Clemson has had one top 10 recruiting class since 2012 on 24/7 site

I think that's one lesson. Watson is the best QB in college football, while Hurts is not yet a good QB.

The other lesson is that there's diminishing returns in recruiting. Clemson's MVPs were Deshaun Watson (a 5-star recruit) and Ben Boulware (4-star). They also had huge plays made by guys like Mike Williams (4-star), Wayne Gallman (4-star), Artavis Scott (high 4-star), Christian Wilkins (high 4-star), Deon Cain (high 4-star), and Clelin Ferrell (4-star). Bama had more highly-rated recruits, for sure. But Damien Harris only got six touches, and Calvin Ridley got five, and both those guys were five-star recruits. Lots of other five-stars and high four-stars barely saw the field because they were behind other top recruits. There's a recruiting threshold a team needs to surpass to be a championship contender, for sure - you need talented players to make plays. But if you have enough talented players, it's irrelevant how many other talented players you have sitting behind them.

This might be the stupidest take I've ever seen. Bama has still won four championships in the last eight years. He's an elite coach.

You are wrong. Saban has won 4 National Championships in 8 years and has taken his team to the CFB playoffs every year. 

Losing to a Heisman-caliber QB on the last play of the game doesn't take away from that.

Yes, he has top classes every year, but those recruits are still HIGH SCHOOLERS. He coaches them up to be super competitive every single year. That's incredible.

Saban has wonAlabama four national championships since 2009.  I would gladly take that.  You my friend, are an idiot.

Recruiting is part of being a college coach, not a seperate skill.

I know that the instant reaction is to disagree with bluinohio.  After all, how do you call the guy who has won the National Championship 4 out of 8 years, barely ever loses, and has made the playoffs every year overrated?!?!

But there a shred of rationality to what he says.  If you start with the premise that Alabama recruits a talent level that is so far ahead of every other school (partially because of available local talent and reputation and partially because of $$EECC recruiting begman tactics), then Alabama SHOULD be winning all of these games, even with average to above average coaching.  If an NFL team was awarded the first 10 draft picks picks every year, after a few years, the talent level on that team would be so dominant that any competent coach would be able to win regularly.  That is the equivalent of the talent advantage that Bama has.  They have gotten the #1 class - often by a wide margin - every year for a number of years running.  Their team is so stacked that any above average coach would likely have real success. 

Now, this does not take away from what Saban has done, or mean that he is NOT an elite coach.  It just calls into question whether his coaching is elite, or whether he just benefits from the insane talent that he beings in.  Put differently, if Saban had Michigan's 2016 roster, or FSU's or Florida's or OSU's or Washington's roster, do you think that he would have won the National Championship?  Not saying that he wouldn't, but it is uncertain, since Saban has never (since coming to Bama) had to coach anything but the most talented roster in college football.  

All of this said, Saban is the CLEARLY the best recruiter out there - which is a part of coaching - and even with that recruiting advantage, he is still a good actual coach.  I am virtually certain that with the same talent, Brady Hoke or Rich Rod would not have had as much success. 

If I had a fiver for every time I heard some knucklehead say, "Phil Jackson is totally overrated. I could win an NBA title with Michael Jordan," I could take a nice vacation.

I also heard the same shit about Bear Bryant. And Pete Carroll. And Vince Lombardi. And Chuck Noll. And Tom Osborne. And Jimmy Johnson. And Urban Meyer. And John Robinson. And John McKay. And every other dynastic coach.

1) Watson was an elite recruit (#1 Dual Threat) and he played, when it counted, like an experienced, uber-talented QB should. He had issues this season with turnovers, but in terms of the "MAKE PLAYS" category, he did so when it counted.

2) Clemson recruits at a  high level -- just not Alabama / OSU / LSU level. But that's basically the only schools clearly in front of them, on a per recruit basis, esp getting 5-stars.

And if your overall talent level is not quite the same as your opponent (as Clemson was vs Alabama), see point #1.

3) They were lucky. Clemson "should" have lost to NC State. The guy missed an easy FG to win the game. For us, we "should' have lost to Iowa -- our problem is we actually did, b/c the Iowa guy made the kick. Thus Clemson goes to the playoffs; we go off to the Orange Bowl.

Since we can't do much about #3, we need to focus on #2 and #1. We're getting there, but as shown in our 3 losses (which all had inadequate QB play), we're not there yet.

A little premature to be calling those position coaches a failure at this point. A coach can only hope to get the best out of a player, not make that player something they are not. This staff has been in place for two years, and has largely been working with the same players as the previous staff.

You mention MSU, so lets use Le'Veon Bell as an example. Was he a nobody that their staff turned into a superstar? I would argue that he was a late-blooming, over-looked NFL talent and they were able to bring it out of him. De'Veon Smith is what he is, and no amount of coaching would have made him faster. I would say that Wheatley did a pretty good job at getting the most out of Smith's ability. Lets wait and see what happens with the higher level talent that this staff is bringing in for their system.

I'm actually more surprised that Saban hasn't taught his corners how to pattern match (I think that's what it's called). UM got burned by pick plays early on until they had the corners switch off so they didn't cross each other.

For all of Saban's accomplishments, how that happens to his secondary is mind-boggling.

Granted if you have 32 recruits and another team has 19 recruits, the 32 recruit team with a similar per recruit star average clearly did better.

But take 2015: Tennessee "ranked" #4 and Clemson "ranked" #9 -- big "win" for Tennessee's future, vs. Clemson, right? However, Tennessee had 30 recruits at 89.43 (with one 5 star) and Clemson had 26 recruits at 89.19 (with 3 stars). For #5 Georgia, it was basically the same, and so on. I would argue these schools all had the same class.

It would be more accurate if these sites put the teams in tiers (e.g., in 2015 Alabama, USC and FSU would be Tier #1; Tennessee, Georgia, Clemson, etc would be Tier #2), but that would eliminate marketing and discussion opportunities (e.g., "We've got the #4 recruiting class! We beat you guys -- you finished #6!), so that will never happen.

But when looking at the state of certain programs, it's useful to keep in mind.