Monday Insider
THE WEST ZONE message board | SHOP NOW: DEALS on CLEMSON apparel
1. In the aftermath of Saturday night’s lopsided outcome, Will Muschamp was asked what South Carolina needed to do in order to close the continental divide to Clemson.
“We need to continue to recruit,” Muschamp replied predictably, soon suggesting his staff would be out recruiting the next day on a Sunday.
Is talent – both in regards to differential individuals as well as aggregate – a substantial factor in Clemson’s recent rivalry ownership? Without a doubt, and although hardly the only factor, probably the leading one.
But the main reason why South Carolina’s “Never Again” anthem following last year’s 56-7 clubbing rang hollow is that nothing happened recruiting-wise in the year since to render some dramatic shift.
Every coach outside of maybe Paul Johnson recognizes the importance and value of recruiting and star-power.
It’s easy to say you’re going to focus on recruiting. It’s much tougher to deliver the results.
South Carolina got a couple of good players last winter – including several Clemson liked and would have accepted at various stages in the process.
But perhaps Tee Higgins’ freezing and then burning fellow freshman Jamyest Williams for a 40-yard catch encapsulated why talk of a quick fix would be premature from the Gamecocks’ side.
South Carolina can gradually bring a more dangerous weapon to the fight.
Yet the rich keep getting richer, as Clemson has shown no signs of letting off the recruiting gas itself.
The Gamecocks have the No. 23-ranked class under current Rivals.com rankings, and we’re inclined to think they finish in the 20-30 range. Which appears respectable.
Note, though, that their average per-prospect star rating is 3.22.
It was 3.24 when South Carolina finished No. 16 last year.
In the two years before Steve Spurrier pinned himself a lame duck, the Gamecocks ranked No. 19 and No. 16, respectively, with 3.3 and 3.48 ratings.
There’s something to be said for procuring undervalued prospects. And stars don’t automatically equate to success.
But they’re close to a prerequisite to getting there.
Clemson’s last three classes have finished Nos. 22, 6 and 4 with ratings of 3.86, 3.59 and 3.48. And we know the self-imposed dings they’ve taken to their rating, wink wink.
This year’s class boasts a per-prospect rating of 3.73 stars – roughly the equivalent of a high-three star prospect in Rivals’ parlance.
South Carolina has eight commitments of that stature, only one of which Clemson saw fit to offer: four-star in-state athlete Dakereon Joyner, who considers himself a quarterback.
We’re not talking about closing the gap to be comparable. Right now, the Gamecocks have work to do just to get competitive.
2. So for better or worse, the recruiting impact from Saturday’s result might be negligible.
We laid out last week why the visitor list in Columbia stood to be the least relevant in a long while. In short, the teams aren’t involved with the same recruits anymore because Clemson has a higher bar as well as the two tend to attract kids who are influenced by different factors in their decisions.
Furthermore, we have expressed sentiment that the 2019 in-state crop could be the least attractive as far as top-end talent in recent memory. The pool of credible power five conference prospects looks slimmer than usual, and neither Clemson nor South Carolina appears all that intrigued by even more than a couple of candidates. The Tigers have offered one in-state junior: Anderson (S.C.) T.L. Hanna four-star defensive lineman Zacch Pickens.
You must be a member to read the full article. Subscribe now for instant access to all premium content.
-
Members-only forums
-
Predict prospect commits with FanFutureCast
-
Exclusive highlights and interviews
-
Exclusive coverage of Rivals Camp Series
-
Breaking recruiting news