- This topic has 30 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If you can’t understand there is a high correlation between recruiting and college football success and think that they mean “absolutely nothing” then I’m just not sure what to tell you. Of course you will be able to find teams that either under achieve or over achieve based on those rankings, but the correlation can clearly be seen by comparing recruiting rankings from just a couple of years ago and then glance at today’s AP poll.
Do you really believe Nick Saban would be in the college football playoffs with our NC State roster and having to play an SEC schedule?
No, I certainly don’t believe that Saban would have us in the playoffs, AliasTroll. But Alabama went through Perkins, Stallings, Dubose, Franchione, Price and Shula before Saban took the job, and though Stallings won a National Title in ’92, there is no comparison to Alabama now and Alabama then. Most of those other coaches had stellar recruits as well. Texas went through David McWilliams and John Mackovic before they found Mack Brown. Saban had stellar recruits at LSU, but his program has been roughly the same as Miles. Saban also represents the perfect combination of great coaching plus great talent. Meyer will probably have Ohio State in the same spot as he had Florida soon, but those are exceptions. Carroll at USC’s only comparison is John McKay. There has to be a confluence of coach and talent. Sometimes one begets the other. But there is no formula for that type of success, and recruiting rankings only show what you want to see in them: i.e. winning + low rankings = outstanding coach winning with less talent than everyone else. TCU is an excellent example of my point because their highest recruiting ranking over the last six years is 26th. Baylor’s highest ranking over the same period is #31. Both of those teams have had vastly greater success than us during that same time frame. Is it the players or is it the coaches?
I agree that there is a balance between good players and good coaching that creates success, over time. Progress and improvement can be seen year to year. Great players can make a difference. When Chuck was hired we didn’t have great classes prior to his arrival, but he brought in a great player in Phillip Rivers, that was a difference maker. A couple years after that we had a top 10 class that didn’t result in much, so it is true, there are no quick fixes. The fine balance of good players and good coaching can and will result in the competitive and winning program everyone desires. It’s just we aren’t seeing either right now. Hopefully this will change if this staff can develop players.
Rivers was a MOC recruit that Amato made a point to court heavily. Good call for both. Sad thing is when coach D was hired there was no established recruiting of any consequence. So he started at a lower level than Amato. Chuck did some very good things, TOB sort of cleaned up the off field issues but his group did not recruit effectively. Coach D and his group has done a bit better but maybe not enough yet. It truly is a process, some can shortcut that but usually at “name” football schools.
True, Phillip was a MOC recruit, but Amato had to “win him” back. Was it Bobby Bowden who said…”it’s not about X’s and O’s…but Jimmies and Joe’s” ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
