Here's something interesting prepared by the Cuse Orange beat:
How much does recruiting matter in the ACC?
A lot. If you're really, really good at it.
Not much if you're everyone else.
**Pitt excluded from comparison.**
It's virtually impossible to be dominant in the ACC without being at least above average in recruiting.
The top half of the conference in recruiting has finished with a record of at least .500 in 75 percent of its seasons (36 of 48). The rest of the conference has finished at .500 in barely half their seasons (25 of 48).
The top half has also won 75 percent of the ACC championships and 65 percent of the division championships (including ties).
The most successful team over this period has been Virginia Tech, which actually ranks fifth in recruiting. The Hokies have been better than average, but not by a huge margin. Miami, which has been the second-best recruiting team, has shared only one division title and has not won a league title. Good recruiting rankings clearly improve a team's odds, but they don't guarantee anything.
http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/index.ssf/2013/06/analysis_how_mu...
Recruiting matters, but so does coaching up the talent that you have. The Hokies have traditionally found a good balance of both, since joining the ACC. However, we can't rely on our defense and special teams to win games any more. The offense needs to reliably score, and recruiting needs to emphasize offensive talent now.
Comments
Its mostly about coaching and partially about recruiting
I do believe you mean "we can't rely on our defense and our special teams" in the second to last sentence, correct?
You're correct, mistake fixed.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. Player development obviously correlates to success too, but the more talented the athlete, the better he can be developed. You also have to consider recruiting rankings are an inexact science. I was going to cite Boston College's appearances in consecutive ACCCG's, but they hauled in pretty good classes in 2003 and 2005 that feature a lot of familiar names. Although, they don't come close to matching the FSU classes over the same timespan.
Wake Forest actually winning the ACC in 2006 is probably the best example of player development and team chemistry trumping raw talent in the ACC. From 2002-06, according to Rivals.com, they had one 4-star and he was listed as "Committed - Not Yet Signed". The rest of their signees were one- to three-stars, the majority being two-stars.
While that's true that Wake won the ACC...they did it once. During the stretch when FSU and Clemson were being dragged down by Bowdens. They haven't come close to repeating that success despite following the same game plan. BC had Matt Ryan in 2007. An elite QB can paper over other holes in the offense. You need talent to compete with talent, assuming both teams have competent coaching.
I also think that things have changed that make those standings somewhat obsolete. FSU, Miami, UNC and Clemson have different coaches now than the ones they had for the bulk of the time period being analyzed, and they've all shown an ability to not only recruit but utilize talent. The ACC has never lacked for player talent, as evidenced by the number of players drafted. Now though schools have found coaches that may not be clueless and it's going to be a problem.
When I read this I think... wow if we averaged top 8 in recruiting like FSU we would have 8+ ACC titles and a couple natty championships