Big Picture in Rankings...

[DKW 86 8,215]

How exactly did we do? lets take a look at what teams we did beat in Recruiting.

15. Auburn 27 SEC 3304 1 2 6 11 14 13 0 23 4 3.07 15.

16. Mississippi 37 SEC 3297 2 1 4 25 18 17 2 35 2 2.97 16.

17. Florida State 21 ACC 3274 4 1 8 11 11 9 1 21 0 3.43 17.

18. Mississippi State 27 SEC 3193 0 0 8 15 14 11 2 21 6 3.15 18.

19. Arkansas 32 SEC 3165 1 1 5 14 15 17 0 27 5 2.84 19.

20. Miami (Fl) 20 ACC 3158 4 1 8 10 11 9 0 20 0 3.45 20.

21. Florida 16 SEC 3078 6 4 5 7 9 7 0 15 1 3.81 21.

22. Tennessee 19 SEC 3061 1 0 11 7 6 13 0 17 2 3.47 22.

23. West Virginia 24 Big East 2964 2 1 6 11 16 8 0 22 2 3.08 23.

24. Notre Dame 17 Indep 2835 3 2 7 7 9 6 2 17 0 3.59 24.

25. South Florida 30 Big East 2806 1 1 2 19 13 17 0 24 6 2.87 25.

26. Maryland 26 ACC 2571 0 0 4 14 10 15 1 26 0 2.85 26.

27. Oregon 25 Pac-10 2552 1 0 5 12 8 15 2 20 5 2.88 27.

28. Pittsburgh 21 Big East 2484 0 0 5 12 12 9 0 21 0 3.05 28.

29. Rutgers 24 Big East 2479 0 0 1 19 12 12 0 24 0 2.88 29.

30. Texas Tech 26 Big 12 2475 0 0 4 13 10 16 0 24 2 2.81 30.

31. Georgia Tech 21 ACC 2461 0 0 4 12 10 11 0 21 0 2.95 31.

32. Kentucky 28 SEC 2432 1 0 3 14 17 11 0 25 3 2.71 32.

33. Nebraska 21 Big 12 2360 1 0 2 17 12 9 0 19 2 3.00 33.

34. California 19 Pac-10 2286 0 0 5 12 8 10 1 15 4 3.05 34.

35. Illinois 22 Big Ten 2263 1 0 5 7 10 12 0 21 1 2.77 35.

36. Arizona State 21 Pac-10 2238 2 2 0 12 13 8 0 19 2 2.86 36.

37. Michigan State 22 Big Ten 2234 0 0 3 12 15 6 1 22 0 2.82 37.

38. Missouri 25 Big 12 2208 1 1 2 11 11 14 0 22 3 2.72 38.

39. North Carolina State 27 ACC 2144 0 0 2 13 10 16 1 26 1 2.63 39.

40. BYU 22 MWC 2118 0 0 4 9 15 7 0 19 3 2.77 40.

41. Virginia Tech 22 ACC 2087 1 1 3 8 9 12 1 22 0 2.73 41.

42. Clemson 12 ACC 2013 2 1 5 6 7 5 0 12 0 3.58 42.

43. Baylor 28 Big 12 1994 0 0 1 13 17 11 0 24 4 2.54 43.

44. Oklahoma State 23 Big 12 1993 0 0 4 9 11 12 0 19 4 2.74 44.

50. Wisconsin 21 Big Ten 1853 0 0 2 11 9 12 0 21 0 2.71 50.

58. Wake Forest 23 ACC 1544 0 0 0 10 11 11 1 23 0 2.43 58.

59. Colorado 19 Big 12 1537 1 1 0 9 10 8 1 18 1 2.63 59.

60. Boise State 21 WAC 1453 0 0 1 7 10 11 0 20 1 2.43 60.

61. Hawaii 31 WAC 1349 0 0 0 7 15 16 0 21 10 2.23 61.

62. Southern Miss 23 Conf USA 1333 0 0 0 10 13 10 0 17 6 2.39 62.

69. Northwestern 18 Big Ten 1152 0 0 1 5 9 8 1 18 0 2.39 69.

70. Fresno State 17 WAC 1102 0 0 2 2 4 13 0 16 1 2.24 70.

73. Iowa 18 Big Ten 1052 0 0 2 2 15 3 0 18 0 2.33 73.

74. Vanderbilt 17 SEC 1050 0 0 0 5 11 6 0 17 0 2.24 74.

75. Tulsa 26 Conf USA 1023 0 0 1 3 12 14 0 23 3 2.04 75.

76. Iowa State 21 Big 12 985 0 0 0 6 12 9 0 18 3 2.29 76.

77. Tulane 25 Conf USA 956 0 0 0 4 14 10 1 25 0 2.08 77.

t78. Louisiana Tech 26 WAC 940 0 0 0 3 14 11 1 23 3 2.08 t78.

t78. Troy 33 Sun Belt 940 0 0 1 3 18 15 0 24 9 1.88 t78.

80. Boston College 17 ACC 917 0 0 0 5 8 8 1 17 0 2.29 80.

81. Western Kentucky 26 Indep 914 0 0 0 2 13 12 1 25 1 1.92 81.

82. ULM 26 Sun Belt 858 0 0 0 3 17 9 0 24 2 2.08 82.

83. East Carolina 21 Conf USA 779 0 0 0 3 10 11 0 20 1 2.10 83.

85. Navy 38 Indep 760 0 0 0 0 20 17 1 38 0 1.95 85.

86. Middle Tennessee 23 Sun Belt 746 0 0 0 2 13 10 0 23 0 1.87 86.

94. Army 32 Indep 553 0 0 0 0 14 17 1 32 0 1.91 93.

95. Syracuse 14 Big East 540 0 0 0 2 6 8 0 12 2 2.14 95.

96. Ball State 23 MAC 510 0 0 0 0 14 9 0 23 0 1.96 96.

105. UAB 24 Conf USA 399 0 0 0 3 10 14 0 15 9 1.83 105.

120. Buffalo 20 MAC 167 0 0 0 0 11 9 0 20 0 1.35 120.

Teams with new HCs.

Ball State Brady Hoke - Story Stan Parrish - Story

Boston College Jeff Jagodzinski - Story Frank Spaziani - Story

Bowling Green Gregg Bandon - Story Dave Clawson - Story

Clemson Tommy Bowden - Story Dabo Swinney (interim) - Story

Dabo Swinney (official head coach) - Story

Eastern Michigan Jeff Genyk - Story Ron English - Story

Iowa State Gene Chizik - Story Paul Rhoads - Story

Kansas State Ron Prince - Story Bill Snyder - Story

Miami (O.) Shane Montgomery - Story Michael Haywood - Story

Mississippi State Sylvester Croom - Story Dan Mullen - Story

New Mexico Rocky Long - Story Mike Locksley - Story

New Mexico State Hal Mumme - Story DeWayne Walker - Story

*-Purdue Joe Tiller Danny Hope

San Diego State Chuck Long - Story Brady Hoke - Story

Syracuse Greg Robinson - Story Doug Marrone - Story

Tennessee Phillip Fulmer - Story Lane Kiffin - Story

Toledo Tom Amstutz - Story Tim Beckman - Story

Utah State Brent Guy - Story Gary Andersen - Story

Washington Tyrone Willingham - Story Steve Sarkisian - Story

Wyoming Joe Glenn - Story Dave Christensen - Story

[AUTrey 0]

Why did I read a thousand articles about Tennessee, and how good their recruiting was going with their new staff? Why did I not see a similar article about Auburn and our new staff? I am assuming we had the highest ranked class out of the schools with new head coaches. Quite impressive.

And what happened to BC? I know the whole Jags story, but gut lawd...80??? And I am also surprised by Clemson's ranking. I thought I heard their name a fair amount -- was expecting better. Wasn't one of the key reasons for making Dabo the HC his recruiting abilities?

[92AUGRAD 4]

I have a real big issue with this thread...how many schools did we 'beat' due to sheer numbers? FSU, Miami, UF, UT, ND and Clemson all had huge advantages when you compare average stars. AU beat them out because we signed 27 players. Miami signed 20 players and UF 16, UT 19, ND 17 and Clemson 12. I do think Chizik did a great job based on limited time but I still believe he needs to improve the overall quality of the signees.

[DKW 86 8,215]

I have a real big issue with this thread...how many schools did we 'beat' due to sheer numbers? FSU, Miami, UF, UT, ND and Clemson all had huge advantages when you compare average stars. AU beat them out because we signed 27 players. Miami signed 20 players and UF 16, UT 19, ND 17 and Clemson 12. I do think Chizik did a great job based on limited time but I still believe he needs to improve the overall quality of the signees.

Look "SIR," the services take that into account and dont count after a certain number, 22-25 I believe.

That way signing 40 or so doesnt look disproportional.

Please keep up...

[Mikey 16,781]

I have a real big issue with this thread...how many schools did we 'beat' due to sheer numbers?

Spot on. Can't say we beat Florida and so forth. Clemson didn't do so bad, only 12 signees and still rated #42, due to QUALITY.

The above is another reason these rating services should be put into the "fun but nothing to take seriously" category.

[Mikey 16,781]

Look "SIR," the services take that into account and dont count after a certain number, 22-25 I believe.

That way signing 40 or so doesnt look disproportional.

Please keep up...

Where did you get that idea? You need to A)Provide a link to such a policy or, B)Keep up yourself

[AU Cav 0]

Look "SIR," the services take that into account and dont count after a certain number, 22-25 I believe.

That way signing 40 or so doesnt look disproportional.

Please keep up...

Where did you get that idea? You need to A)Provide a link to such a policy or, B)Keep up yourself

I believe this is in the realm of common knowledge and really doesn't need link support. I may be wrong and if so I expect a mod to correct me but it's been put out many times that there is a limit to the number or recruits which are actually considered in the team rankings.

I used to listen to the Rivals podcast where they stated there was a number they used and only the top guys under than number are considered. Should I go find the link to that podcast from last year and supply the information?

[OldNewby 27]

Why did I read a thousand articles about Tennessee, and how good their recruiting was going with their new staff? Why did I not see a similar article about Auburn and our new staff? I am assuming we had the highest ranked class out of the schools with new head coaches. Quite impressive.

And what happened to BC? I know the whole Jags story, but gut lawd...80??? And I am also surprised by Clemson's ranking. I thought I heard their name a fair amount -- was expecting better. Wasn't one of the key reasons for making Dabo the HC his recruiting abilities?

It's all part of the media "process". Run AU down. Talk other schools up.

Everyone knows that Auburn is "racist", and that UT CU, UA, UF, USC, the other UT, OU, Ole Miss, LSU, and ND are not.

[FootballFanatic 4]

Its based of the top 25 recruits in your class since you aren't actually allowed to sign more than 25.

There are ways to finagle your way above 25 but the recruiting services base your rankings off your 25 best.

[92AUGRAD 4]

I have a real big issue with this thread...how many schools did we 'beat' due to sheer numbers? FSU, Miami, UF, UT, ND and Clemson all had huge advantages when you compare average stars. AU beat them out because we signed 27 players. Miami signed 20 players and UF 16, UT 19, ND 17 and Clemson 12. I do think Chizik did a great job based on limited time but I still believe he needs to improve the overall quality of the signees.

Look "SIR," the services take that into account and dont count after a certain number, 22-25 I believe.

That way signing 40 or so doesnt look disproportional.

Please keep up...

First of all the rankings are not weighed based on signings nor did I ever insinuate that. I believe they are cut off based on the TOP 22-25 players signed in a class. Each player gets a point total based on their ratings. The total is then calculated and the schools ranked accordingly. If you do not get to the magic 22-25 or so, then you don't get bonus points to compensate for the lesser number of signees.

Oh Knowledgable of Nothing, explain this to me...how does UF signing 16 kids averaging 3.81 stars per kid get beaten out by AU averaging 3.07 stars per kid??? Number of signed, plain and simple. So don't go and spew BS about us signing a better class than UF otherwise you'll sound like a Bammer. Get your facts straight before making a dumba$$ comment of a subject you obviously know next to nothing about.

[AU Cav 0]

Scout

Rivals

No one has been exactly right so far. Everyone needs to get off the vinegar!

[92AUGRAD 4]

Scout

Rivals

No one has been exactly right so far. Everyone needs to get off the vinegar!

These links told me absolutely nothing. Vague at best and neither addresses how the total is derived. My post was relatively rule of thumb as I couldn't find anything overly detailed as to how the numbers were calculated. My point being that UF total was scewed due to the number of signees and AU benefitted (with respect to the schools listed) from signing a full class.

At least the linkies did work...congrats

[DKW 86 8,215]

There is of course a ton of fudge factors built into these ratings. Rating any kid is subjective. But these services have done this for years and are, to some degree, accurate.

Recruiting is at best very hit and miss anyway. Want an example? CMD signed three Top 3 classes and immediately went 3-8.

Just take the services at face value and dont reinvent the wheel because someone called you on not knowing what you were talking about.

[AU alum 2]

When you read this article from Philip Marshall, it sort of explains things, at least from ESPN's viewpoint. I don't like it, don't agree with it, but at least can see why our ranking there is so skewed.

http://auburnundercover.com/news/articles/...arre-sudden-end

[AU Cav 0]

Scout

Rivals

No one has been exactly right so far. Everyone needs to get off the vinegar!

These links told me absolutely nothing. Vague at best and neither addresses how the total is derived. My post was relatively rule of thumb as I couldn't find anything overly detailed as to how the numbers were calculated. My point being that UF total was scewed due to the number of signees and AU benefitted (with respect to the schools listed) from signing a full class.

At least the linkies did work...congrats

Well, if you had read the links you would have seen where they said they take more than just a certain number of recruits and scored the class based on those recruits star ratings. They mentioned that they look at the balance of the class and don't count players after a certain number of positions were reached and they looked at needs and weighted the team score if needs were/were not met, etc.

There is more information to be gleaned from them if you are careful. The only real mystery to me (outside of knowing the algorithms used to compile these numbers) is what is the actual number they consider. Everyone has a different opinion. I'm certain the Rivals themselves said they don't look at 25. There is a floor and a ceiling but no one has concrete proof of what it is.

And seriously, do you really want to leave snide comments on an internet forum to a stranger? Kind of silly don't ya think?

[92AUGRAD 4]

Scout

Rivals

No one has been exactly right so far. Everyone needs to get off the vinegar!

These links told me absolutely nothing. Vague at best and neither addresses how the total is derived. My post was relatively rule of thumb as I couldn't find anything overly detailed as to how the numbers were calculated. My point being that UF total was scewed due to the number of signees and AU benefitted (with respect to the schools listed) from signing a full class.

At least the linkies did work...congrats

Well, if you had read the links you would have seen where they said they take more than just a certain number of recruits and scored the class based on those recruits star ratings. They mentioned that they look at the balance of the class and don't count players after a certain number of positions were reached and they looked at needs and weighted the team score if needs were/were not met, etc.

There is more information to be gleaned from them if you are careful. The only real mystery to me (outside of knowing the algorithms used to compile these numbers) is what is the actual number they consider. Everyone has a different opinion. I'm certain the Rivals themselves said they don't look at 25. There is a floor and a ceiling but no one has concrete proof of what it is.

And seriously, do you really want to leave snide comments on an internet forum to a stranger? Kind of silly don't ya think?

AU CAV...I understood there were other factors involved but the bottom line is we had a full class and the others didn't and that was the biggest factor in us being ranked higher. I was just a litlle irritated when DKW called me out and didn't know wtf he was talking about. Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

[DKW 86 8,215]

Scout

Rivals

No one has been exactly right so far. Everyone needs to get off the vinegar!

These links told me absolutely nothing. Vague at best and neither addresses how the total is derived. My post was relatively rule of thumb as I couldn't find anything overly detailed as to how the numbers were calculated. My point being that UF total was scewed due to the number of signees and AU benefitted (with respect to the schools listed) from signing a full class.

At least the linkies did work...congrats

Well, if you had read the links you would have seen where they said they take more than just a certain number of recruits and scored the class based on those recruits star ratings. They mentioned that they look at the balance of the class and don't count players after a certain number of positions were reached and they looked at needs and weighted the team score if needs were/were not met, etc.

There is more information to be gleaned from them if you are careful. The only real mystery to me (outside of knowing the algorithms used to compile these numbers) is what is the actual number they consider. Everyone has a different opinion. I'm certain the Rivals themselves said they don't look at 25. There is a floor and a ceiling but no one has concrete proof of what it is.

And seriously, do you really want to leave snide comments on an internet forum to a stranger? Kind of silly don't ya think?

AU CAV...I understood there were other factors involved but the bottom line is we had a full class and the others didn't and that was the biggest factor in us being ranked higher. I was just a litlle irritated when DKW called me out and didn't know wtf he was talking about. Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

And he still totally misses the point...

[runswithscissors 33]

There is of course a ton of fudge factors built into these ratings. Rating any kid is subjective. But these services have done this for years and are, to some degree, accurate.

Recruiting is at best very hit and miss anyway. Want an example? CMD signed three Top 3 classes and immediately went 3-8.

Just take the services at face value and dont reinvent the wheel because someone called you on not knowing what you were talking about.

The Rivals formula:

For purposes of calculating the H and L values (star points), you should only use the top 20 prospects, ordered by # Stars descending. For purposes of calculating the N value (ranking points), use the entire class.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big honkin' calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10

9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20

etc. down to...

1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10

9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20

etc. down to...

6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking

18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking

8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25

--Pro-style QB: 25

--Running Back: 35

--All-Purpose Back: 15

--Fullback: 15

--Wide Receiver: 50

--Tight End: 20

--Offensive Tackle: 40

--Offensive Guard: 30

--Offensive Center: 10

--Defensive Tackle: 50

--Weakside Defensive End: 20

--Strongside Defensive End: 30

--Inside Linebacker: 35

--Outside Linebacker: 35

--Cornerback: 40

--Safety: 30

--Athlete: 25

--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars -

> 3)) to N.

Thats a pretty straightforward explanation. I don't see alot of variables in there for fudging or anything. I understand that you have to evaluate the kid and its a matter of how he is initially evaluated, but it isn't a bunch of guys sitting around saying "Meeeehhhh, he sounds like a 5 star."

EDIT: Just found this information as well:

When calculating the star ratings portion of the formula, we limit the number of prospects to the first 20. When determining the rankings portion of the formula however, the top 20 limit does NOT apply. It appears that 92AUGRAD's argument may have some merit.

[92AUGRAD 4]

Scout

Rivals

No one has been exactly right so far. Everyone needs to get off the vinegar!

These links told me absolutely nothing. Vague at best and neither addresses how the total is derived. My post was relatively rule of thumb as I couldn't find anything overly detailed as to how the numbers were calculated. My point being that UF total was scewed due to the number of signees and AU benefitted (with respect to the schools listed) from signing a full class.

At least the linkies did work...congrats

Well, if you had read the links you would have seen where they said they take more than just a certain number of recruits and scored the class based on those recruits star ratings. They mentioned that they look at the balance of the class and don't count players after a certain number of positions were reached and they looked at needs and weighted the team score if needs were/were not met, etc.

There is more information to be gleaned from them if you are careful. The only real mystery to me (outside of knowing the algorithms used to compile these numbers) is what is the actual number they consider. Everyone has a different opinion. I'm certain the Rivals themselves said they don't look at 25. There is a floor and a ceiling but no one has concrete proof of what it is.

And seriously, do you really want to leave snide comments on an internet forum to a stranger? Kind of silly don't ya think?

AU CAV...I understood there were other factors involved but the bottom line is we had a full class and the others didn't and that was the biggest factor in us being ranked higher. I was just a litlle irritated when DKW called me out and didn't know wtf he was talking about. Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

And he still totally misses the point...

Let's keep it strictly to the teams with coaching changes only although Florida and ND are in much larger text. Take UT and Clemson to prove my point...Clemson signed 12 recruits averaging 3.58 stars per recruit...UT signed 19 recruits averaging 3.47 stars per recruit. So tell me, what exactly leads you to believe AU had a better recruiting class than these two newly coached team. And tell me what ELITE program with a new coach did AU outrecruit? Oh yeah, I see which team you must be referring too...Mississippi State...that power of the SEC. Well that's if you ignore the average stars which they actually slighty beat us by 3.15-3.07 but we can overlook that too.

[SouthLink02 8]

Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

What exactly is a dickwad?

[DKW 86 8,215]

Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

What exactly is a dickwad?

dickwad: n. lame attempt to call names.

calling names: v. what people do when they lose an altercation.

[AU alum 2]

Why did I read a thousand articles about Tennessee, and how good their recruiting was going with their new staff? Why did I not see a similar article about Auburn and our new staff? I am assuming we had the highest ranked class out of the schools with new head coaches. Quite impressive.

And what happened to BC? I know the whole Jags story, but gut lawd...80??? And I am also surprised by Clemson's ranking. I thought I heard their name a fair amount -- was expecting better. Wasn't one of the key reasons for making Dabo the HC his recruiting abilities?

I have complained about this before. Auburn does not, and hasn't for a long time, had much if any, PR like Tennessee probably does. And we should.

[92AUGRAD 4]

Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

What exactly is a dickwad?

dickwad: n. lame attempt to call names.

calling names: v. what people do when they lose an altercation.

Actually per the urban dictionary and it was the only word which contained DKW. Hope this helps to educate y'all.

1. dickwad 681 up, 250 down

Commonplace reference to George W. Bush

George W. Bush is a dickwad.

rat bastard prick ****face asswipe d***head

by dabren Oct 7, 2005 share this add comment

2. dickwad 368 up, 109 down

A worthless piece of s***. Also known as a wad-of-dick.

Me. I am a dickwad. You are a dickwad.

by Gil F. Oct 14, 2002 share this add comment

3. dickwad 178 up, 77 down

An idiot

Oh, and I was not referring to George Bush.

And how exactly do you believe I lost the argument? I addressed your apparent issues with my first post by limiting my second to just the schools which had coaching changes. It's blatantly obvious to those of us who aren't wearing the blue and orange glasses that we did have a very good recruiting class. But to say we 'out recruited' the likes of Clemson or UT based on the Rivals site for which you pulled your information from is a flat out slanted view of looking at the data. Maybe you should have searched for a site that actually defended your position but I get the impression you really don't know what your position is. I think it's great that AU fans believe in Chizik and thought he did a great job but don't go overboard. Next thing you'll try and tell me is AU had as good a class as the terds. Take off the glasses, stop eating the cornbread and drinking the lemonade and come join the real world.

Your point was pisspoor with the information you provided. I tried to find a site which would defend your point but alas, there was none.

1. pisspoor

Often seen in the great british magazine private eye, it means something that is terribly bad.

Just in case you needed me to define this also.

[DKW 86 8,215]

Sorry about the tone as it was just leftover from DicKWads earlier comment. And sometimes I do like to leave snide comment ESPECIALLY on a net forum.

What exactly is a dickwad?

dickwad: n. lame attempt to call names.

calling names: v. what people do when they lose an altercation.

Actually per the urban dictionary and it was the only word which contained DKW. Hope this helps to educate y'all.

1. dickwad 681 up, 250 down

Commonplace reference to George W. Bush

George W. Bush is a dickwad.

rat bastard prick ****face asswipe d***head

by dabren Oct 7, 2005 share this add comment

2. dickwad 368 up, 109 down

A worthless piece of s***. Also known as a wad-of-dick.

Me. I am a dickwad. You are a dickwad.

by Gil F. Oct 14, 2002 share this add comment

3. dickwad 178 up, 77 down

An idiot

Oh, and I was not referring to George Bush.

And how exactly do you believe I lost the argument? I addressed your apparent issues with my first post by limiting my second to just the schools which had coaching changes. It's blatantly obvious to those of us who aren't wearing the blue and orange glasses that we did have a very good recruiting class. But to say we 'out recruited' the likes of Clemson or UT based on the Rivals site for which you pulled your information from is a flat out slanted view of looking at the data. Maybe you should have searched for a site that actually defended your position but I get the impression you really don't know what your position is. I think it's great that AU fans believe in Chizik and thought he did a great job but don't go overboard. Next thing you'll try and tell me is AU had as good a class as the terds. Take off the glasses, stop eating the cornbread and drinking the lemonade and come join the real world.

Your point was pisspoor with the information you provided. I tried to find a site which would defend your point but alas, there was none.

1. pisspoor

Often seen in the great british magazine private eye, it means something that is terribly bad.

Just in case you needed me to define this also.

And he spirals downward and still is happy he jumped off the cliff. Dude, you arent impressing anyone with your complete lack of wit. You are sounding more and more like a jr high-guy.

My point was to just use a generally accepted/recognized source that has been around for ages. Your was to call for re-inventing the wheel.

[92AUGRAD 4]

My point was to just use a generally accepted/recognized source that has been around for ages. Your was to call for re-inventing the wheel.

My only point was that I disagreed with your assessment and mentioned how number of recruits is a big factor in the ranking equation. That was it. You had to then go and bow up because someone actually disagreed with your post. Believe it or not, people have opinions which may differ from your own. And I hate to tell you but I'm certainly not the only one in this conversation that sounds juvenile.