)....but the exponential growth of expenses and revenues now kind of priced us out of doing this ever again.

 

[McKee Place]

It apparently will never change but if it doesn't, Pitt football support will just inevitably keep eroding. 50 percent empty stadium now, 60 pct in a couple, 75% a couple more after. Ticket sales may actually stay consistent but the price will not rise, probably will actually fall in comparison to inflation, and donations will stagnate or drop. Because more of the hardcore will be dying off (or coming to our senses) and not enough new fans are being created ... because that only happens with winning something of note, at least occasionally.

Not only Pitt but most every non Blue Blood program should be fighting like wolves for reform. But they must be happy just getting the conference money. Thing is though, that golden goose can only keep delivering for continuous losers for so long.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

There will never be parity in college football.

No but the gap is growing and that's a problem. Too many kids are signing up just to get a uniform and a ring but never play.

In the 5 years of the CFP, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ohio State have 65% of the bids (13 out of 20). The other 120+ teams combined have gotten only 35% (7 bids).

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No but the gap is growing and that's a problem. Too many kids are signing up just to get a uniform and a ring but never play.

In the 5 years of the CFP, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ohio State have 65% of the bids (13 out of 20). The other 120+ teams combined have gotten only 35% (7 bids).

Well another thing, this 4 team CFP, it really closes it off to most schools. Hell, every year at least one of the P5 conference champions get left out. Most years, 2. So now, you have to be a) Conference Champ or SEC + b) great season (zero or 1 loss) + c) blueblood +d) there are only so many that meet a, b and c (like 2-3)

This is also concentrating the talent location. Not to mention, the concentration of talent in the Southeast and Gulf Coast. So, you got that Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, FSU thing going on.

It is why you go to 8 teams, it is best for all. Brings all the teams into play, at least if they win their conference. It also makes the regular season more relevant for all, not less. I think once you go to 8 teams, you will see the talent dispersion be more even. Not by a lot, but you have more teams who can sell a "chance".

That being said, a school like Penn State hasn't really competed for a national title in like 20 years. But the perks they give their players and the 100K plus crowds and that weird vibe there where people treat these players like they are the Steelers, Pitt can never match that.

 

[rmf05]

The gap isn't widening. It is better now than it was in the 70's and 80's. The thing that may be changing is access to a national championship due to the mythical "playoff". The playoff needs to be renamed " The college football invitational tournament ".

When kids that commit to certain schools get up-graded in the rankings, it will appear that they are getting a larger share of elite recruits. Recruiting stars are more of a commodity than the recruits themselves.

Stars may be accurate generally but individually they are not. Personally, I think that the factors that make Bama elite at winning are also the same factors that give them the best recruiting rankings as opposed to one affecting the other. Clemson was Pitt 10 years ago. Miami was horrid until they went the Pitt route. On the flip side, all the blue bloods have had down times. It's easier for them to get out of the valley than it is for us to reach the summit. These blue bloods worked hard for multiple generations to get where they are. They earned it. If we want to get where they are, whining about "fairness" isn't the road.

 

[ThePanthers]

Man, reading on here I thought you just need to hire a young recruiter and try to recruit and everyone will come. That should fix it.

It's been this way forever. The majority of the 4 and 5 star recruits will go to the large blueblood programs. The rest are fighting over scraps. Other programs will go through a "good period" and then drop off and others will drop off before jumping back in, but it's not sustained long term.

Outside of the top 10 to 12 programs, that is how it is.

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

Wanny should have shut down the WPIAL until that wall was built.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The gap isn't widening. It is better now than it was in the 70's and 80's. The thing that may be changing is access to a national championship due to the mythical "playoff". The playoff needs to be renamed " The college football invitational tournament ".

When kids that commit to certain schools get up-graded in the rankings, it will appear that they are getting a larger share of elite recruits. Recruiting stars are more of a commodity than the recruits themselves.

Stars may be accurate generally but individually they are not. Personally, I think that the factors that make Bama elite at winning are also the same factors that give them the best recruiting rankings as opposed to one affecting the other. Clemson was Pitt 10 years ago. Miami was horrid until they went the Pitt route. On the flip side, all the blue bloods have had down times. It's easier for them to get out of the valley than it is for us to reach the summit. These blue bloods worked hard for multiple generations to get where they are. They earned it. If we want to get where they are, whining about "fairness" isn't the road.

This post is 100% wrong.

 

[pittdan77]

Outside of the top 10 to 12 programs, that is how it is.

Sure wouldn't suck to live in the next 10-12 every year.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

College football recruiting has gotten so lopsided and the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else has continued to widen. I know some foolish people thinks stars and recruiting rankings dont matter but as we know they clearly do. Look at this from the 2019 class:

- In the ACC, FSU and Clemson signed 25 4 and 5 star recruits. Take out Miami (7 4 stars, their class took a hit when Diaz left) and the Noles and Tigers signed as many 4/5 stars than the other 11 ACC teams combined.

- The gap in the Big Ten is even more drastic. Michigan, PSU, and OSU signed 41 4/5 stars. The bottom 11 signed 32 with 8 of those coming from Nebraska.

College football has become so much like the English Premier League where you only have 5-6 teams capable of winning it and everyone else is playing for entertainment purposes.

It continues to boggle my mind that these players, who only get roughly 50 college games to play would choose to sit out 30-40 of them just to be a part of a better program and yea I know the "better program" thing is a big deal but players want to play, at least I thought so.

We are quickly approaching the point where teams like Clemson, FSU, Mich, OSU, and PSU will have as much or more talent than an ACC or Big Ten All-Star team of the have-nots.

There isn't a recruiting imbalance. There's a commitment imbalance!

What would you like government intervention, even the playing field measures for the underachievers ( PITT is one ), force recruits to join a program that they don't want to be part of?????
The way a college football program improves it's recruiting is to make their program attractive to recruits.
If a program would like to join the "blue bloods" be a "blue blood."

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!

 

[ratking17]

There isn't a recruiting imbalance. There's a commitment imbalance!

What would you like government intervention, even the playing field measures for the underachievers ( PITT is one ), force recruits to join a program that they don't want to be part of?????
The way a college football program improves it's recruiting is to make their program attractive to recruits.
If a program would like to join the "blue bloods" be a "blue blood."

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!

Buffet you are slightly arguing semantics here with SMF. What we should all agree on is that college football is in an arms race with spending and there is no governing body or oversight to regulate and level the playing field

 

[GT74]

There isn't a recruiting imbalance. There's a commitment imbalance!

What would you like government intervention, even the playing field measures for the underachievers ( PITT is one ), force recruits to join a program that they don't want to be part of?????
The way a college football program improves it's recruiting is to make their program attractive to recruits.
If a program would like to join the "blue bloods" be a "blue blood."

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!

The recruiting imbalance has to do with money, whether it's money to improve facilities, money to hire the best coaches, or just money to hand recruits, it has much to do with money. Some schools just have more or spend more, and it contributes to their winning. That money snowballs with winning, so it's a vicious cycle. Pitt, like many others, must have a big winning year or two to become more attractive, to not only recruits but fans that support the program. Winning breeds $$$, and more winning.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The recruiting imbalance has to do with money, whether it's money to improve facilities, money to hire the best coaches, or just money to hand recruits, it has much to do with money. Some schools just have more or spend more, and it contributes to their winning. That money snowballs with winning, so it's a vicious cycle. Pitt, like many others, must have a big winning year or two to become more attractive, to not only recruits but fans that support the program. Winning breeds $$$, and more winning.

Again, certain programs will always have an advantage over others. Any urban school in an NFL market, especially one of the strongest NFL markets will never, ever, be able to compete with these large, historical state schools who operate and act as defacto NFL franchises in those regions.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

There isn't a recruiting imbalance. There's a commitment imbalance!

What would you like government intervention, even the playing field measures for the underachievers ( PITT is one ), force recruits to join a program that they don't want to be part of?????
The way a college football program improves it's recruiting is to make their program attractive to recruits.
If a program would like to join the "blue bloods" be a "blue blood."

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!

Playing a college football season does not require 85 scholarships. That's far too many. Players are signing to sit and many may be ok with that but I think more are being pressured by predatory sales practices. These coaches know these guys are never going to play but they are better to be on their bench than playing against them. Its always been my opinion that scholarships should be reduced to 75.

 

[BigBird80]

The only way to achieve parity is if the NCAA grows a set and does a complete college football reform and models itself after the NFL.

4 - 6 regional conferences.
Every team plays each divisional opponent and they get to play other teams from the other 5 regional conferences.
Do away with playing sub division conferences.
Only keep the top schools in D1.
Don’t allow teams to play 7 home games.

College athletics is a joke in that it lets teams and money schedule as they wish. What other sport does this?

Fix the scheduling problem
Fix the playoff problem

These are the first 2 action items imo before you go after recruiting.

 

[BigBird80]

Playing a college football season does not require 85 scholarships. That's far too many. Players are signing to sit and many may be ok with that but I think more are being pressured by predatory sales practices. These coaches know these guys are never going to play but they are better to be on their bench than playing against them. Its always been my opinion that scholarships should be reduced to 75.

Why? Why should kids not be allowed to go to a school they want to go to? There really shouldn’t be ANY scholarship limits.

You habe a sport where you allow programs to schedule 25% of their games as garbage games and you want to tackle scholarship limits? Take away team’s 7th home games is where you start.

 

[sonofabit]

Playing a college football season does not require 85 scholarships. That's far too many. Players are signing to sit and many may be ok with that but I think more are being pressured by predatory sales practices. These coaches know these guys are never going to play but they are better to be on their bench than playing against them. Its always been my opinion that scholarships should be reduced to 75.

Maybe so. I just think young recruits think they're better than others already at their colleges of choice and want to play alongside other great players once they get on the field.

 

[Burgh15]

Four teams in the playoffs next year and odds are it will be four of these eight teams. Not sure the Pac 12 teams are ready to compete yet.

SEC: Alabama or Georgia
ACC: Clemson
Big 10: Ohio State or Michigan
Big 12: Oklahoma or Texas
Independent: Notre Dame

 

[fairgambit]

College football recruiting has gotten so lopsided and the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else has continued to widen. I know some foolish people thinks stars and recruiting rankings dont matter but as we know they clearly do. Look at this from the 2019 class:

- In the ACC, FSU and Clemson signed 25 4 and 5 star recruits. Take out Miami (7 4 stars, their class took a hit when Diaz left) and the Noles and Tigers signed as many 4/5 stars than the other 11 ACC teams combined.

- The gap in the Big Ten is even more drastic. Michigan, PSU, and OSU signed 41 4/5 stars. The bottom 11 signed 32 with 8 of those coming from Nebraska.

College football has become so much like the English Premier League where you only have 5-6 teams capable of winning it and everyone else is playing for entertainment purposes.

It continues to boggle my mind that these players, who only get roughly 50 college games to play would choose to sit out 30-40 of them just to be a part of a better program and yea I know the "better program" thing is a big deal but players want to play, at least I thought so.

We are quickly approaching the point where teams like Clemson, FSU, Mich, OSU, and PSU will have as much or more talent than an ACC or Big Ten All-Star team of the have-nots.

Unlike many, I do not like the playoff system. Before it was put in place, you could be happy with a 9 win season, a decent bowl invitation, and a top 25 finish. Fans could argue who was No. 1,or 10, or even 25, but most were content with having a competitive team that gave them something to cheer for in the fall. Now, if you don't make the playoffs, or get close, many consider the season a failure. If the playoffs are here to stay, as I am sure they are, expand to 16 teams and give more teams (and fans) an opportunity to have a meaningful season into January.

 

[pafootballguy]

Unlike many, I do not like the playoff system. Before it was put in place, you could be happy with a 9 win season, a decent bowl invitation, and a top 25 finish. Fans could argue who was No. 1,or 10, or even 25, but most were content with having a competitive team that gave them something to cheer for in the fall. Now, if you don't make the playoffs, or get close, many consider the season a failure. If the playoffs are here to stay, as I am sure they are, expand to 16 teams and give more teams (and fans) an opportunity to have a meaningful season into January.

We are not getting to 16 because it would require giving up conference championship games and the SEC and Big Ten make way to much on those games.

4 super conferences could get you close to that but that won't happen till at least 2024.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

Playing a college football season does not require 85 scholarships. That's far too many. Players are signing to sit and many may be ok with that but I think more are being pressured by predatory sales practices. These coaches know these guys are never going to play but they are better to be on their bench than playing against them. Its always been my opinion that scholarships should be reduced to 75.

It seems like the players join programs stacked with players on their own free will so most don't agree with you!
Since when is it up to you to determine how many players should go to a specific program?
Players get hurt, fluke out, get in trouble so the blue bloods have players to back up starters.
Other players are perfectly happy to wait 2, or 3 years to play.

IMO 85 schlorships is fine, let the players choose where they want to go.

The players are free to choose not to go to a stacked blue blood program right now, today, but many don't!

The real problem is a lot of program aren't investing the time, hard work, and money to make their program attractive.

I predict down the road there will be half the D1/P5 that exist today due to what I referenced above which will be fine!

 

[pafootballguy]

Four teams in the playoffs next year and odds are it will be four of these eight teams. Not sure the Pac 12 teams are ready to compete yet.

SEC: Alabama or Georgia
ACC: Clemson
Big 10: Ohio State or Michigan
Big 12: Oklahoma or Texas
Independent: Notre Dame

There 12 or 13 that meet the blue chip requirements to make the playoff and 8 or so that meet the 5* requirement to win an NC.

 

[pafootballguy]

The real problem is a lot of program aren't investing the time, hard work, and money to make their program attractive.

I predict down the road there will be half the D1/P5 that exist today due to what I referenced above which will be fine!

This, most athletic departments are happy to win 6-8 games a year and collect those conference TV checks.

 

[BigBird80]

Do universities have to pay a yearly fee in order to remain a D1 school?

If not, then they should.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Four teams in the playoffs next year and odds are it will be four of these eight teams. Not sure the Pac 12 teams are ready to compete yet.

SEC: Alabama or Georgia
ACC: Clemson
Big 10: Ohio State or Michigan
Big 12: Oklahoma or Texas
Independent: Notre Dame

Yes, except I would add Penn State to that mix. They have recruited like a blue blood. Coaching brings them down a little but they have 9 guaranteed wins every year. Beat OSU OR Mich and not have a WTF game and they are in assuming they win a East Division tiebreaker.

As for the Pac 12, the league is weak but if a team goes 13-0, they are in.

The only teams that can make the CFP for the foreseeable future are:

Clemson
FSU
Oklahoma
Texas
Alabama
Georgia
LSU
Auburn
Florida
A 13-0 Pac 12 team
ND

 

[McKee Place]

This, most athletic departments are happy to win 6-8 games a year and collect those conference TV checks.

And Pitt is the poster child of that. But it won't last forever.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Playing a college football season does not require 85 scholarships. That's far too many. Players are signing to sit and many may be ok with that but I think more are being pressured by predatory sales practices. These coaches know these guys are never going to play but they are better to be on their bench than playing against them. Its always been my opinion that scholarships should be reduced to 75.

Robert Foster. Perfect example. Would likely be the feature WR on 90% of NCAA teams, but because they had Amani Cooper then Calvin Ridley, and some others, was essentially passed over. Now showing in the NFL that he was everybit the talent everyone thought he was.

It's human nature, especially for teenagers to follow...to go the popular route. I mean, sure it makes sense to go to winners, but you could get a couple of big time recruits who have the courage to say go to Pitt to change the culture or direction of the program.

The other big difference between now and then in helping the powers concentrate the talent is sites like this. Where they can see the devotion and over the top craziness of some fanbases.

 

[GT74]

Again, certain programs will always have an advantage over others. Any urban school in an NFL market, especially one of the strongest NFL markets will never, ever, be able to compete with these large, historical state schools who operate and act as defacto NFL franchises in those regions.

Agreed. And, that no doubt contributes to the attendance disparity.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Robert Foster. Perfect example. Would likely be the feature WR on 90% of NCAA teams, but because they had Amani Cooper then Calvin Ridley, and some others, was essentially passed over. Now showing in the NFL that he was everybit the talent everyone thought he was.

It's human nature, especially for teenagers to follow...to go the popular route. I mean, sure it makes sense to go to winners, but you could get a couple of big time recruits who have the courage to say go to Pitt to change the culture or direction of the program.

The other big difference between now and then in helping the powers concentrate the talent is sites like this. Where they can see the devotion and over the top craziness of some fanbases.

I would sell it as the poster boy to NOT go to Alabama. In 5 years, Foster's career totals were 35 receptions, 389 yards, and 3 TD's. Did get a couple rings and gets to say he was a Bama player and experienced that lifestyle but he is proving its easier to get PT in the NFL than some of these blue bloods. He is outproducing his entire 5 years at Bama in 1 NFL season. He has 23 receptions for 520 yards and 2 TDs. And the trend is for a lot more Robert Foster types.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I would sell it as the poster boy to NOT go to Alabama. In 5 years, Foster's career totals were 35 receptions, 389 yards, and 3 TD's. Did get a couple rings and gets to say he was a Bama player and experienced that lifestyle but he is proving its easier to get PT in the NFL than some of these blue bloods. He is outproducing his entire 5 years at Bama in 1 NFL season. He has 23 receptions for 520 yards and 2 TDs. And the trend is for a lot more Robert Foster types.

I mean, the best way for Pitt to sell this is....Up to this point Robert Foster has earned X number of dollars playing pro football. Up to this point Tyler Boyd has X times 5 number of dollars playing pro football.

 

[pittdoc57]

I would sell it as the poster boy to NOT go to Alabama. In 5 years, Foster's career totals were 35 receptions, 389 yards, and 3 TD's. Did get a couple rings and gets to say he was a Bama player and experienced that lifestyle but he is proving its easier to get PT in the NFL than some of these blue bloods. He is outproducing his entire 5 years at Bama in 1 NFL season. He has 23 receptions for 520 yards and 2 TDs. And the trend is for a lot more Robert Foster types.

Perhaps Robert Foster should get the opportunity to weigh in here. He's in the NFL, and he has his degree, and he has two championship rings. I'm confused about how he made a mistake. Let's ask him about his regrets.


This whole discussion is about figuring out a way to get better players to go to schools that don't recruit well. Period. The answer isn't to change the rules. The answer is to recruit better.

 

[Burgh15]

The more highly touted freshmen that sit for a year and then decide to transfer may open up some eyes as well. Sit for two or three years for a blue blood or play for three years and go the the NFL with any of the others.

 

[BigBird80]

Perhaps Robert Foster should get the opportunity to weigh in here. He's in the NFL, and he has his degree, and he has two championship rings. I'm confused about how he made a mistake. Let's ask him about his regrets.


This whole discussion is about figuring out a way to get better players to go to schools that don't recruit well. Period. The answer isn't to change the rules. The answer is to recruit better.

He out of high school was a much more talented and game ready wr than Boyd. Boyd went to a school where he was used as a primary wr and got to work on his craft. Boyd has made millions already and will be cashing in again very soon.

Foster is right now playing for peanuts and after watching their last game, I can tell that he is FAR from a lock to stick in the NFL long term. He has raw tools, same as he did went he first went to Bama. He is a hell of an athlete with great speed. They chuck up a few bombs to him and he gets them sometimes and drops them at others. He has no clue how to catch a back shoulder pass and his route running needs a lot of work.

The object of the game is to make millions, not get a degree and polish rings for the next 50 years of your life. Foster made the wrong decision. He is YEARS behind Boyd in wr development and financial earnings.

 

[pittdoc57]

I understand your logic. I still say Robert Foster is the one who gets to decide if it was a mistake or not, not you or me or Zeise or SMF or anybody else.

It's no different than someone saying that you married the wrong woman. You could have married the head cheerleader, or you could have married some beauty queen. Instead you married the girl next door and are deliriously happy, and nobody gets to decide that but you. Same with Foster.