It's like de ja vu all over again. I rarely post in the offseason, but often look on here to catch up on recruiting news and rumors. I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact same thread every 2-3 weeks since the CW era. Same arguments, same differing points of view, even some of the same posters. I'm not trying to throw water on everyone's firestorm contest in this thread, but I think there are some things from both sides that we can all agree on:
1. ND is recruiting from a smaller pool due to academic standards...not a bad thing because that represents the character and principles of the institution that we love, but not helpful in the ability to cast a wide net that the top programs are capable of
2. ND pulls in good kids with good talent. They have their plan A of athletes that sometimes we get homerun hitters (Jaylon Smith, Tuitt, Folston, etc.). They have their plan B athletes that comprise the bulk of the team and some of them grow into standouts, some perform their job at a competitive level, some just don't cut it. They have their plan C athletes that they think they can turn into the hidden gems. This plan is different than Alabama, Ohio State, etc. because their percentages are different. They have a wider net for their plan A guys than us, a comparable net for the plan B guys, and a much smaller net than our plan C guys. It is what it is.
3. None of this means that ND cannot compete and push for a playoff or even an NC. We saw it last year and in 2012. It also doesn't mean that we are going to be a 10-14 win team every year and we will have years of 8-4, 9-3 because there are just so many factors in such a long season.
4. Recruiting is fun to watch and read, but we are still only dealing with 17-18 year olds, who are for all intents and purposes just 17-18 year olds. There is so much that can change and impact a 17-18 year old's physical, mental and athletic abilities between now and when they are 22. There is also so much that goes into the development of a college football program: the coach/player relationships, player development, injuries, academics, physical development, mental development, emotional ups and downs of 18-22 year olds, and most shockingly to everyone...human nature mistakes.
5. Recruiting is the first step on a long ladder. Everyone on this board can site a team that recruits in the top 5-10 every year but falls flat (Georgia as just a gut example, but I'm not wasting my time researching to see how accurate that is), a team that recruits in the 20-35 range every year but is highly competitive (Stanford, MSU, Oregon), and then the more correlative examples of teams who recruit in the top 5-10 and are in top 5-10 every year.
I love looking at recruiting as that first step and hope for those 5* kids at every announcement as much as you all do and get bummed when they choose elsewhere. But the real question is systemic. How does this first step piece of recruiting fit with the program's direction and goals? That's a whole different pandora's box discussion. I'm not suggesting that I'm unhappy with BK and the program he is running. Honestly, I wish I were a part of it in some way, so at least I'd have a better idea of what the vision and the strategic plan (not football strategy, more business type strategy) is for next year, 3 years down the road and beyond.
Ok, I rambled much more than I expected. So, in conclusion, these arguments you all are having are not going to end any time soon. Many of your perspectives and thoughts, though at times are different and from different perspectives, are not wrong. But they do clash. Look how this discussion of 5* recruits fits into the larger sense of the program's development and maybe save some of your responses in a file so that when someone starts up this same topic in 2-3 weeks, you can just save yourself some time and copy and paste.
