This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Splitting with Clemson shouldn't be surprising then by LuckyMcD

Taking a look at the recruiting rankings for the 22 starters for each team in the first game with Clemson:

Clemson's starter at 9 positions had a higher recruit rating.
Notre Dame's starter at 8 positions had a higher recruit rating.
The teams' starters at 5 positions had the same recruit rating.

So you say that was just the first game and when Clemson got their starters back they had a huge gap?

4 of the 8 Clemson starters that were different in the second game had lower recruit ratings than the starters in the first game.
3 of the 8 Clemson starters that were different in the second game had the same recruit ratings as the starters in the first game.

To be clear when I say recruit rating I am using the Rivals recruit rating, which goes from 5.2 for a mid-major prospect with limited pro potential to 6.1 for a franchise player with first round potential. I did that to get the most accurate comparisons. The biggest gaps were at QB (6.1 for both Clemson QBs, 5.7 for Book), WR (6.0 average for Clemson, 5.8 average for ND), and DL (6.0 average for Clemson, 5.8 average for ND). Our advantages were TE (6.0 for Mayer, 5.6 for Galloway) and OL (5.9 average to 5.8 for Clemson).

I didn't look at Alabama or Ohio State, so I don't know about the recruiting gaps compared to them. I also didn't have the time to look at 85 players to get an overall sense of depth. These numbers don't show a massive recruiting gap with Clemson though. The recruiting difference is a play maker here or there. The on-field difference comes in exploiting the weak spots that both teams have.