This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Same model, not same success by pmcdnd96

As I noted above, I agree that recruiting is the single biggest predictor of a team's success, so coaches who focus on it are doing something smart. But the strategy and game day aspects are also very important.

I used Carroll as an example because his model of recruiting success and mind blowing strategery failures would be familiar to most of us. But there are a lot of coaches who are recruit well and then fail to put those players in a position to win or at least underperform the level of talent they have on hand. So I think when we are evaluating coaches on overall performance, we need to be careful not to overrate their overall ability based on a wilingness/ability to recruit over a relatively short window.