Post Reply to Rock's House

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:

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

Message:

HTTP Link (optional):

Poster's Email (optional):

 


Post being replied to

No it's not by pmcdnd96

I had some free time this AM, so I created a spreadsheet listing the recruiting rankings from 247 Sports from 2000 to 2020 and compared those rankings to national championships and playoff appearances.

From 2000 through the 2020 recruiting cycle:
Clemson won two national championships and made 5 playoff appearances, but did not have a top 5 class (they had 5 top-10s) until this year.

Georgia has ranked in the top 10 in recruiting 18 times and in the top 5 6 times. They have made one playoff appearance. They have won zero national championships.

Washington did not have a top ten recruiting class. They made one playoff appearance.

USC has had 12 top-five recruiting classes over that stretch. They made one two playoff appearances, winning one.

Oregon has had one top-10 recruiting classes and zero top 5 classes, yet has made two playoff appearances.

Oklahoma is tied with Notre Dame for most top-five recruiting rankings (3), but is tied with Alabama for most playoff appearances (8.)

My point in all this: recruiting is important, but it's not everything. Success seems to be a combination of the following:
1.) Recruiting
2.) Program/Player Development
3.) Scheme/ Game Planning/ Game Day Coaching
4.) Scheduling/ Conference Affiliation
5.) Luck/ Timing

You have to excel in most categories to be great. You can be sub-par in one if you're good enough in the others (for example, Pete Carroll was a horrific game day coach, but he was an outstanding recruiter and program builder,) but you can't be a great team just on the basis of recruiting rankings.