Many on this board have said we need top 10 recruiting classes to compete. Today, the road to the Rose Bowl or the PAC 12 championship has to go through USC, Oregon, and Stanford. So how does our recruiting stack up against these three?<br /><br />I'd guess it takes 2-5 years to build a championship team. Over the last 5 years, using the Scout.com ratings as an example:<br /><br />Cal: Average class rank-24th, two 5-star players, thirty-five 4-star players<br />Oregon: Average class rank -17th, four 5-star players, thirty-eight 4-star players<br />USC: Average class rank - 6th, twenty-four 5-star players, forty-eight 4-star players<br />Stanford: Average class rank: 30th, two 5-star players, twenty-seven 4-star players<br /> <br />The conclusions I draw are:<br /><br />1. Cal (and all the other PAC 12 teams) are never going to get consistent recruiting classes like the ones USC gets.<br /><br />2. Oregon has been able to win championships with recruiting classes only slightly better than Cal's, but nowhere near as talented as USC's classes.<br /><br />3. Stanford has been able to compete for the championship with recruiting classes slightly less talented than Cal's.<br /><br />4. Stanford with an average class ranking of 30th, finished last season tied for the best record in the PAC 12, while Cal, with an average class ranking of 24th, finished last season tied for the 6th best record in the PAC 12.<br /><br />( I know there are those of you who will say Stanford's success is all due to Andrew Luck, who is the second coming, but Luck did not have any thing to do with the creation of the Stanford O-line, their defense, or their special teams, which were all very good.)<br /><br />If we had competent coaching, all we would need to do is bump up the recruiting a little bit to the Oregon level. If we had great coaching, like a Harbaugh, for example, we could be competitive and perhaps win with the classes we have been getting. Stanford appears to be getting more out of their recruiting classes than we are getting out of ours. We had a winning record last season, but if Presbyterian wasn't on the schedule, maybe we don't even have that. Better recruiting would help, but the answer on fixing this program goes beyond that.<br /><br />:gobears:

The only way to win without a great recruiting class is to strike gold with a quarterback and get big O-line to protect him. Pass rush is also important with weakside linebackers/rush defensive ends.<br /><br />These have been our issues for ages.

Furd is an outlier that is the result of the freak named Andrew Luck.<br /><br />I will remain convinced that USC returns to earth upon the return of NFL football to LA. I just don't think the Bay Area insiders grasp how, absent NFL, Trojan football gets the kind of coverage that is "diluted" in the BA by 2 NFL and 2 BCS-conference teams. The result is that the guys who are studs know that, week in and week out, they will be treated as gods.<br /><br />It is also the case, I am convinced, that USC ratings are "inflated". When USC offers/interests the threes go to fours and fives simply because the "scouts" are not putting that much effort into parsing out those ratings.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;697706 said:</div><hr>no reason we shouldn't be regurally winning 8 or 9 games a season with the current recruiting classes. a great coach could take that to 10 or 11.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yep. The recruiting classes are definitely good enough, in my opinion. The lack of QB play has been an absolute killer.

Luck was up there in the rankings, but, in hindsight, he was under ranked. Pryor was all the rage and Crist was the next Montana.

The number of teams that can win without an elite QB in college doesn't include us. <br /><br />It requires you to be stacked at the two-deep (we're not), have exceptional athletes (uhh, that's pretty much Keenan, and he's gone after this year), and probably have an amazing run game (ours is decent but not great), O-line (ugh), defense (sometimes) and special teams (never). We're what, 2 for 4 at best?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;697737 said:</div><hr>no question we win a lot more games the last couple of years with an elite qb. an elite qb raises the people around him. saying all that, i'm not sure i'm willing to wait till the next aaron rodgers for tedford to go to a bcs. kline actually looks amazing IMO, but a lot can happen. in reality we need to find a coach who can win big without a future nfl draft pick.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Not to belabor the sunshine but the Tedford offense requires a COMBINATION of good play at the QB and Tailback - especially one that can run between the tackles. <br /><br />There is a remarkable similarity between Tedford and Norv Turner's offensive scheme and we saw this year that you can have a great QB (Phillips) but the offensive becomes "ordinary" if you can not threaten Play Action. Love ISI but we all know he is undersized to be a true threat up the middle and thus require the safeties to cheat (and thus open up opportunities outside). Given ISI's limitations it required ZM to be NFL caliber. When we had good tackle to tackler runners we had QBs who were really really bad (and who ZM is better than). I am PRAYING that Bigelow is healthy next year and provides that kind of running game.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;697737 said:</div><hr>no question we win a lot more games the last couple of years with an elite qb. an elite qb raises the people around him. saying all that, i'm not sure i'm willing to wait till the next aaron rodgers for tedford to go to a bcs. kline actually looks amazing IMO, but a lot can happen. in reality we need to find a coach who can win big without a future nfl draft pick.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Well, there is more than a decent chance that Kline will be elite. I know the Bears have had a ton of elite 11 guys, but I think the buzz for Kline has been bigger and from more sources. Look at the potential weapons around if the Bears can land Treggs, Powe, Harper in addition to Harris and maybe a year of Allen. Then there is Lasco, Bigelow if he comes back to form. That is some serious star power. The line had some good games last year and looked to improve over time. If JC, Williams turns out on the line and some of the new guys? A real home field advantage again!!

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;697792 said:</div><hr>i'm sold on kline. he's certainly better out of hs than the prior guys. but a quick release and big arm are only a part of what you need to be elite and none of us knows for sure if he has the other qualities.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />One quality I have heard a lot about Kline is that he is a bad *ss who has that confidence, swagger or IT factor. That's pretty huge, in my opinion.