Now that the Signing Day 2009 has passed, we won't really know how good our class is for another 2-3 years. It is commonly accepted that a lot of highly-touted recruits turn out to be "busts," and that a lot of guys who don't get a lot of attention turn out to be quite productive.
I've been doing some thinking and I'd like to start a discussion which addresses the following issues (and more, if necessary):
1) Is there any reliable means to chart the bust factor of a given class? It doesn't seem like there would be, due to the subjective nature of what is a "success" and what is a "bust," although I know Brian has tackled this issue before.
2) How much does coaching play into whether or not an athlete is a bust or a success?
3) Does RichRod's track record of getting "more from less" equate to a lower amount of "busts?"
Obviously it's too early to tell what RR can do with talent like he has at Michigan, but I would like to pose the argument that RichRod is the BEST coach in NCAA when it comes to the identification and development of talent.