I think you picked one team that fit your argument. I don’t have the time now but on the old board I ran a crap load of stats on teams at the high end and low end over 5-8 yr period of time (don’t remember the exact time range). Anyway, other then some outliers, teams in the top 10 at least but even top 15 year after year after year, have highly rated classes. If your classes consistently rank at the bottom of your conference, it’s not a good sign.
We had one good season. I don’t think that’s an anomaly but time will tell. But I don’t think we’ll have the seasons everyone wants to have if we are near the bottom in conference recruiting rankings every year over the next 5 years.
Yeah, I can see this argument and I don't really deny it. If you want to grab alabama or clemson or some others you're going to see good recruiting rankings line up with good records.
But I, perhaps not terribly effectively, was trying to point out that stars don't equate to wins if there are issues and, vice versa, if things are in order you can win games without having big star ratings.
So in one respect Michigan is indeed an outlier. That there are plenty of schools with good recruiting classes according to the services that also win a ton of games. I get that. But my point is those services don't predict when things are going to go south.
Texas is another great example -- I went back and looked at their recruiting classes starting in 2007. They had two *down* years in which they finished 17th and otherwise finished in the top 8 wiht several classes ranked 2 or 3. Yet they haven't lost fewer than four games since 2009 and they have had four 7-loss seasons in that span. Really? With, quite literally, the best or second-best aggregate talent in that span?
Notre Dame is another -- They had a brutal class that ranked 39th in 2005, but they rebounded with 6th best class in 06, the 5th best class in 07, yet those two classes never lost fewer than 5 games.
09, 10 and 11 USC lands top three classes -- the following three years they lose a combined 14 games. Still pretty solid, obviously, but they should have been playing at the level Carroll had them playing -- losing maybe a game or two each season.
Oregon -- class rankings in 13-15: 19, 21, 16. Record in 14-16 when those guys make up the bulk of the roster? 20-18.
It works the other way too:
Washington State -- just finished 11-2 and top 10 in the country. Best class in the past 10 seasons or so? 42. Currently ranked 65th.
What do all those schools have in common? They went through coaching and general program issues in that span (and/or they found a good coach/system and found success).
The bottom line is you need talented kids but you absolutely need to develop them and feed them into a good system. Those latter two functions, to me, are far more important.
