Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billsin01, post: 3044594, member: 837"] Don’t disagree with this. What I would question is to what extent the rankings predict your rise as a program versus reflect your newfound success? I also tend to feel that people view recruiting highly-regarded kids as the thing that makes you a good program. My contention is essentially that recruiting is important and that stars, as part of your overall evaluation of a particular recruit, are not entirely irrelevant (a kid with a bunch of stars, good measureables and a bunch of offers is likely to be a pretty impressive prospect). Now, I personally think the star system is pretty flawed. But, no matter what anyone's personal opinion of that system is, those star totals and, in fact, the recruits themselves need to be viewed through the context of the program as a whole. In other words, the extent to which you can predict success or failure of a program on the basis of star totals is pretty limited (as opposed to basketball where if you are a program bringing in 3 4- or 5-star kids every year, it's pretty tough to argue that there will be a pretty fair amount of success on the court). I was trying to find the right example and, I will admit, it's one program, but if you look at Michigan, I feel like it's a pretty fair illustration of this point, as anecdotal as it is. [B]Michigan -- Overall class ranking/Big 10 ranking/record[/B] 2005 -- 5th/1st/7-5 2006 -- 10th/2nd/11-2 2007 -- 11th/1st/9-4 2008 -- 11th/2nd/[B]3-8[/B] 2009 -- 10th/2nd/[B]5-7[/B] 2010 -- 17th/2nd/7-6 2011 -- [B]30th/5[/B]/11-2 2012 -- 6th/2nd/8-5 2013 -- 4th/2nd/7-6 2014 record was 5-7 So, here's my point: Michigan's recruiting, per one service, was incredibly consistent with only one year falling outside the top 20 (2011), yet the records -- which go from the end of the carr era, through the rich rod debacle and then the brady hoke years -- are all over the map. How would it be possible to land classes ranked 5th, 10th, 11th and 11th and then go 3-8? Then land another top 10 class and go 5-7? Then they landed the 30th best class (not great but not atrocious), 6th and 4th best classes in 11, 12 and 13 but went 5-7 in 14? Obviously the point is simple -- maybe richrod was a terrible fit and the players he inherited were bad for his system. Maybe Hoke was a bad replacement and maybe Harbaugh is a good but not incredible coach (he's won 38 in four years with similar recruiting numbers). But the point is the recruiting rankings were pretty stable and we'd absolutely kill for those. Yet the records fluxuated wildly. It's only one program but I think it illustrates the point that getting good players is important but that the health of the program goes a long way in determining not only what your record is, but how those kids produce in your program. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?