A article on Mullen's "mediocre" 2011 recruiting class

[JackJohnson]

I remember he got a little upset on signing day after losing the top in state players to Nutt and on signing day getting questioned about it.  Well fast forward 4 years and This class was the foundation for MSU season last year.

Relevance here is that Mullen is all about evaluating and development similar to what CBB has done here.  While we fret over recruiting keep in mind that this isn't CBBs first rodeo and at the end of the day he is going to sign kids that's fit what he is trying to both on AND off the field.  While we all want the Agims, whites, whaleys of the world it isn't the end all be all if we don't

http://maroonandwhitenation.com/2015/05/05/mike-herndon-owes-dan-mullen-a-sincere-apology/

[The_Boot_stops_here]

last year was great, w/o question. However, Mullen's seat was getting warm before last season and chances are they will go back to 7 wins or so this year and even worse next year when Prescott is gone. So although I'm happy (overall) with the state of recruiting under CBB, I certainly hope its built more for the long term than what Mullen has done.

[Theolesnort]

Just a good example of our star gazers wailing and gnashing of teeth at the moment as some teams seem to be filling up while we are still evaluating players who have not yet been offered scholies that they can commit to. Let the coaches do what they do best and save the complaints for three or four years in if the talent isn't there. If this recruiting stars stuff was spot on Alabama should never win a game by less than six or seven touchdowns much less ever lose a game to any other team no matter who they are.

[PaintballHog]

Just a good example of our star gazers wailing and gnashing of teeth at the moment as some teams seem to be filling up while we are still evaluating players who have not yet been offered scholies that they can commit to. Let the coaches do what they do best and save the complaints for three or four years in if the talent isn't there. If this recruiting stars stuff was spot on Alabama should never win a game by less than six or seven touchdowns much less ever lose a game to any other team no matter who they are.

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

Although I'm extremely pleased with Coach B's recruiting let's not act like there isn't a direct correlation with rankings and wins/championships/draft picks.

As far as the OP is concerned, yes BB lays a foundation on an incredible walk on program, development of underrated players, and having strong character guys. But, the playmakers on offense are "blue chip" (4* or higher) guys; AC, Jwill, HH, Kirkland, Hatcher, etc. We need to replace those guys with as good of talent to continue to improve. I have no doubts it will come.

[lefty08]

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

Although I'm extremely pleased with Coach B's recruiting let's not act like there isn't a direct correlation with rankings and wins/championships/draft picks.

As far as the OP is concerned, yes BB lays a foundation on an incredible walk on program, development of underrated players, and having strong character guys. But, the playmakers on offense are "blue chip" (4* or higher) guys; AC, Jwill, HH, Kirkland, Hatcher, etc. We need to replace those guys with as good of talent to continue to improve. I have no doubts it will come.

Recruiting rankings don't mean as much as some think. So they matter? Sure they do. There isn't a direct relationship with recruiting rankings and championships. It's easy to see The same handful of teams win the championship every year so of course it appears rankings matter

[Call a Hog]

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

Although I'm extremely pleased with Coach B's recruiting let's not act like there isn't a direct correlation with rankings and wins/championships/draft picks.

As far as the OP is concerned, yes BB lays a foundation on an incredible walk on program, development of underrated players, and having strong character guys. But, the playmakers on offense are "blue chip" (4* or higher) guys; AC, Jwill, HH, Kirkland, Hatcher, etc. We need to replace those guys with as good of talent to continue to improve. I have no doubts it will come.

Recruiting rankings are designed to make money for the services. Follow them too closely and you will fall off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings. Mack Brown now agrees with this statement.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Until someone proves you can win an NC without top ten recruiting classes I will continue to believe you MUST have top ten recruiting classes to win a NC.

See that is an easy stance because all the proof is on one side of the question.

I wonder if the new playoff will just further reinforce that position.

[PaintballHog]

Recruiting rankings don't mean as much as some think. So they matter? Sure they do. There is a direct relationship with recruiting rankings and championships. It's easy to see The same handful of teams win the championship every year so of course it appears rankings matter

We see the same handful teams because of recruiting rankings, not in spite of. No team in the BCS or CFP era has won without at least two top 10 classes.

And it's not just championships, it's overall wins and draft picks. Read the article.

[lefty08]

We see the same handful teams because of recruiting rankings, not in spite of. No team in the BCS or CFP era has won without at least two top 10 classes.

And it's not just championships, it's overall wins and draft picks. Read the article.

I've read the article, and I'm saying it doesn't mean anything. How many different teams have won championships since the BCS were formed?  Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. What will the narrative be when a team like Oregon wins a title. They have played in 2 champ games right? I guess it doesn't count because they lost in the title game?

[lefty08]

Auburn won the title in 2010.

Class rank

2006: 11th
2007: 10th
2008: 24th
2009: 23rd

[Cinco de Hogo]

Auburn won the title in 2010.

Class rank

2006: 11th
2007: 10th
2008: 24th
2009: 23rd

With a once in a lifetime QB and an OC Hogville loves to hate.  Chezik had no chance otherwise.  Yes there can alway be an outlier.  So, when you give the Hogs a Newton or unlimited Nike and Mircosoft money I am sure we will win a NC.

Oh, and we would also have to be willing to spend that money the same way.

[lefty08]

With a once in a lifetime QB and an OC Hogville loves to hate.  Chezik had no chance otherwise.  Yes there can alway be an outlier.  So, when you give the Hogs a Newton or unlimited Nike and Mircosoft money I am sure we will win a NC.

Oh, and we would also have to be willing to spend that money the same way.

I'm not even referencing the Hogs in my argument. We have a long ways to go to think about a national championship. My argument are rankings are made up. They mean nothing in reference to championships. The top teams in football will always be ranked at the top in rankings, it doesn't matter the athletes they bring in

[bigdaddyhawg]

There is a direct relationship with recruiting rankings and championships.

No, there is not.  There is a correlation between the two, but it is NOT a direct relationship.

Recruiting rankings are a subjective ranking of talent ONLY, but gives zero indicator of all the other qualities of winning football players.

Does talent matter? Absolutely. But other qualities matter, too.

[lefty08]

No, there is not.  There is a correlation between the two, but it is NOT a direct relationship.

Recruiting rankings are a subjective ranking of talent ONLY, but gives zero indicator of all the other qualities of winning football players.

Does talent matter? Absolutely. But other qualities matter, too.

I'm glad you said that, that's actually the word I was looking for. My sentence should have read" there isn't a direct"

Thanks for posting that

Edit: previous post edited, thanks again

[Pig in the Pokey]

Just a good example of our star gazers wailing and gnashing of teeth at the moment as some teams seem to be filling up while we are still evaluating players who have not yet been offered scholies that they can commit to. Let the coaches do what they do best and save the complaints for three or four years in if the talent isn't there. If this recruiting stars stuff was spot on Alabama should never win a game by less than six or seven touchdowns much less ever lose a game to any other team no matter who they are.

we never said that approach wouldn't produce a great year every once in awhile- all that mullen has done. we said it isn't enough to be consistent. we need some 4's and 5's to go with it.

[PaintballHog]

Auburn won the title in 2010.

Class rank

2006: 11th
2007: 10th
2008: 24th
2009: 23rd

According to one service, that I don't think was around at the time, scout had them at 9th and 7th in 06 and 07.

I've read the article, and I'm saying it doesn't mean anything. How many different teams have won championships since the BCS were formed?  Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. What will the narrative be when a team like Oregon wins a title. They have played in 2 champ games right? I guess it doesn't count because they lost in the title game?

But they didn't win, and were outclassed by better athletes. By that logic, you should believe pigs can fly, and just because they haven't yet doesn't mean can't.

No, there is not.  There is a correlation between the two, but it is NOT a direct relationship.

Recruiting rankings are a subjective ranking of talent ONLY, but gives zero indicator of all the other qualities of winning football players.

Does talent matter? Absolutely. But other qualities matter, too.

Considering recruiting rankings were analyzed against 3 seperate criteria; championships, overall wins, and draft picks. It's more than just a correlation, or smoking is just correlated to lung cancer.

[lefty08]

According to one service, that I don't think was around at the time, scout had them at 9th and 7th in 06 and 07.

But they didn't win, and were outclassed by better athletes. By that logic, you should believe pigs can fly, and just because they haven't yet doesn't mean can't.


Considering recruiting rankings were analyzed against 3 seperate criteria; championships, overall wins, and draft picks. It's more than just a correlation, or smoking is just correlated to lung cancer.

So you're saying all smokers get lung cancer?

Bad analogy

Also, don't you agree if a team is good enough to get to the title game, they are too enough to win it?

[lefty08]

You may be right about 247 not being around then, I don't even care to check. What I do know is they list a composite ranking, which includes that 1 service you mentioned, and it is more accurate on the whole than looking at any 1 service that fits the argument.

The fact still holds true, recruiting never wins championships. It never has and still doesn't.

If you think it's all about recruiting and if a team isn't elite at recruiting they can't win championships, how do you explain the teams that recruit at an elite level and lose 4 or 5 games in a season?

[Pig in the Pokey]

According to one service, that I don't think was around at the time, scout had them at 9th and 7th in 06 and 07.

But they didn't win, and were outclassed by better athletes. By that logic, you should believe pigs can fly, and just because they haven't yet doesn't mean can't.


Considering recruiting rankings were analyzed against 3 seperate criteria; championships, overall wins, and draft picks. It's more than just a correlation, or smoking is just correlated to lung cancer.

pigs fly. pigs have been on planes...

[Theolesnort]

Until someone proves you can win an NC without top ten recruiting classes I will continue to believe you MUST have top ten recruiting classes to win a NC.

See that is an easy stance because all the proof is on one side of the question.

I wonder if the new playoff will just further reinforce that position.

Well Cinco show me whether Championship teams produce top 10 classes or if top ten classes produce championships and top 10 finishes to the season. Which comes first, chicken or the egg?

[Theolesnort]

No, there is not.  There is a correlation between the two, but it is NOT a direct relationship.

Recruiting rankings are a subjective ranking of talent ONLY, but gives zero indicator of all the other qualities of winning football players.

Does talent matter? Absolutely. But other qualities matter, too.

You are a thoughtful man with a lot of gray matter up top. I would bet you don't waste a lot of money on them expensive recruiting services and rags.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

Recruiting rankings are designed to make money for the services. Follow them too closely and you will fall off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings. Mack Brown now agrees with this statement.

Word..! +1

[Cinco de Hogo]

Well Cinco show me whether Championship teams produce top 10 classes or if top ten classes produce championships and top 10 finishes to the season. Which comes first, chicken or the egg?

What?

I thought we recruited high school players ranked by recruiting services.

And no, I'm not saying CBB pays any attention to recruiting services.

[ZERO]

I'm really not sold on Dan Mullen. He's been extremely mediocre for the most part, although he's only had one truly bad year.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I'm really not sold on Dan Mullen. He's been extremely mediocre for the most part, although he's only had one truly bad year.

Isn't mediocre at MSU pretty dang good! LOL

[bigdaddyhawg]

I would bet you don't waste a lot of money on them expensive recruiting services and rags.

You are correct, sir!

But I do waste a lot of time on Hogville.net in the Recruiting Forum, though.

[rwspear]

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

Although I'm extremely pleased with Coach B's recruiting let's not act like there isn't a direct correlation with rankings and wins/championships/draft picks.

As far as the OP is concerned, yes BB lays a foundation on an incredible walk on program, development of underrated players, and having strong character guys. But, the playmakers on offense are "blue chip" (4* or higher) guys; AC, Jwill, HH, Kirkland, Hatcher, etc. We need to replace those guys with as good of talent to continue to improve. I have no doubts it will come.

that article is trash. the author should google 'anecdotal evidence'.

[idochog]

My prediction is Mullen leaves before he has to start w a new Qb. No way to win long term at state

[PaintballHog]

that article is trash. the author should google 'anecdotal evidence'.

You may need to check the definition yourself

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. In cases where small numbers of anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

An anecdote is a short and amusing but serious account, which may depict a real/fake incident or character

The article presents multiple facts on how recruiting rankings translates to success. They didn't cherry pick or use extreme examples.

Don't dismiss the article as "trash" just because it goes against your worldview. If you wish to discuss it then list what parts you disagree with and why.

[lefty08]

You may need to check the definition yourself

The article presents multiple facts on how recruiting rankings translates to success. They didn't cherry pick or use extreme examples.

Don't dismiss the article as "trash" just because it goes against your worldview. If you wish to discuss it then list what parts you disagree with and why.
[/quote]

All of it

Because it's wrong

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I remember he got a little upset on signing day after losing the top in state players to Nutt and on signing day getting questioned about it.  Well fast forward 4 years and This class was the foundation for MSU season last year.

Relevance here is that Mullen is all about evaluating and development similar to what CBB has done here.  While we fret over recruiting keep in mind that this isn't CBBs first rodeo and at the end of the day he is going to sign kids that's fit what he is trying to both on AND off the field.  While we all want the Agims, whites, whaleys of the world it isn't the end all be all if we don't

http://maroonandwhitenation.com/2015/05/05/mike-herndon-owes-dan-mullen-a-sincere-apology/

I agree, but it's not about a single Cinderella season.  Even Nutt had a couple big seasons in his decade here.  It's about building a program to win at a high level consistently.  Consistently.  I'm betting Mullen is back to 6 or 7 wins next season. 

That said, and I know we agree on this, MSU ain't UA and Mullen ain't BB. 

It starts with talent first.  Always has, always will.  The coaches know it.  It's why recruiting is so cut throat. 

[TNRazorbacker]

Auburn won the title in 2010.

Class rank

2006: 11th
2007: 10th
2008: 24th
2009: 23rd

In the last decade Auburn is the only team to win a national championship without an average top 10 class over the preceding 4 years. I believe they averaged 13 in 2010. In place of that they had what was probably the most impactful player in the last 30 years of college football playing QB.

Recruiting rankings clearly matter. Are they the only thing? Certainly not, but nobody can doubt the strength of the correlation. Its simply about probabilities playing out over time. What also tends to make a strong difference is a superstar at QB. If you have a Marriota or a Newton handling the ball every play it can make up some of the talent deficit elsewhere.

So, what the data tells us is that for AR to have a good shot at a National title they need to put together a string of top 10ish classes over a 4 year span, or, top 15ish over the same time period with a Heisman caliber QB. Having both likely increases the likelihood considerably. I also think we need to catch Bama and LSU in a home game year and at least one of them needs to be down a bit.

[PaintballHog]

All of it

Because it's wrong

Lol

Whatever you say man

[TNRazorbacker]

Well Cinco show me whether Championship teams produce top 10 classes or if top ten classes produce championships and top 10 finishes to the season. Which comes first, chicken or the egg?

Easy, you simply look at the rankings of the classes prior to the national championship season.  No chicken and egg dilemna if one clearly precedes the other. When you look at this over time the data clearly shows recruiting rankings are a strong predictor of the teams most likely to win a national championship.

[wholehog92]

Because words mean things and people are giving Mr. Webster the finger in this thread, I'm going to post this here.

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+correlation+and+causation

There is not a causal direct relationship between smoking and cancer nor is there a direct causal relationship between recruiting rankings and championships.  There is a correlation between each.  Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer and pretty much cancer along the entire respiratory tract.  High rankings increase your risk of winning a NT.

If there were a direct causal relationship, some specific ratio of smokers would fall to cancer of the total number of smokers.  Since we are saying a direct relationship, it is implied a 1:1.  Simply not true and we can all see that.  A pure study of that statistic has never been performed because it's pointless.  A young man on a boat to Normandy smoking a cigarette in 1944 is unlikely to die of cancer.  We can clearly see that there are ten teams every year with a top 10 ranking.  Clearly, they can't all win the National Championship.

In a sport decided by inches and seconds, any advantage you can get is a big deal.  Starting with equivalent or superior talent than your opponent is very significant.  It's not the end all measurement though.  When was the last time Rutgers was ranked ahead of us in recruiting?  When was the last time we were ranked ahead of LSU in recruiting rankings?

[Cinco de Hogo]

What a bunch of words wasted on the typical brain on Hogville.

If you avg top ten recruiting classes your chances of winning a NC goes up.

After that it's about coaching which by the way I include evaluation of said recruits in that.

After that it's luck, which includes how other teams do the above things, and schedule.

[PaintballHog]

Because words mean things and people are giving Mr. Webster the finger in this thread, I'm going to post this here.

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+correlation+and+causation

There is not a causal direct relationship between smoking and cancer nor is there a direct causal relationship between recruiting rankings and championships.  There is a correlation between each.  Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer and pretty much cancer along the entire respiratory tract.  High rankings increase your risk of winning a NT.

If there were a direct causal relationship, some specific ratio of smokers would fall to cancer of the total number of smokers.  Since we are saying a direct relationship, it is implied a 1:1.  Simply not true and we can all see that.  A pure study of that statistic has never been performed because it's pointless.  A young man on a boat to Normandy smoking a cigarette in 1944 is unlikely to die of cancer.  We can clearly see that there are ten teams every year with a top 10 ranking.  Clearly, they can't all win the National Championship.

In a sport decided by inches and seconds, any advantage you can get is a big deal.  Starting with equivalent or superior talent than your opponent is very significant.  It's not the end all measurement though.  When was the last time Rutgers was ranked ahead of us in recruiting?  When was the last time we were ranked ahead of LSU in recruiting rankings?

Just for the record, I never said anything about causation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/direct+correlation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/causation

What a bunch of words wasted on the typical brain on Hogville.

If you avg top ten recruiting classes your chances of winning a NC goes up.

After that it's about coaching which by the way I include evaluation of said recruits in that.

After that it's luck, which includes how other teams do the above things, and schedule.

You bring up a good point, there was an article on MMQB way back about coaches getting wins above their recruiting class talent, pretty much "doing more with less". Guess who was #1? Wisconsin with BB.

So since we have the best in the business in doing more with less, I would say we could make a run if we had top 15ish classes instead of top 10. If we do as well as I believe we will in 2015, I think our classes will start trending up to that 15ish mark.

[Adam Stokes]

You bring up a good point, there was an article on MMQB way back about coaches getting wins above their recruiting class talent, pretty much "doing more with less". Guess who was #1? Wisconsin with BB.

So since we have the best in the business in doing more with less, I would say we could make a run if we had top 15ish classes instead of top 10. If we do as well as I believe we will in 2015, I think our classes will start trending up to that 15ish mark.

I agree with this.  I'm really hoping we can start to pull in some highly recruited guys in the skill positions as well.  We have done a great job building up our trenches.  I feel that having a skilled line creates a high floor low-ceiling when it comes to W's and L's, which is what Bret normally seemed to produce up at Wisconsin.  I feel focusing on skill players like a WV did in the past can create high-ceiling but a very low floor.  I'd rather have the former than the latter, but hopefully we can start to get the best of both worlds.

[PaintballHog]

I agree with this.  I'm really hoping we can start to pull in some highly recruited guys in the skill positions as well.  We have done a great job building up our trenches.  I feel that having a skilled line creates a high floor low-ceiling when it comes to W's and L's, which is what Bret normally seemed to produce up at Wisconsin.  I feel focusing on skill players like a WV did in the past can create high-ceiling but a very low floor.  I'd rather have the former than the latter, but hopefully we can start to get the best of both worlds.

I totally agree with what you're saying. BB Wisconsin seemed to miss that one or two very special playmaker to break through to a title game. A dominant wr or lock down corner. I think him coming to the SEC will raise the likelyhood of recruiting those guys after his system starts rolling this year. 

[Boarcephus]

I remember he got a little upset on signing day after losing the top in state players to Nutt and on signing day getting questioned about it.  Well fast forward 4 years and This class was the foundation for MSU season last year.

Relevance here is that Mullen is all about evaluating and development similar to what CBB has done here.  While we fret over recruiting keep in mind that this isn't CBBs first rodeo and at the end of the day he is going to sign kids that's fit what he is trying to both on AND off the field.  While we all want the Agims, whites, whaleys of the world it isn't the end all be all if we don't

http://maroonandwhitenation.com/2015/05/05/mike-herndon-owes-dan-mullen-a-sincere-apology/

This reminds me of what Bobby Bowden said just before he left FSU or just after.  He was asked why his team underperformed when they always had a top 10 recruiting class on paper with all the 4 and 5 star players.  He said they just did a poor job evaluating how some of these star players would adapt to the college life and FSU's system.  There's more to the success of player than just the number of stars by his name.

[bigdaddyhawg]

There's more to the success of player than just the number of stars by his name.

What??? 

You are risking turning the world of some of our Hogville brothers completely upside down with this revelation!!

[Boarcephus]

What??? 

You are risking turning the world of some of our Hogville brothers completely upside down with this revelation!!

Just trying to gently ease some of them into another way of looking at things! 

[bigdaddyhawg]

Just trying to gently ease some of them into another way of looking at things! 

Yeah, good luck on that!!  Just don't hold your breath -- it's a tightly held belief for most.

[PaintballHog]

This reminds me of what Bobby Bowden said just before he left FSU or just after.  He was asked why his team underperformed when they always had a top 10 recruiting class on paper with all the 4 and 5 star players.  He said they just did a poor job evaluating how some of these star players would adapt to the college life and FSU's system.  There's more to the success of player than just the number of stars by his name.

Nobody has said recruiting was the end-all, but it's arguably the biggest input in a championship team.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Nobody has said recruiting was the end-all, but it's arguably the biggest input in a championship team.

I'd go further than that: recruiting is probably the most important aspect of building a winning football team.  You can't win, especially, in the SEC, without great talent.

It's just that recruiting rankings should not be equated to talent.  They are done by people, and people are flawed and have biases.  And a lot of them are dishonest and lazy, as well.

For those reasons alone recruiting rankings should be taken with a grain of salt.

[PaintballHog]

I'd go further than that: recruiting is probably the most important aspect of building a winning football team.  You can't win, especially, in the SEC, without great talent.

It's just that recruiting rankings should not be equated to talent.  They are done by people, and people are flawed and have biases.  And a lot of them are dishonest and lazy, as well.

For those reasons alone recruiting rankings should be taken with a grain of salt.

I would agree with you, but the numbers do show a strong correlation in head to head match up wins, draft picks, and championships. If you look at it at an individual level, yeah there's huge his and misses, which I see your point when we're talking about individuals in Arkansas's recruiting, but taking a step back and looking at it over the years, the rankings are fairly accurate.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

It would be interesting to see out of all the scholarships offered by this staff, how many went to 4* or higher players.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I would agree with you, but the numbers do show a strong correlation in head to head match up wins, draft picks, and championships. If you look at it at an individual level, yeah there's huge his and misses, which I see your point when we're talking about individuals in Arkansas's recruiting, but taking a step back and looking at it over the years, the rankings are fairly accurate.

Yes, it's about time frame, not a snap shot.  It's about arguing the rule over the exception.  There are always exceptions to rules, but they are usually fleeting...like MSU I bet.  The rule governs.  Fans everywhere like to argue exceptions, because we believe we are the one exception...the special, unique situation that defies the rule.

[PaintballHog]

It would be interesting to see out of all the scholarships offered by this staff, how many went to 4* or higher players.

http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/Offers

There are quite a few. It's actually surprising with his "no visit no offer" rule. I guess 5 and high 4*'s get a pass.

[bigdaddyhawg]

but taking a step back and looking at it over the years, the rankings are fairly accurate.

I'm not sure if you're talking here specifically as it regards Arkansas, but if you're not, I've got three points that would destroy your point:

1. University of Texas during Mack's last number of years at UT.

2. Notre Dame, for forever.

3. USC over the last number of years.

All these schools had perennial top 10 classes, but yet were producing mediocre teams, some times below .500.

And obviously every year there are exceptions to the "rule" you are talking about.

One thing that makes the recruiting experts, recruiting rankings look so good is the teams at or near the top of the recruiting rankings also have very good to great coaching staffs, fan bases, etc.  Those schools have always won and they will always win, with exceptions here and there.

I have statistical training, and I know the correlation between recruiting rankings and team rankings exists, but it is a loose correlation at best.  And it is that for a reason: recruiting rankings are a very flawed way to examine the strengths and weaknesses of potential athletes and those examinations are subjective.

It's a weak system, but there's no other published system out there to compare it to.

The only other evaluation systems are done by each individual coaching staffs, and for most staffs their system is much better than what is being done by the recruiting services.  But they don't put their rankings in a magazine.