Look around the country. Who among the top teams not named bama is known for defense? Even harder, what teams that aren't traditional powers are known for defense? The little guys turn the corner with offense.
True, I wish we could be tOSU. we won't be tOSU. Ohio state and bama are on a different planet. Saban and Meyer are all around juggernauts. We have to find a different path
It can be done here too but I think it's the harder climb. Like I was saying, a Wisconsin/MSU and Iowa if you want to include them is about as far down the totem pole you can go to find programs using it with some success and most have more history and tradition behind it than we do, first college football game aside. But with a spread you see many midmajors and P5s you'd normally think have no business having success doing well. Sometimes fleeting and sometimes sustained but performing above their perceived status nonetheless.
Yes and that's mainly because their defense is lousy which is why I said we need at least a mediocre defense say in that top 50-65 range or it eventually catches up to you or you become Indiana. I think a top 50-65 defense is an achievable goal. BTW don't assume all spreads fling it around. WVU ran a read option type with RichRod and even Baylor who flings it around is among the leaders in rushing last time I looked, TCU too.
It can be done if you're playing those teams too and like I said don't just assume because it's a spread that you don't run the ball. 9 out of the top 20 rushing offenses are a spread (that includes a Baylor/TCU). Don't think of Mike Leach who barely runs the ball. He's the extreme, not all are like that and a read option type uses the run a lot and can be physical.
I think recruiting for a spread is easier and that's why you see teams farther down the totem pole able to recruit well enough to still have success. They don't need all the top tier recruits to still do well.
Hey I appreciate everyone's opinion devil's advocate or not. It doesn't matter if they agree with me or not. I give my points and the reasoning and leave it at that for others to make up their minds.
That's probably true but that's not my goal as a RU fan. My goal is to see RU's football team win as much and often as possible and be ranked. Besides if we're doing well and having some success the kids might get longer looks even if they may not be "trained" for the NFL. But again as fan of RU my goal is to see RU win as much as possible not getting players drafted. As a side benefit and secondary goal that's fine but the main goal is RU's football team winning as much as possible and the best avenue to achieve that.
Well we've had guys go to the NFL but I don't know how much of a boost in recruiting we got from it. I think our biggest boost came when we got some of the Pitt staff on board here more than anything. To me the biggest thing to boost recruiting is winning....a lot and the coach/system that can do that is what will help boost recruiting.
It's a fair comparison because Baylor was unarguably the worst P5 program in existence at the time Briles was hired. He was paid barely over a million per year and they were averaging like 30k fans as probably the 5th tier team in Texas. It's a true rags to riches story. Who cares that they had rich alums since none of them seemed to care. And you don't think if Rutgers turns into a winner vis a vis Baylor, we wouldn't be able to garner a strong rich following? The NJ/NY market is loaded with wealthy people (some of them RU alums during our dark ages). I mean look at Greg Brown, he is the quintessential example of a big donor who went from not giving a shit to supporting Rutgers heavily due to winning. Win some more, and more people like him will come out of the woodwork.
Basically your premise is RU is like Baylor because we could get lucky? We could hire a coach that is barely over 500 in the Conference USA, land a Heisman candidate , and rewrite history? Sign me up!
For that, you need an OL that blocks people, and RU hasn't had that since about 2008.
