Not really, since those schools are bringing in zero, one, and two star guys. I do get your point, I just don’t think what Telep said was inaccurate.[/quote]
There isn’t a hill a beans difference in the players we get. We both get mid level guys that have major deficiencies in their game. If schools at this level do get an occational highly touted player he’s likely an overhyped one that other schools backed off of, faded in their development, or has grade problems/ trouble with the law. That’s just how it works, and if you get to many your probably cheating like UCF. At that this level it’s about getting the kind of players to fit a style that maximises their talents and minimises their weakness as well as getting them to stay 4 years and hoping one or two develops into complete players.
We recruit the same caliber of players and your kidding your self if you think there is much of a difference. Most of the guys we have had on the team recently/currently also had BCS/top mid major offers. Never really been a talent issue here, we’ve had enough to be good, our problems of past was that our players transferred to places like Pitt, Tennessee, Wichita St, UTEP, Utah etc. after a year or two and we never had any expereince or continuity until last year. Guy like Brock Young, Abrams, Morrow were all solid recruits as good or better than any on your team and you see things turned out better as upperclassmen with better coaching.
Not really, since those schools are bringing in zero, one, and two star guys. I do get your point, I just don’t think what Telep said was inaccurate.[/quote]
There isn’t a hill a beans difference in the players we get. We both get mid level guys that have major deficiencies in their game. If schools at this level do get an occational highly touted player he’s likely an overhyped one that other schools backed off of, faded in their development, or has grade problems/ trouble with the law. That’s just how it works, and if you get to many your probably cheating like UCF. At that this level it’s about getting the kind of players to fit a style that maximises their talents and minimises their weakness as well as getting them to stay 4 years and hoping one or two develops into complete players.
We recruit the same caliber of players and your kidding your self if you think there is much of a difference. Most of the guys we have had on the team recently/currently also had BCS/top mid major offers. Never really been a talent issue here, we’ve had enough to be good, our problems of past was that our players transferred to places like Pitt, Tennessee, Wichita St, UTEP, Utah etc. after a year or two and we never had any expereince or continuity until last year. Guy like Brock Young, Abrams, Morrow were all solid recruits as good or better than any on your team and you see things turned out better as upperclassmen with better coaching.[/quote]
If there wasn’t much difference your team would have been in an NCAA Tournament since the early 90s. Have you dusted your mother’s skeleton yet today?
Yeah, at least he admits ECU’s midlevel guys have sucked. I mean, if we have the same types of guys and given the records, well, yeah, ECU’s guys have sucked for the most part.