Tony Creecy Commits to Wolfpack (Updated 10:15am)

Football Recruiting96

The momentum Coach Tom O’Brien has built behind this year’s recruiting class continues as Tony Creecy – another of the state’s top prospects – has committed to play football at NC State.

Southern Durham wide receiver Tony Creecy has committed to N.C. State, according to NCPreps.com.

The 6-foot, 196-pound Creecy runs a 4.5 forty yard dash, and is considered a four-star recruit by Rivals.com. He’s the No. 28 wide receiver in the country, according to the recruiting Web site.

Last season, Creecy caught 48 passes for 863 yards and five touchdowns for the Spartans.

[snip]

Creecy had 31 other offers including Clemson, Duke, East Carolina, Florida State, LSU, Maryland, North Carolina, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Stanford and Wake Forest.

Creecy is considered the best wide receiver prospect in the state and easily one of North Carolina’s Top 10 players. His commiment builds on a recruiting haul that may end up being one of the best in NC State football history. The Wolfpack currently has six commitment, including another 4-star/5-star commitment from the state’s best player, Robert Crisp. (We recognize that calling any player “the state’s best” is a statement of debate…especially until UNC-CH gets a commitment from anyone near the Top Five and suddenly that player will rocket to the top spot of most rankings.)

In addition to being a damn fine player, Creecy is a damn fine player at a position where State needed a young stud. The Wolfpack’s current stable of wide receivers is deep and generally young; the current core group will be able to support the program for at least the next three seasons if you choose to include JUCO commitment Tobias Palmer in the group. Heading into this season the Wolfpack boasts:

Donald Bowens R-Jr
Darrell Davis R-Jr
TJ Graham, So.
Steven Howard, R-So
Jay Smith, R-So
Owen Spencer, Jr.
Jarvis Williams R-Jr

That kind of depth provided the coaching staff the luxury of targeting TOP talent for the future as opposed to being in a position to need/have to take some rolls of the dice. After a redshirt year, Creecy projects to be added to a wide receiver corp that will include seniors TJ Graham, Jay Smith, Steven Howard and Tobias Palmer and R-Sophomores Bryan Underwood and Quintin Payton.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

Football Recruiting

96 Responses to Tony Creecy Commits to Wolfpack (Updated 10:15am)

  1. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 2:35 PM #

    With a playoff system, the regular season would STILL be just as important (well, maybe 97% as important) as it is now. The number of teams invited would be VERY limited, probably eight at the most. So you STILL have to finish in the top 8 of the polls or whatever. And teams don’t finish that high by losing many games. And since there would be several “bubble” teams with 1 or 2 losses, they know the importance of not losing a single game. Lose one and you no longer control your destiny. Finish undefeated, and you’re sure you’re in (most likely).

    They could use the bowls as the first round of the “real” playoff, as well as to invite other teams like they do now. Fans could still get to see their team over the holidays, even if they’re not playing for the national championship. After all, that is what they do now. There’s no reason to think that would change.

  2. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 2:41 PM #

    As for ruining the sport, the BCS system is fostering a good ole boy club environment. Take ECU for example. They are not in a BCS conference. Because of this, they are behind the eight ball in recruiting. The BCS schools get the elite players, and everyone else (like ECU) is left to fight over the table scraps.

    With the BCS system, the rich get richer. It helps keep the perennial football powers in power. It’s not a level playing field.

  3. choppack1 06/25/2009 at 2:47 PM #

    “I don’t get this. As long as they play the game, who isn’t going to watch it? If that game is played, and it’s on TV, I’m watching it. ”

    You must have missed the Sports Reporters when they were lamenting about the poor TV ratings for the Big East Championship 2 years ago.

    Then ironically, they started harping about how a playoff wouldn’t impact the intensity of the regular season in college football.

  4. choppack1 06/25/2009 at 2:48 PM #

    bradleyb – Inviting ECU, Boise State or Utah to a playoff system would be wasting a good spot. What happened to Boise State when they played UGa in a game that mattered?

  5. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 3:00 PM #

    Uh, what happened when Boise played Oklahoma and when Utah played Alabama? In the seasons these 2 teams weren’t eliminated from the “playoff”, they beat powerful BCS teams.

  6. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 3:07 PM #

    ^ “You must have missed the Sports Reporters when they were lamenting about the poor TV ratings for the Big East Championship 2 years ago.

    Then ironically, they started harping about how a playoff wouldn’t impact the intensity of the regular season in college football.”

    But….. there was no playoff two years ago. Something else hurt the ratings of that Big East Championship game. I’m thinking, it was the fact that it was the Big East Championship game. 😉

  7. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 3:10 PM #

    ^ “bradleyb – Inviting ECU, Boise State or Utah to a playoff system would be wasting a good spot. What happened to Boise State when they played UGa in a game that mattered?”

    But you miss the point.

    They should have had the opportunity, along with a few other teams, to play their way into the championship game. Or not. If a team has a very weak schedule and finishes unbeaten, they still might not get invited into a playoff by virtue of that weak schedule. We don’t want to reward teams for padding their win totals with cupcakes, either.

    Whoever gets invited to a playoff, it is because a panel determined they are worthy to participate and deserve it.

    That is the point.

    Regardless of the outcome of one game that doesn’t prove anything. (And see the post from CaptainCraptacular…)

    It’s a weak argument to say a playoff will ruin college football. Especially when your only evidence of that is poor ratings for a Big East Championship game.

    And speaking of ratings, why are they even mentioned in a conversation about the national championship anyway? The sport should play out as if there is no TV or radio, and crown it’s champion in a fair manner. The problem is that money has kept that from happening.

  8. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 3:12 PM #

    The Big East doesn’t stage a championship game in football.

  9. McCallum 06/25/2009 at 3:53 PM #

    “What happened to Boise State when they played UGa in a game that mattered?”-choppack

    I was at that game so I’ll tell you.

    They were staring into the stands most of the game and seemed far out of place. The speed of the game was something that hurt them as well.

    The QB played a gosh awful game. Now Colorado two years ago, they had Georgia beat.

    McCallum

  10. Packman02 06/25/2009 at 3:53 PM #

    Georgia Saftety D.J. Green commits! Welcome aboard! Wonder how this will affect standing with David Amerson (S from G’boro)? We already have several S prospects committed.

    Pretty cool to see all of these commitments coming out of the Summer Camp – Staff continuing to excel in selling its program during the off season.

  11. choppack1 06/25/2009 at 4:00 PM #

    The championship game that they were talking about was the Big East BASKETBALL championship game. Its rating sucked.

    You’re missing the point. The point is – playoffs and tournaments, by design, reduce the importance of the regular season.

    It’s funny – NASCAR and golf have added de-facto playoff to their sports – how much has it improved ratings and interest?

    As to the Boise State and Utah bowl games – those weren’t playoff games were they? They were bowl games where the little guys were definitely the more motivated opponent. The reason I brought up the UGa game was because that game MATTERED. IT was a game of true consequences to the big guy and the little guy.

    Hey, we’ll never convince each other of the argument. I’m sure one day you guys will get your wish and we’ll have this playoff. Like I said, be careful what you wish for. If you produce a major change to something – you have no idea how that will impact the game. My guess would be that schools like NC State would see a pretty dramatic drop in attendance and interest after they’d been eliminated from consideration for the playoff. You wouldn’t see this immediately – but over time, bowl games would have the same interest as the NIT to the fans of the school – and I don’t think that would be a positive development for most BCS schools.

  12. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 4:26 PM #

    I think perhaps you just contradicted your own point with the golf NASCAR argument. Wouldn’t it be measured by how much interest has been lost in those 2 sports respective regular seasons by the introduction of a playoff. Not much in my opinion. Pro football regular season suffers naught by having a playoff system in place.

    But none of those are truly comparable. College football is a unique sport and the impacts of introducing a playoff can be speculated on no-one can say for sure.

  13. VaWolf82 06/25/2009 at 4:35 PM #

    regular season is absolutely not a playoff….If it were, then Auburn in 04, Boise State in 06, Utah in 08 these….did not get eliminated.

    OK. So don’t call it a play-off, call it a play-in…just like at-large bids for the NCAA basketball tournament. Those teams were all eliminated from consideration because of their weak schedule.

  14. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 4:36 PM #

    ^ “You’re missing the point. The point is – playoffs and tournaments, by design, reduce the importance of the regular season.”

    And as I explained, the college football regular season would remain at a very HIGH level of importance. If only eight teams get in, you better darn well schedule a few tough opponents, and do not lose a game. If you do lose, don’t lose more than once! I actually think a college football playoff would not diminish the importance of the regular season in the slightest. It is of utmost importance to do well in the regular season. Otherwise, you don’t get in. If we had a 64 team playoff, then you would be correct IMO. But a feasible playoff would be small enough (and exclusive enough) that it would not diminish the importance of the regular season in the least.

    ^ “It’s funny – NASCAR and golf have added de-facto playoff to their sports – how much has it improved ratings and interest?”

    Apples and oranges. Those are pro sports and they are much different than college team sports in their need for a playoff (which is none). But have their playoffs DIMINISHED ratings and interest? But even so, college football is a very different beast than those sports. And allow me to add that this shouldn’t be about ratings and interest anyway, not that a playoff would diminish ratings and interest. You have yet to show anything that proves it would hurt the sport. (And like I said earlier, if a playoff hurts the sport, we can always come BACK to the BCS bowl system.)

    You say interest would diminish (for schools like NC State) once we were out of contention for a playoff. But you have no evidence to support that. Does interest diminish once we’ve lost a game or two? When we lose a game or two, we know we just lost the national championship, but we keep going to the games. We would still go to the bowl game. I’m not saying get rid of the bowls. Keep them for the teams not in the playoff.

  15. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 4:46 PM #

    Hypothetically, what would happen if Texas, Oklahoma, USC and Ohio State all finished unbeaten, and with similar schedule strengths?

    Two get invited. Two do not. At that point, ONLY ONE game means anything — the national championship game! All other matchups are just bowls. woo. hoo.

    Now riddle me this: Imagine a PLAYOFF with those four teams, and four other teams of similar stature, each with no more than one loss. Do you HONESTLY believe that wouldn’t be a MOUNTAIN of interest for the college football community??? I would drool at all those great matchups!!! After round one, you have another round of GREAT matchups!!! The build up to the final game would be monumental!!!

    I just don’t understand how any college football fan would not want that. I understand the bowls not wanting to lose out, but not the fans. (But even the bowls wouldn’t lose out. They just wouldn’t get to handpick two teams for the championship game any more.)

    With a playoff, EVERY playoff game means something! And I’ve already shown how the regular season would not be diminished in importance. We can’t lose with a playoff. (But if it flops, then go back to the BCS system.)

  16. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 4:54 PM #

    VaWolf that was in response to a comment that the regular season WAS a playoff so you’re taking it out of context. That said, Auburn may have had a weaker nonconf schedule than the others under consideration but by virtue of playing in the SEC it cannot be said they had a weak overall schedule. Going unbeaten for the 8+1 SEC games is able to stand on it’s own. Auburn being ‘eliminated from consideration due to a weak schedule’ does not hold water as an argument for the validity of the play-in system or playoff or however it’s categorized.

  17. VaWolf82 06/25/2009 at 4:59 PM #

    Auburn being ‘eliminated from consideration due to a weak schedule’ does not hold water

    Sure it does. There were three unbeaten teams that year. The team with the weakest schedule got left out of the championship game.

  18. VaWolf82 06/25/2009 at 5:03 PM #

    Hypothetically, what would happen if Texas, Oklahoma, USC and Ohio State all finished unbeaten, and with similar schedule strengths?

    I guess that you have never heard of the Red River Shootout. (PS….it’s when Texas and Oklahoma play every year.)

  19. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 5:10 PM #

    Are you certain of that? Oklahoma played in a Big 12 that year with one other halfway decent team, Texas. The Big 12 was very down in 2004. Adding everything up it’s likely they played the weakest schedule. They certainly showed they had no business playing in that ‘championship game’.

  20. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 5:20 PM #

    Upon further inspection: Auburn played and won 4 before selection games against teams with 9 or more wins in 2004 and 5 with records of .500 or better. Oklahoma played 2 against teams with 9 or better wins before selection, and 6 .500 or better. Overall the schedules appear to be equal in overall strength.

    Edit: aub played 6 .500 or better as did Oklahoma ( before selection ). Auburn had 4 games against 9 win teams vs oklahomas 2. The team with the weaker overall schedule got in the championship game.

  21. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 5:26 PM #

    ^ “I guess that you have never heard of the Red River Shootout. (PS….it’s when Texas and Oklahoma play every year.)”

    I guess you missed my point entirely then. I just picked four perennial football power schools. Feel free to substitute a different team that fits the bill. I think you know the point I was making.

    I’m trying to debate a point rather than semantics. But if you want to play that game, then imagine eight teams, including those four teams, each with no more than one loss.

    Now debate it.

  22. bradleyb123 06/25/2009 at 5:33 PM #

    And I don’t care HOW they are picked, it is pure silliness to PICK two teams to play for the national championship. Sorry, I don’t think there is a valid argument against that.

    Now you can argue that it’s better for the fans, or that it will make more money for the schools, or whatever angle you want. But it’s ridiculous to PICK two teams and call the winner the national champion.

    One day we will look back at this folly called the BCS and laugh, and put asterisks beside every champion before a playoff existed.

  23. VaWolf82 06/25/2009 at 5:54 PM #

    I’m trying to debate a point

    No, all you did was make up a ridiculous situation that is extremely unlikely to occur. If you want to argue against the BCS, then you need to focus on problems that have actually occurred….not some theoretical BS scenario.

    And I don’t care HOW they are picked, it is pure silliness to PICK two teams to play for the national championship.

    If two teams can’t be picked, then obviously it would be silliness to pick eight for a playoff as well.

  24. CaptainCraptacular 06/25/2009 at 6:24 PM #

    Speaking of ridiculous situations unlikely to occur, that would be one where Utah or Boise could ever cobble together a strength of schedule strong enough to warrant beauty pageant consideration for the BCS title game. Comparing the basketball play-in offers the premise that it is possible to actually play your way in. No matter what Utah and Boise do non conference they are highly unlikely to even have the ability to play their way in. With Oklahoma getting in in 04 with a weaker schedule (and there other instances of that as well as 04), it’s pretty clear. The college regular season is neither a playoff nor a play-in.

  25. VaWolf82 06/25/2009 at 8:41 PM #

    Because if those schools played tougher OOC games, then they would be exposed. Here’s something that I ran across recently about Boise:

    Boise State Road Games vs. “Big Six” Conferences Since 2000
    • 2000: at Arkansas …………. L, 31-38
    • 2000: at Wash. State ……… L, 35-42
    • 2001: at South Carolina ….. L, 13-32
    • 2002: at Arkansas …………. L, 14-41
    • 2003: at Oregon State ……. L, 24-26
    • 2005: at Georgia …………… L, 13-48
    • 2005: at Oregon State ……. L, 27-30
    • 2007: at Washington ………. L, 10-24
    • 2008: at Oregon ……………. W, 37-32

    Dr. Saturday

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply