UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[froot loops]

I stand by my claim, Big Hat No Cattle. Outside of the sweet spot of Mack Brown's tenure, Texas has been basically irrelevant. Oh sure, they have the Longhorn network, they push around other conference members. But come on, the name is a lot bigger than the production.

[iam416]

Outside of the sweet spot of Mack Brown's tenure, Texas has been basically irrelevant.

You have to put that into some sort of timeframe. You can't possibly mean Texas has been irrelevant for the entire history of CFB other than Mack Brown's tenure.

What you're probably saying is that they were irrelevant immediately prior to Mack's arrival and are now irrelevant.

Geezer:

I prefer all-time winning percentage to wins (minimum of 600 games played).

The top 5 is Notre Dame, M, OSU, OU and Alabama. Then Texas, Nebraska, USC, Penn State and Tennessee. (FYI, it's a great site to play around with: http://football.stassen.com/records/...e-request.html -- For example, since 1900, Ohio State has the highest winning percentage!)

And, of course, national titles get factored in. Conference titles. Postseason success.

But if you're in the top 10 for wins or winning percentage, you're elite.

[Mike]

People keep mistaking the team with the program. Baylor currently has a better TEAM than Texas or Michigan. Only a fool would think the Baylor football PROGRAM is better than Michigan's or Texas. The team is the on-field product. The program is revenue, facilities, asses in seats, eyeballs watching TV, merchandise sales, national prestige, etc.

[WM Wolverine]

M's brand is elite despite their performance on the field being very far from it. M's brand is good enough to survive a down period like they've had for much of the past decade, similar to ND.

[froot loops]

You have to put that into some sort of timeframe. You can't possibly mean Texas has been irrelevant for the entire history of CFB other than Mack Brown's tenure.

What you're probably saying is that they were irrelevant immediately prior to Mack's arrival and are now irrelevant.

This is true, I was going to say since I've been watching College Football. The end of the Fred Akers era is when I started.

[iam416]

People keep mistaking the team with the program. Baylor currently has a better TEAM than Texas or Michigan. Only a fool would think the Baylor football PROGRAM is better than Michigan's or Texas. The team is the on-field product. The program is revenue, facilities, asses in seats, eyeballs watching TV, merchandise sales, national prestige, etc.

I'm not sure if people are making mistake - god knows I'm not -- but this is exactly correct. In fact, in my first or second post in this discussion I compared M and Wisconsin in much the same way you're saying Baylor-Texas.

[froot loops]

1. I think the whole elite term is the biggest joke in sports. For some reason it has permeated all sports.

2. Do you care about "eyeballs watching TV, merchandise sales, national prestige" or winning? Sometimes I wonder if guys like the Geezer are more interested in the past. If being elite was such a big deal, any coach should be able to get hired at an elite program and commence winning big. In fact the list Da Geezer listed has 4 or the 5 programs have stretches of irrelevance until they get a good coach. Only Ohio State has evaded this fate from those 5 listed. They've had good coaches, Cooper was probably the closest to the stereotypical average coach that could succeed because OSU was elite.

3. If elite was such a big deal, you wouldn't have seen such a HARBAUGH! or bust attitude among the Michigan contingent. The collective fanbase pretty much acted like he had to come here or there was no hope.

4. Why is Baylor or TCU better than Texas? How is this possible with all of the alleged advantages Texas has? This isn't some 1 year fluke, they've been better for awhile. What were those recruiting classes like?

[iam416]

You're not seriously saying elite doesn't matter? I mean, you can't be. Could UFM win a national title at Bowling Green? Could Mark Dantonio do what he's done at Cinicnnati? LOL. Come The Fuck On.

Of course coaching matters. Duh. But various programs have significantly higher ceilings than other programs. No one -- not even you -- can deny this. Alabama has a higher ceiling as a program than, say, Vanderbilt. Or Kansas State. Or Louisiana Tech. Or, yes, Michigan State. Or dozens of other programs.

Being elite matters. A lot. Look at the BCS/CFP era national champs. Find me one truly non-elite program. Tennessee? Eh, close. Top 10 in winning percentage all-time. Auburn? Close. Probably just outside truly elite. Maybe the same for LSU, but still really close. Florida State, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Florida, Miami (at the time, definitely elite) - that reads as who's who of elite.

If you wanna think that Purdue or Indiana or Illinois have the same chance of winning a national title as Ohio State -- they just need a great coach -- delude yourself all you want. If that were the case a ton of shitass, non-elite programs would be winning national championships instead of, like, ZERO.

[froot loops]

Nowhere did I say Purdue, Illinois or Indiana were threats to win a national championship. Burn that strawman down. I asked plenty of questions and made a few statements in that post, none of them were talking Purdue, Illinois and Indiana.

[iam416]

Your point, as I understand it, is that "elite" is the "biggest joke in sports" and, by and large, doesn't matter.

Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, etc. clearly illustrate that being elite DOES MATTER. A LOT. It's not a strawman -- it goes directly to the point you were making.

It's not a guarantee of winning. You still need good coaching. But it's very difficult to consistently win BIG...to win ELITE without being an elite program.

If you want to say that you think coaching is more important than being an "elite" program, then so be it. I think that's a rational, debatable position. If you want to say that being an "elite" program is not a significant element to being a successful program (or a big joke), then you're dead ass wrong. Indiana. Illinois. Bowling Green. Etc. As I said, UFM ain't winning national titles at Bowling Green. He is a Florida and Ohio State. Same coaching. Obviously different level of programs.

[iam416]

And to bring it back to the original issue -- the issue was whether being elite is an meaningful advantage in RECRUITING:

I think it is waaaay easier to recruit at M than it is at Wisconsin. Both programs are located in states that cannot sustain a program with recruits. Michigan is a better state for HSFB, but then again, it has two B10 schools to support.

One program has been a consistent winner in the B10 over the past 10 years. One program hasn't won a B10 title in 11 seasons. One program is an elite brand and the other is not.

Put in macro terms, does M have the same recruiting ceiling as other P5 schools?

We've had this discussion numerous times and we just disagree. I really think "eliteness" matters in a meaningful way. I think the top of the B10 recruiting rankings doesn't correlate to "winning" nearly as much as it correlates to "eliteness." I mean, PSU and M are going to finish 2nd and 3rd in the B10 in recruiting barring a late Sparty push.

[froot loops]

I didn't expound enough on that, I'm talking all sports. It drives me nuts about NFL when they talk who is an elite QB is. In basketball, it drives me nuts about elite programs. It is the most overused word in sports, it is used by sports radio announcers to generate calls. I put it in the same category as the "what is a sport?" argument.

The thing is, I asked about Baylor/TCU and Texas. You didn't address them, you went immediately to Bowling Green, Indiana and Purdue, which I never talked about. That is a strawman, I'm not arguing those programs, and there is no part of that post where you could possibly infer that. I never said anything about those programs. None of those programs really try to compete at the highest level. There has to be some threshold where you are actually trying.

It is worth noting, that 15 years ago, I'm not sure Baylor would be argued over your three teams you are talking about. They were the dregs of college football.

[iam416]

I'm not arguing those programs, and there is no part of that post where you could possibly infer that

Your general point was that being elite doesn't matter. You picked Baylor and Texas as an example. I could easily and rationally infer that if elite doesn't matter than it ought not matter all the time, not just when you say it doesn't matter. In that case, it's not a fucking strawman -- it rips through the larger theory. However, it is a strawman if your point is that being elite doesn't matter only when you say it doesn't matter but it matters at other times. Of course, that point struggles to rise to imbecilic.

So, if all you're saying is that Baylor is better than Texas, then ok. Yeah, Baylor is better than Texas right now. I still think it's remarkably easier to win at Texas than at Baylor because Texas is an elite program and Baylor and TCU are not. I have 100 years of win/loss records to not only support that, but PROVE IT.

Texas has a higher ceiling. It's way easier to win at Texas. For Baylor to surpass Texas, they needed a really good coach and, more importantly, Texas to shit themselves.

I believe that addresses your remarkably narrow point -- a point so narrow (Baylor is better than Texas right now) that it's frankly irrelevant.

I also believe my point is remarkably clear:

[Being elite] is not a guarantee of winning. You still need good coaching. But it's very difficult to consistently win BIG...to win ELITE without being an elite program.

[iam416]

I should also note you've addressed zero of my points -- BCS/CFP national champs; OSU/M/PSU topping B10 recruiting; "elite" brands topping recruiting; UFM @ BG vs UFM @ OSU.

I guess you did address Indiana/Illinois/Purdue by saying that doesn't count because they don't try. LOL.

[WM Wolverine]

Elite programs vs elite success. Most non 'elite' programs struggle sustaining success for a prolonged period. Elite programs can have periods where they are very successful for 10-20 year periods or longer.