TOP 25 for '04

The Tide

1st Team
Nov 14, 1999
993
13
0
Nashville, TN
I doubt it due tomthe fact we can only sign 19 out of 25. Besides if we don't land in the top 25 then most on here will clame once again that rankings don't matter.
 

GAMEFACE

1st Team
Feb 6, 2001
497
1
0
Cahaba Heights, Al. USA
Tide I had much rather have a top rated class than one not. I dont think its an exact science but when you are in the top 10 recruiting all the time it usually shows up on the field. When not in the top it also usually shows on the field. I love recruiting and hope we get a top class but our numbers hurt us. Its not saying the kids we sign arent top 10 just that our numbers dont reflect that. next years recruiting class is crutial and a pivotal year for us. We have to sign 25 good ones that get in school and where at least 10 or so can play early. But your right most will say rankings dont matter. But I think they do.
 

Queasy1

Hall of Fame
Sep 1, 2003
7,639
36
0
Atlanta, GA
ESPN had Bama as one of the top 5 'surprise' recruiting classes. We may not sign a top 25 class due to signing restrictions but I think we'll sign a high quality class.
 

The Tide

1st Team
Nov 14, 1999
993
13
0
Nashville, TN
I didn't say we wouldn't have a quality class, but that with only being able to sign 19 it hurts us when compared to teams that can sign in the 20's. I believe there is some correlation to recruiting rankings and winning. BUT when Bama doesn't have a highly ranked class SOME fans on here will point out that it doesn't mean anything. Of course if we did sign a ranked class they would say otherwise.
 

GAMEFACE

1st Team
Feb 6, 2001
497
1
0
Cahaba Heights, Al. USA
I agree Tide. I think it directly correlates to on the field teams. With this class though it is an exception like you said. We could have as good a 19 as the top 5 ranked teams top 19 and still not be ranked because of pure #'s. Even if there last 6 are 2's on the 5 scale they still have an advantage over us of at least 12 points in the system and that is hard to match. There arent many schools who could sign only 19 and make the top 25 in recruiting because it is such a disadvantage. I try not to look through my crimson glass' to much and think that a ranked recruiting class has a lot more of a chance to make an impact on the field than that of a unranked recruiting class. I didnt mean to imply anything negative.
 

J.E.B. Stuart

Suspended
Aug 11, 2000
841
0
35
There is one thing that the NCAA sanctions did to this year's Alabama team. It caused a rash of injuries. The reason I say that is that a lot of the players most likely continued to play with small injuries that they could have sit for some plays or even a game and got better.

Also, the fewer players Bama had caused fewer players to be in the rotations. This caused players to play more snaps, where they because run down, tired, beatup, worn out, etc., thus subjecting them to injury. I have seen over the years that high schools with small numbers of players on their teams suffer many more injuries.

I officiated high school football for 25 years and noticed this many times. A player for team "A" which may have had only 35 or 40 players, would limp off, only to return a play or two later and try to continue, mainly because he was one of the best 15 or so players they had and would play both ways. I think this happens in college also, where there are fewer quality players in a rotation.

Just because Bama signs them, and they are on the team, doesn't mean they all turn out to be All-Americans. Some just don't pan out and leave the program early. Of the 25 signed each year, I don't think the percentage of those 25 doing 4 years together is very good.

In the long run, the fewer players that Bama has on the team is going to show physically on these players and with injuries. Bama suffered a lot of injuries this year. It had a great deal to do with their overall performance. Losses on the OL and DL, the QB injuries. They all add up. You can thank the NCAA sanctions for that. But, of course the NCAA does not care about the players at the school now. They are punishing the current ones for the sins of the past.
 

The Tide

1st Team
Nov 14, 1999
993
13
0
Nashville, TN
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by J.E.B. Stuart:
There is one thing that the NCAA sanctions did to this year's Alabama team. It caused a rash of injuries. The reason I say that is that a lot of the players most likely continued to play with small injuries that they could have sit for some plays or even a game and got better.

Also, the fewer players Bama had caused fewer players to be in the rotations. This caused players to play more snaps, where they because run down, tired, beatup, worn out, etc., thus subjecting them to injury. I have seen over the years that high schools with small numbers of players on their teams suffer many more injuries.

I officiated high school football for 25 years and noticed this many times. A player for team "A" which may have had only 35 or 40 players, would limp off, only to return a play or two later and try to continue, mainly because he was one of the best 15 or so players they had and would play both ways. I think this happens in college also, where there are fewer quality players in a rotation.

Just because Bama signs them, and they are on the team, doesn't mean they all turn out to be All-Americans. Some just don't pan out and leave the program early. Of the 25 signed each year, I don't think the percentage of those 25 doing 4 years together is very good.

In the long run, the fewer players that Bama has on the team is going to show physically on these players and with injuries. Bama suffered a lot of injuries this year. It had a great deal to do with their overall performance. Losses on the OL and DL, the QB injuries. They all add up. You can thank the NCAA sanctions for that. But, of course the NCAA does not care about the players at the school now. They are punishing the current ones for the sins of the past.
</font>

I have stated this time and time again. We are not hurting because of the "numbers" crunch. We have had a small graduating class the last 2 years. We had 2 less scholarships than Auburn did this year.

WHAT the sanctions will due is weight our numbers heavily on the side of younger players. These young players must step up and play in a hurry. Yes we might have had little depth at some positions, but it was due to lack of experience.

I don't blame injuries on probation.
 

Bamatree

BamaNation Citizen
Jun 22, 2003
34
0
0
Fairhope, Al, USA
The Tide
"I have stated this time and time again. We are not hurting because of the "numbers" crunch. We have had a small graduating class the last 2 years. We had 2 less scholarships than Auburn did this year."

Tide, I have a lot of respect for your postings,but I think you are off base here.

In the four years ending with Dubose's firing we lost 31 of the last 100 commitments due to transfers, academic casualties and injuries.That lead to small graduating classes.
During Fran's time he was unable, in either year, to even fill out the reduced scholarship numbers with players high on the board and had to scramble to find recruits just to come close to the head count. Fran was also ineffective in attracting skill players with his offensive scheme.
Price did even worse when it came to filling out his dance card and scrambled even further afield from the top of the board.
Neither coach was effective in getting top of the board talent on the line, leaving us woefully short in that area.
Both coaches also awarded scholarships to some walk-ons which kept our total numbers up close to our max allowed.
In short Dubose recruited good talent and couldn't get them on the field. Fran and Price left some glaring weaknesses in their recruiting mix.

Don't get me wrong, I love every one of those players for choosing to play at Bama. But the sanctions have had a hugh effect.

Would you say we have a lot of team speed or average speed? If you say average, think sanctions.
Are we a dominant strong team or average? If we are average, think sanctions.
Do we have a lot of talented depth at every position or are we thin? If thin, think sanctions.

In summary over the last seven years we have lost more than 52 (31+21) of 175 potential players on the field, yielding a net result that we had only around 70% of our potential recruits hit the field and then we lost some of those to injury so they never played a full four years.

I believe we have a numbers problem and it is a depth of talent numbers issue.
 

J.E.B. Stuart

Suspended
Aug 11, 2000
841
0
35
Well you have your opinions and I have mine. I do not agree with you that we do not have a numbers problem. You can have 100 people on the field, but how many of those are walk ons that will not be very productive players other than to fill out the roster or be practice players (like Rudy was at ND). You can have all the numbers you want, but are they productive. For the youth thing, they are not yet into full swing because we are only now hitting the third probation class. That leaves two other seasons that we should have had some numbers, but lost people for various reasons. The guy above made a good post with figures to back it up. I agree with him whether you agree with me (us) or not. I still believe what I see. You can believe what you want.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
We had 2 less scholarships than Auburn did this year.

Is every school in the same boat as we are or is Awbarn an exception?

------------------
Rome was not rebuilt in a year; it took years.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.