🏈 Recruiting vs Coaching - What matters most?

D

dabaxter

Verified Member
Member
This 3 vs 4 vs 5 star crap is so over blown. To think that a room full of grown men would gather to watch some kid play games with hats is really pathetic. A coach is what makes the biggest difference. The ideal example is Cincinnati under Brian Kelly. Another good example is Navy under their current and previous coach. What about Utah? TCU? Really? How the heck could they win with such lowly ranked talent? Do you really think that because Notre Dame hasn't been at the top of recruiting that they won't be in the top 5 in the next couple of seasons? You can bet they will be. SC's classes have been very weak, yet they won the SEC east last year. How about Arkansas' previous classes? I don't recall Oregon being ranked in the top 5 in classes in the previous years.

Remember when everyone was pathetically acting like fools without a life over Terrell Pryor? How many national titles has he brung?
How about the ranking system? Was Javier Arenas really only a 2 star prospect? Was Nick Fairly only a 3 star? I remember when Jasper Sanks was considered the top prospect in the country by multiple services. Do you even know who the heck he is or which SEC school he played for? How did Nick Fairly get to be the top pick in the draft if he was only a 3 star?
This stuff is way overblown, especially when it comes to linemen.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to get top notch talent, but what happens after they get to school is much more important. I say if a coach is dependent on signing a top 5 class in order to be a championship caliber team, he's not that great of a coach. This recruiting ranking stuff and which player does or doesn't choose Bama is so irrelevant. ...And to think some poor saps lack a life to such an extent they'd get on facebook and beg some kid to come to Bama? Really? Really? :headscratch:
 
I think recruiting is just as important as coaching. I'm talking about scouting and recruiting based on the coaches evaluations and not so much on recruiting services. Although you never really know how a young man is going to turn out. You can't measure what's inside someone.
 
The star rankings are someone's projections of how soon and how well high school players will play at the next level. It seems to be based on athletic ability more than anything else. Obviously it is an imperfect system, and any coach that checks out Scout or Rivals to see who he should be recruiting is destined for failure.

Still, if you look at those who succeed in college and move on to the NFL you would find a pretty good correlation.
 
psychojoe said:
The star rankings are someone's projections of how soon and how well high school players will play at the next level. It seems to be based on athletic ability more than anything else. Obviously it is an imperfect system, and any coach that checks out Scout or Rivals to see who he should be recruiting is destined for failure.

Still, if you look at those who succeed in college and move on to the NFL you would find a pretty good correlation.
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in the way of peoples opinions; correct or not.

Fairly was a three star. He was projected, by that ranking system, to contribute his sophomore year. He red-shirted, played one year, transferred and now is in the NFL.

His ranking?

Accurate.
 
Is this a discussion of the STAR rating system, or which is more important between QUALITY PLAYERS or QUALITY COACHING?

Regarding the STAR rating system, it attempts to do the impossible which is to predict the future without all the variables known. Consider Cyrus K., if he chooses New Mexico will see no competition for four years. At Bama, Auburn, or Iowa it is not beyond reason to think that he could take a year to break into the starting lineup. Two different scenarios addressed with one rating?

Regarding Coaching, as good a CNS is he still stressed day one to Coach Moore that he had to recruit well to be successfull. Does that say that he is a poor coach who succeeds only because of talented players? No. Players matter, right Coach Chez-it? At Iowa State he had jack, and the record showed it. The same coach gets SEC talent, SCam Newton, and Nick Fairly and he wins the BCS Championship game.

Consider TCU. When was the last time that they recruited in the Top Ten. Oregon should not have made it to a BCS bowl based on its recruiting. The Bryan Kelly at Cincinnati example is a good one as well.

The point is that they all matter, and they all guarnetee nothing. But, you won't find a program in the country that doesn't want to be highly ranked in all three.
 
Here is what is missing...

5 star...should be able to contribute first year in school.
4 star...with RS or a year on the bench, he's contributing in his second year...

Go on down the line...

The rankings do matter, and they are reflective of classes talent.
 
Gotta have the talent to go with the coaching. Even coaching at the high school levels you see it. At the smaller schools, you can take a few talented players with good coaching and get into the playoffs. While that same talent with a DA as a coach gets you squat. What is the old saying? "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken chit!!!!"
 
dabaxter said:
This 3 vs 4 vs 5 star crap is so over blown. To think that a room full of grown men would gather to watch some kid play games with hats is really pathetic. A coach is what makes the biggest difference. The ideal example is Cincinnati under Brian Kelly. Another good example is Navy under their current and previous coach. What about Utah? TCU? Really? How the heck could they win with such lowly ranked talent? Do you really think that because Notre Dame hasn't been at the top of recruiting that they won't be in the top 5 in the next couple of seasons? You can bet they will be. SC's classes have been very weak, yet they won the SEC east last year. How about Arkansas' previous classes? I don't recall Oregon being ranked in the top 5 in classes in the previous years.

Remember when everyone was pathetically acting like fools without a life over Terrell Pryor? How many national titles has he brung?
How about the ranking system? Was Javier Arenas really only a 2 star prospect? Was Nick Fairly only a 3 star? I remember when Jasper Sanks was considered the top prospect in the country by multiple services. Do you even know who the heck he is or which SEC school he played for? How did Nick Fairly get to be the top pick in the draft if he was only a 3 star?
This stuff is way overblown, especially when it comes to linemen.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to get top notch talent, but what happens after they get to school is much more important. I say if a coach is dependent on signing a top 5 class in order to be a championship caliber team, he's not that great of a coach. This recruiting ranking stuff and which player does or doesn't choose Bama is so irrelevant. ...And to think some poor saps lack a life to such an extent they'd get on facebook and beg some kid to come to Bama? Really? Really? :headscratch:
Click to expand...

Someone at SI just did an article on this subject. There is a very direct correlation between good recruiting classes and national championships. The recruiting services are pretty good at measuring players based on athletic ability/potential. They have no real understanding of how a player will fit into a school, or repond to a certain coach. The best coaches get the majority of their players to exceed their expectations, and at least 1 to play well at each position. All coaches believe that they are capable of doing that though. If you have better athletes, and more of them, you don't need any one kid to play well. The competition will allow the cream to rise and the best players will make each other better and make the coach look really good.

The same phenomenon occurs in NFL draft evaluations. I can generally tell you which players at any given position have the best fundamentals, hustle, and athleticism. I can rarely tell you which prospect projects better to Team X than Team Z. In addition to having much more knowledge about fundamentals, athleticism, hustle, and the underlying reasons that control those things scouts from Team X can be fairly confident which players best fit their scheme. Rarely is a prospect better at everything than all of his peers at that position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
foshman said:
Someone at SI just did an article on this subject. There is a very direct correlation between good recruiting classes and national championships. The recruiting services are pretty good at measuring players based on athletic ability/potential. They have no real understanding of how a player will fit into a school, or repond to a certain coach. The best coaches get the majority of their players to exceed their expectations, and at least 1 to play well at each position. All coaches believe that they are capable of doing that though. If you have better athletes, and more of them, you don't need any one kid to play well. The competition will allow the cream to rise and the best players will make each other better and make the coach look really good.

The same phenomenon occurs in NFL draft evaluations. I can generally tell you which players at any given position have the best fundamentals, hustle, and athleticism. I can rarely tell you which prospect projects better to Team X than Team Z. In addition to having much more knowledge about fundamentals, athleticism, hustle, and the underlying reasons that control those things scouts from Team X can be fairly confident which players best fit their scheme. Rarely is a prospect better at everything than all of his piers at that position.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not equal causation. The coach makes the team. Examples: Boise State, Cincinnati, TCU, USCe (to an extent), Utah, Iowa, etc. Counter Examples: Notre Dame recently, Alabama has always recruited well but from 1993 to 2006 was not exactly stellar, Michigan, OSU really, etc.

Point is, the coach on the field matters vastly more than the coach in the living room-- though obviously it helps to have a great recruiter in a great coach, and I would say that frequently that is the case but, as stated, coaches on the field and in practice matter more than the coaches in the living rooms.
 
Hoos4Tide said:
Correlation does not equal causation. The coach makes the team. Examples: Boise State, Cincinnati, TCU, USCe (to an extent), Utah, Iowa, etc. Counter Examples: Notre Dame recently, Alabama has always recruited well but from 1993 to 2006 was not exactly stellar, Michigan, OSU really, etc.

Point is, the coach on the field matters vastly more than the coach in the living room-- though obviously it helps to have a great recruiter in a great coach, and I would say that frequently that is the case but, as stated, coaches on the field and in practice matter more than the coaches in the living rooms.
Click to expand...

Was the question a pick one scenario? Both matter and both are important.

Look at Saban's record at Michigan State and in the NFL. When he has similar or lesser talent he is much less successful. When he has slightly better than or much better than talent he's very difficult to beat.

Kozlowski said:
If it was only about talent Bama wouldnt have lost a game last year
Click to expand...

If it was only about coaching why would anyone waste their time recruiting? Why not just pull players out of the student body?
 
foshman said:
Was the question a pick one scenario? Both matter and both are important.

Look at Saban's record at Michigan State and in the NFL. When he has similar or lesser talent he is much less successful. When he has slightly better than or much better than talent he's very difficult to beat.?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, in fact, the question was "Recruiting vs. Coaching-- What matters most?" I would say that is certainly a this or that question...

But about Saban at MSU and in the NFL... well those are two very good cases. Duly noted. So I would agree with you that talent definitely plays a part, and I never said it didnt, but I still think coaching is more important.
 
Hoos4Tide said:
Yeah, thinking about this further, and this is a very interesting topic to discuss btw, I would come to the conclusion that while talent may win games, coaching wins championships.

And that is a logical fallacy...
Click to expand...

That's a fairly astute observation. The grind in the SEC, especially, is neverending. It requires constant focus and dedication. That comes from great coaching as Saban alluded to all year.
 

Similar threads

S
🏈 Ranking the SEC rosters with the most former top-100 recruits - Rivals
Replies
0
Views
498
SEC Sports
S
shipley00
🏀 Basketball OOC schedule vs Top 25 as a final season predictor
Replies
5
Views
334
shipley00
shipley00
RTB X Bot
🏈 How a former Rivals recruiting analyst maximized his hit rate and built a top-10 team
Replies
1
Views
234
alabama mike
alabama mike
TerryP
🏈 Is Notre Dame now out for the 2025 college football playoffs? The Domer are now 0-2 and there aren't any ranked teams (currently) on their schedule.
    • Like
Replies
16
Views
3K
RTB X Bot
RTB X Bot
musso
🏈 If I were college football czar ...
Replies
0
Views
207
musso
musso
Back
Top Bottom