A great coach will get your team a lot farther than the number of stars you can put on the field. Stars alone guarantee you nothing. If you just watched the Butler BB game you should be able to understand what I mean
March 26th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
Last time I checked we were talking about football... basketball is a completely different game. Look at the rivals top 25 recruiting classes from last year and tell me those teams don't have good football programs. LSU won a championship with Les Miles and he's an idiot.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^
you'll understand eventually
March 27th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
I think it's time to update that Smug rating.
With bad players gets you nowhere. Talent can make anyone look good. Coaching can only take you so far.
And you might want to double check...Butler has more talent than you think....
But I can understand you being scarred after watching Charlie Weiss waste away talent...
March 27th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
a great coach at the highest level of competition will get a team a lot farther than great recruits. A great coach can be at a school for a decade, in football a great player is there for 3 years max, in basketball they're there for 1.
Is having 2 three star players ranked by rivals in the past 4 years supposed to invalidate my example?
March 27th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
You seem to be hating on Michigan's recruiting a lot more than usual. I count at least 10 replies from you in this thread. I guess that comes with the territory when you have a losing record, for ever and ever amen, vs. RR at Michigan.
March 27th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
Says the guy whose team has consistently underachieved with swarms of 5* players over the past 20 years.
March 27th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
So you're saying I am right?
March 27th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Of course having 5* players doesn't automatically get you wins. It gets you a better chance of winning games, but it does not win you a thing.
I just found it funny that you were suddenly the voice of reason regarding recruiting stars and winning games, as if that was some secret that had never been thought of before.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
This isn't new I have always said offer lists mean more than stars when looking at a recruit. I don't need rivals or scout to validate a recruit with a star rating for my benefit.
This opinion isn't new, I have always thought this way going back to when I began following recruiting and college football in depth; but my definition what a great coach or great player actually is, that has evolved.
When Hoke recruits 5 receivers (all three stars to Rivals) in a single class while simultaneously signing 3 Olineman and zero NTs over two classses, I promise you I'll be bitching up a storm.
Calm down. Everyone, except a couple of people, know what the deal is. All the ratings aren't out. We are filling needs. we are recruiting locally. We aren't getting 5'7" 165 lbs. slots (no offense to anyone but we have a full depth chart at that position).
5'7" 165 lbs. Offensive Linemen.
I look forward to the time, hopefully soon, when Michigan offers a kid, then they automatically get a star up rating. That would solve this kind of crap.
It seems like every time we recruit someone, they start off as a 3* or so. We lose out to another school (to a SEC school) and all of a sudden he is a 5* diamond in the rough, can't miss, next coming of Jim Thorpe, tat two Heismans on him and call him a preseason All-Universe (ok, a lil exagerration). I thought it was just me who noticed that. YOU SEE MOM!!!! I'M NOT CRAZY!!!!!!
This might be sarcasm. If it's not, then this is pathetic.
The BIGGEST mistake I made was not putting "/s" at the end but it is to late the and the Neg bombs have begun....
March 26th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
If RR won with those 3* recruits then this conversation wouldn't even have happened. Let's see how things pan out after Hoke lands, oh...say...his third commit.
March 27th, 2011 at 12:09 AM ^
Perhaps people just have more confidence in this coaching staff.
Don't care Aussie Rules Football FTW. Wake me when the season starts.