In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1921
On this Board 1433Record: 6133 (1/15/2013)
Online now 1902Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
As others have pointed out, this 2013 USCw class is STRONG on paper. How does it stack up against the 2008 Bama class that is considered by some as the best Bama class ever?
I simply took the 15 commitments from the USCw class and compared them to the 32 signees from the 2008 Bama class.
According to Scout:
USCw: avg stars = 4.33; 10 of the top 100; 6 5-star 9 4-star; 11 are in the top 10 in the nation by position (3 are #1 by position)
Bama: avg stars = 3.66; 6 of the top 100; 3 5-star 17 4-star 10 3-star 2 2-star; 7 are in the top 10 in nation by position (2 are #1 by position)
According to Rivals:
USCw: avg stars = 4.20; 12 of the top 100; 3 5-star 12 4-star; 12 are in the top 10 in nation by position (3 are #1 by position)
Bama: avg stars = 3.72; 8 of the top 100; 3 5-star 19 4-star 8 3-star 2 2-star; 9 are in the top 10 in the nation by position (2 are #1 by position)
According to ESPN:
USCw: avg stars = 4.00; 11 of the top 150; 0 5-star 15 4-star; 8 are in top 10 in nation by position (1 is #1 by position)
Bama: star ratings not available; 7 of the top 150; 6 are in the top 10 in the nation by position (3 are #1 by position)
According to 247Sports:
USCw: avg stars = 4.27; 4 5-star 11 4-star; 10 are in the top 100; 10 are in top 10 in nation by position (2 are #1 by position)
Bama: no info available
Since the Bama class is so much larger, it is obviously deeper. However, the breakdown of the 2 classes favors USCw in most categories. So, the Bama class is deeper, but the USCw class is higher rated at the top. This comparison does not suggest on-the-field performance. It is just a for-fun recruting ranking comparison. I wonder how the USCw class might have been different if they had a full compliment of scholarships to offer? I doubt they could add 10 more of the same quality to this class thus dropping their avg star rating.
2 Nationals Championships a bunch of first and second round draft picks COMPARED TOO
not playing a down of college football yet
This post was edited by clayton4rtr on 7/18/2012 at 10:04 AM
True. See the conclusions where I specifically state this has nothing to do with on-the-field performance. Just trying to create some interesting discussions during the slow off-season.
No doubt about the talent level at USC. Depth may hurt them but if you are to survive a NCAA sanction this is the way to do it.
New Member of The 247 Crew!
I posted this in another thread and I'll post some of the same information/opinions here. As others have mentioned it is depth that gets you when in sanctions. No place is that more true than the OL. You need five guys just to start with, who generally need at least a year if not two in an S&C program before being counted on. Between this year's entering class and the current commitments USC has five OL. Including those entering, they have fourteen total OL on scholarship. At the end of this year they definitely lose three and can lose up to six as they have the three red shirt juniors who can/may leave for whatever reason. So best case scenario they have 13 and worst case they have 10, with five of those being first or second year guys. USC like the entire PAC 12 has also lost an extra bye week because of the championship game. So now going forward they barely have enough to field a two deep, that must stay healthy during practice, games, and have no performance busts. They already speak of a lack of depth as the only problem for this year's team. They should enjoy it because it will get a lot worse over the next four years...
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Outlaw on 7/18/2012 at 11:55 AM
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports