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. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 9:32 AM #

    Hrmm, using that logic then let’s expose Utah.

    On closer inspection Utah is 11-3 since 2004 against teams from BCS conferences. Wins include Alabama, Louisville, Texas A&M, Pittsburgh, Oregon State, UCLA, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Arizona, and Michigan. Go back to 2003 and throw in wins over Cal and Oregon.

  2. choppack1 06/26/2009 at 11:25 AM #

    “Pro football regular season suffers naught by having a playoff system in place. ”

    No, it doesn’t – and pro football is played 32 large metropolitan cities where they fans usually live close. Of course, you say that, but here’s a hint – if the Panthers 5-8 next year and are out of the playoffs – go to a game and see how magnificent the NFL experience is there (providing they aren’t playing the Steelers, Cowboys or Packers).

    OTOH, college football is often played in smaller towns and depends of folks traveling from outside the city limits. Another idea you can get about how the crowds would be is to go to college basketball regular season games where the teams are not likely to receive an NCAA bid.

    “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.”

    That’s what I said. What can logically deduce is that the playoffs will fundamentally change the game. Depending on the size of the playoff – it will change the opponents team schedule, it will change fans’ behavior (since they’ll have to consider at least 2 additional games) and it will change the feel of the postseason AND the regular season.

    And the question for college football fans to ask themselves is are they willing to risk a change for the worse in the regular season in order to get a playoff.

    And my mind is made up – I love college football as it is. I loved the fact that when Texas played at Texas Tech I was glued to my TV watching the game w/ my wife and we were thrilled by the TD pass that won the game. I loved that on a Thursday night last year, I watched Oregon State shock USC. A few years before that I watched the USC-Notre Dame game in amazement w/ a smile on my face….

    And there are several of these games each year.

    I’d just ask you and bradley to accept the fact that college football right now – as it stands – is a modified playoff system. For a handful of schools, it is double elimination (or in LSU’s case 2 years ago – triple elimination) – of course there’s a caveat – if your team doesn’t run the table, it loses control of its destiny.

    As for the Utah’s, ECU’s and Boise State’s of the world – I’d suggest in their 4 non-conference games that they play teams from BCS conferences ON THE ROAD if they want ANY merit whatsoever. I know that seems tough and would cost them money – but hey, the reality is EVERY BCS team plays at least 4 conference road games.

    If they can run the table in that situation -and beat more than the lower echelons of those conference – then I’d dare say that they’d get some consideration.

    This doesn’t mean that I think a college football playoff is unworkable or that I wouldn’t support. It just means that I don’t think a playoff for college football will be great for college football AT THIS TIME. Things could come about that could change my opinion.

  3. bradleyb123 06/26/2009 at 11:29 AM #

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

    This says it all right there. If you can’t see how an eight team playoff is better (and a more fair way of determining the champion) than a two team playoff, then there’s really no point in discussing this any further.

    At least most fans know better.

  4. VaWolf82 06/26/2009 at 12:09 PM #

    If you can’t see how an eight team playoff is better (and a more fair way of determining the champion) than a two team playoff, then there’s really no point in discussing this any further.

    As expected, you completely changed the point of the discussion rather than admit the obvious. Any system that can be used to pick a limited number of teams for a playoff will work for picking two teams to play in a championship game. In either instance, there will frequently be some level of controversy or discussion about who was included versus who was excluded.

    If you really want a playoff, then you need to hope that someone can put a financial package together that makes a playoff system more profitable than the current one. Until then, fans and media proponents of a playoff are simply spitting into the wind.

  5. choppack1 06/26/2009 at 12:40 PM #

    “This says it all right there. If you can’t see how an eight team playoff is better (and a more fair way of determining the champion) than a two team playoff, then there’s really no point in discussing this any further.

    At least most fans know better.”

    The current system is 13 game playoff system.

    Bradleyb – I’ll ask you again – point blank – are you willing to totally change the dynamic of college football in order to get your football – up to and including, destorying football interest at NC State.

  6. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 12:48 PM #

    Chop as I’ve already shown with facts, the college football season is neither a playoff nor a play in. I’ve never once postulated that a playoff would be in college footballs best interest, I simply want to point out the fallacy of the arguments that one already exists, because it doesn’t.

  7. VaWolf82 06/26/2009 at 1:17 PM #

    Chop as I’ve already shown with facts

    Not hardly. Teams build a resume through the regular season for inclusion in BCS bowls. The two teams that played for the BCS championship had the best resumes.

  8. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 1:31 PM #

    So first it was best schedule and now it’s best resume. Sorry Va, the criteria you used was shown to be invalid for your argument. Don’t change the criteria after the fact. Auburn had the tougher schedule and yet was left out anyway (this is not even comparing USC) and teams like Utah and Boise have no realistic possibility of playing their way in, despite the fact that Utah has shown they have been more than competitive vs. the BCS conferences (yes chop, on the road even).

  9. VaWolf82 06/26/2009 at 1:48 PM #

    I never said that “best schedule” was the key factor. It should be obvious that losses on the “toughest” schedule will still eliminate that team from the BCS championship game.

    I said that “teams” with a weak schedule (like Auburn several years ago) eliminated themselves. Until teams like Utah use their OOC schedule to play good BCS teams and then beat them….they will likely eliminate themselves as well.

  10. VaWolf82 06/26/2009 at 1:51 PM #

    despite the fact that Utah has shown they have been more than competitive vs. the BCS conferences (yes chop, on the road even).

    Historical records don’t help a team in any one given year. I glanced at Utah’s schedule briefly and saw two regular season games against BCS schools. They beat a horrible Michigan team and a 9-4 Oregon State team. Not bad for Utah….but it hardly screams National Championship contender!!!!!

    Those people screaming for the “little guys” tend to forget when they champion a school that then gets spanked….like Hawaii two years ago.

  11. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 2:01 PM #

    Again Va, Auburn didn’t have a weak schedule, nor did they have the weakest schedule of the teams under consideration. The words you used were “weakest schedule”. Auburn did not eliminate themselves. The criteria for selection is then..what?

    About Utah, you brought up Boises recent historical performance which I followed. I maintain, there is zero chance of Utah ever even having a chance to build a resume worthy of inclusion. No school can afford to play their 4 non conf games on the road. Until there is a realitic chance that a team can play their way, then the college football regular season is not a play in.

  12. VaWolf82 06/26/2009 at 3:09 PM #

    Again Va, Auburn didn’t have a weak schedule, nor did they have the weakest schedule of the teams under consideration.

    Based on what? Based on what I remember, their schedule was far weaker than the other two unbeatens.

  13. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 3:16 PM #

    I’ll post this again. Prior to BCS Selection in 2004 Auburn had 6 games vs teams with .500 or greater records and 4 games against teams with 9 wins or more. Oklahoma had 6 games against teams with .500 or better records but only 2 against teams with 9 or more wins. The big 12 was very down that year. Oklahoma had the weaker schedule.

  14. choppack1 06/26/2009 at 3:21 PM #

    CC – look at Auburn’s out of conference schedule that year. It was horrid. They played the Citadel, La Tech and LA-Monroe. Not one BCS school – not one school that could be classified as a mid-major.

    Basically, it was obvious to anyone paying attention that the intent of this schedule was to get Auburn bowl eligible – and that they weren’t planning to be in contention for much else than that. But everything came together – and they finished the year undefeated. Sorry, I refuse to cry for a team that scheduled so that they were insured a spot in the Independence Bowl. With an OOC schedule like that – they deserve to come in 2nd place.

  15. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 3:30 PM #

    I truly believe that the only reason Auburn was left out of that game was based on their shoddy performance vs USC the year prior. Historical performance in that case played a part.

  16. CaptainCraptacular 06/26/2009 at 3:36 PM #

    Chop, Please take a look a Oklahoma’s knock your socks off 2004 OOC schedule and make the same exact point. Besides, that is immaterial. From the overall schedule the conclusion is obvious, Oklahoma had the weaker of the 2.

  17. bradleyb123 06/26/2009 at 3:59 PM #

    ^ “Bradleyb – I’ll ask you again – point blank – are you willing to totally change the dynamic of college football in order to get your football – up to and including, destorying football interest at NC State.”

    I disagree with your premise. I don’t think it would do anything but IMPROVE interest in college football. Every year, when NC State takes their first loss, we know right then that we’re out of the running for the national championship. That has never hurt attendance or interest, and there is no reason to think it would with a playoff.

    And like I’ve said about three times now, if a playoff ends up hurting the sport, REVERT TO THE BOWL SYSTEM, and call it a failed experiment.

    My plan keeps the bowls as they are. All of them. Teams not in the playoff still get bowl bids. Either the best teams are in the BCS bowls (like they are now) or they are completely outside of that in their playoff. If they’re in the bowls, play the bowl games like we always have. Then the winners of the teams in the playoff just keep playing for three more weekends. At the end, we crown the national champion, the last team standing.

    Chop, you have YET to show a single thing that shows this would harm the importance of the regular season. I have shown it won’t. The regular season is of the UTMOST importance in the playoff system. You have to finish in the top-8 in the nation, and you don’t do that BY LOSING GAMES. You still have to win EVERY game, or lose no more than one. This is NO DIFFERENT than what we have now.

    I am salivating over the thoughts of an eight team playoff with all the perennial powers playing for it, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, NC State, Florida, Ohio State…… they ALL have a chance to take it all in a playoff. How can anyone not like that???

  18. StateFans 06/27/2009 at 1:56 PM #

    If one has to show a ‘stat’ to prove something that is common sense (about a playoff significantly de-valuing the college football regular season from how it is today) then there is no hope in winning the conversation to begin with.

  19. VaWolf82 06/27/2009 at 3:04 PM #

    there is no hope in winning the conversation to begin with.

    Do you really think that the argument it is winnable, by either side?

    I put it in the same category as a discussion about which is the better hitter; Ty Cobb or Pete Rose? There are points to be made on either side; but no way to decide a clear cut winner.

    The bottom line remains the bottom line. The schools are happy with the revenue generate by the BCS and bowls…and they like being in control of the process. There is no reason to believe that an 8-team (or smaller) play-off would generate more money than the current system. And the NCAA would gain control of the playoff…and any revenue generated.

  20. bradleyb123 06/29/2009 at 1:09 PM #

    The pro-BCS people use words like revenue, fan support, etc.

    I’m talking about fairness. The BCS system is biased in favor of teams in “BCS Conferences”. And there’s not a chance that hand-picking two teams is more fair to college football teams than a playoff with a minimum of 8 (or more, the more the merrier).

    There, I won the argument. And you thought it couldn’t be won! 😉

  21. bradleyb123 06/29/2009 at 1:14 PM #

    ^ “If one has to show a ’stat’ to prove something that is common sense (about a playoff significantly de-valuing the college football regular season from how it is today) then there is no hope in winning the conversation to begin with.”

    That WILL NOT happen. It absolutely won’t. The small number of teams in a college football playoff will ENSURE the importance of the regular season will not be diminished IN THE LEAST. Not one smidgen. None. There will be no automatic bids. Only the best eight teams get invited. If you want to make the playoff, you simply CANNOT lose, and if you do, you cannot lose MORE THAN ONE GAME. (Hmm… what does that sound like? Oh yeah, it sounds like what we have NOW, only it allows for eight teams to fight for the championship instead of just two.)

    I think you’re thinking in terms of March Madness in basketball. That tournament has 65 teams, and teams can lose quite a few games and still make it in. Lower that number to EIGHT teams and see what happens with the importance of the regular season. It goes through the roof.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply