I know this debate has gone on over and over again. This article gives a good perspective over the issue. There are a few holes but overall pretty good analysis. http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228
The article just confirmed what was I have said in the past and is so very obvious. Recruiting is the most important thing in determining whether a team wins. You really didn't need this report to know that. You can eyeball the top recruiting teams year after year and see they are generally the best programs. It is tiresome to hear people continue to point out exceptions to the rule--like Hester being a 2 star, or a few teams managing to win with unheralded talent. This is one of the biggest reasons why college coaches that jump to the pros are more often than not dissapointments. They usually come from successful college teams with superior talent, ex. Spurrier, Saban, etc., but when they get to the pros they have equal or less talent on their team. Their egos take a hit because it soon becomes apparent that it is the talent that is most responsible for winning games not their coaching genius.:bncry: So pat yourself on the back for visiting this recruiting forum and realizing what many ignore. Recruiting classes are where future wins come from.
Tboy, i am going to have to disagree with you on some of that. Because if you look at Dale Brown, the team he had he should have won twice. Coaching affects the game tremendously. Going for it on 4th down is the difference b/t the Outback Bowl and the NCG.
I have to disagree too. Just take a look at Mack Brown at Texas. If not for Superman Vince Young they don't win a NC. Their recruiting class is top ten EVERY year. Look at Auburn, they never have great recruiting classes but yet they spit out wins and NFL players every year. Yes talent does matter but it takes coaching to develop it!
Coaching has to be solid, but by and large, it is the team with the best players that win, percentage wise. A bad coach can lose with good talent (Dinardo) but an average to good coach can win big with great talent, and some good breaks.
C'mon, no fair going to a different sport and bringing up ole Dale. Football, more than any other sport relies on physical talent. A basketball can bounce out and there are routinely big upsets in the Ncaa tourney by little schools. Oh, and just one great center and/or a 3 pt. shooter who is hot can win a game. In baseball, one great pitcher can win a game almost by himself. He only needs one run of support and a mediocre fielding. Football has more people on the field which helps to negate one great player's effect. I admit, before teams started passing more and spreading the field there was less parity. In the old 3 yards and a cloud of dust days what Woody Hayes said was true 95% of the time. If you line up and hit harder and longer than the guy across from you, you will win. Now you win a lesser percentage of the time, but it is still the vast majority of the time. As far as Miles goes, you are right we may not have won the title if not for 4th down calls. However, we would have still been ranked in the top 10 again this year and that is as much as you can hope for on a consistent basis from recruiting.
Every team would have gone for it on fourth down when we did. And many would not have gotten them because they did not have highly recruited offensive linemen back there.
Recruiting matters. Nobody that follows college football should disagree with that. But the difference between say the 5th ranked class & the 1st ranked class = irrelevent. Rivals is not a true judge of talent. As long as our coaches feel they are getting great players, we are in great shape.
