Article by Martin Fennelly from the Tampa Tribune....

[tau.reanb]

With the exception of one-- maybe two-- classes, when did the last guy ever land those 4 and 5-star superstar athletes? 

And how many times do we have to repeat that those stars mean nothing.  Most of USF's biggest stars had only a couple stars coming in (Nate Allen, George Selvie, Matt Grothe), and a lot of the ones who did have stars, never hacked it at USF (See Ford, Mike). 

[Guest nybullsfan]

better question is: who CAN we recruit??

[USF_Grouper]

Talk about how recruiting doesn't matter as much as you like.  Then why is there is a whole other message board on this site dedicated to it?  Also, I don't recall any team ranked in the 50's and 60's winning any national chanpionships.  AL and AUB and FL don't win it with 2 and 3 star recruits as you seem to want to propose.   We're losing recruiting battles to programs we should not be.  As for players "losing stars" b ecause they signed with us?   Give me a break.  It's not like we're landing kids who were previously 4 and 5 stars and they are getting downgraded to 2.  We're not even coming close to those kids. 

It isn't that recruiting doesn't matter, it's that recruiting rankings don't matter!

I wouldn't go down the line of there being a whole other message board some who giving credibility to a subject - we also have a trough and a mad cow lounge!

And the reason you don't see teams in 50's and 60's win national championship is teams don't win national championships over night.  Teams start to have success and suddenly the kids they recruit become 4 and 5 star.  The causality of the relationship is still somewhat indeterministic!

[Carolina_Bull]

Watching Stanford neuter Va. Tech.

Proof positive (again) that coaching is more important than recruiting.

[MikeG]

coaching is important, of course

rankings can be somewhat skewed to the bigger programs

but in general, the better known programs have a better shot at landing the more highly rated kids. THe only way we have ever gotten around that was taking chances on kids who were close to not qualifying, and waiting for them to come through Juco- or getting transfers-- or the occasional kid who was overlooked who became a whale of a player.

The problem is that Holtz doesn't have the ties with the state programs as deep as our old staff did have-- and it takes time to re-establish those ties. So to me, that is almost expected that we would not be killing it with recruiting right out of the box with Holtz.

Even if we had the same staff here as before-- we would struggle getting the more widely known recruits-- it is just the way it is. USF is not a prime destination for the elite recruits of the nation-- it is a fact. It shouldn't even be that shocking.

Holtz will get recruits of the same range and talent that Leavitt landed, sometimes better when we were playing better and a hotter team to pick as where they wanted to go. The key is for his staff to do a great job of evaluating recruits and fitting the pieces together so we can get the success needed to improve our image with future recruits.

that isn't happening overnight folks

[Bull94]

I would rather the hacks at rivals rate us as recruiting national champions then for us to actually win anything on the field.

it could have to do with our limited class and the fact that we are loading up on non-skill players.

3 years ago TCU ranked in the 90's. start winning with all those lower ranked recruits and you automatically get ranked better according to rivals. regardless of whether the talent is actually any better.

they don't really evaluate most of these kids. they just rank them based on who they sign with.

Talk about how recruiting doesn't matter as much as you like.  Then why is there is a whole other message board on this site dedicated to it?  Also, I don't recall any team ranked in the 50's and 60's winning any national chanpionships.  AL and AUB and FL don't win it with 2 and 3 star recruits as you seem to want to propose.   We're losing recruiting battles to programs we should not be.  As for players "losing stars" b ecause they signed with us?   Give me a break.  It's not like we're landing kids who were previously 4 and 5 stars and they are getting downgraded to 2.  We're not even coming close to those kids. 

I can give you the top ten recruiting classes for 2012.

1. UF

2 Texas

3. Notre Dame

4. Alabama

5. USC

6. Michigan

7. LSU

8. FSU

9. Miami

10. Ohio State

we aren't going to sign the next reggie bush or tim tebow but we did have more NFL draft picks last year than ND and more than half of the SEC. rivals ranks based on the number of subscribers. do the top schools get the top talent? absolutely but ND has been in the top 5 while TCU just started to crack the top 50. tell me who has been more successful over the last 5 years.

[BDYZR]

$$$$ = *****

[Triple B]

$$$$ = *****

Did you write a word to the right of the equal sign?

[bullcocky101]

Players are given stars based on the quality of schools offering up scholarship. Under Leavitt, we were stealing recruits from Florida State, Florida, Clemson, and Miami. Holtz right now seems to be going after the diamonds in the rough and taking recruits from Minnesota, Iowa State, and Middle Tenn.

[jaym]

Guys you know that Franks and Burnam handled a ton of the recruiting under the previous and current coaching staff?

There were not a ton of schollys to give this year. They are going after needs.