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

I don’t think you’re correct on #2 re 2010 vs 2022. by revressbo

And I know for a fact you wouldn’t be if you weighted junior and senior classes as more important than freshman and sophomore classes in a talent analysis. But even weighing all 4 classes evenly, 2010 and 2022 are about even.

You seem to be glossing over this fact, when it’s a huge crux of your argument. If you want to bring up “culture” or “facilities” or “players that are experienced at winning” or any other number of intangible things as to why the program was better in Dec. 2021 compared to Dec. 2009 then go ahead. But you continuing to bring up talent composite via recruiting rankings as an example of why Freeman inherited a better program than Kelly is completely incorrect.