View Poll Results: What percentage does talent matter?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • 90% talent / 10% other

    3 6.67%
  • 70% talent / 30% other

    30 66.67%
  • 50% talent / 50% other

    12 26.67%
  • 30% talent / 70% other

    0 0%
  • 10% talent / 90% other

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1

    Default POLL - Talent vs Coaching / Enthusiasm (other)

    It's often argued on here the importance of talent (rankings / recruiting) versus other factors in winning at the college football level. What do you feel is the mix of importance? Talent vs other factors (coaching, game day enthusiasm, strategy, etc)
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"


  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    It's often argued on here the importance of talent (rankings / recruiting) versus other factors in winning at the college football level. What do you feel is the mix of importance? Talent vs other factors (coaching, game day enthusiasm, strategy, etc)
    I think talent it about 70% of the equation, and I wouldn't expect a team to outperform their talent by more than a win or two per season due to coaching or other factors.

  3. #3

    Default

    Coaching and all the other things play a factor but in the end it comes down to the players. Talent doesn't have to go hand in hand with the recruiting rankings but you have to have the right players to be successful.

    I look at it this way. If you swapped the players from Alabama and Rutgers leaving all other factors the same. Does anyone not think that Rutgers would at the very least be a factor in the Big Ten even with their coaching mess? On the flip side, the Alabama coaches might be able to cover some of the deficiencies with the Rutgers players but Alabama would not be a force in the SEC with Rutgers current talent.
    Last edited by MNVCGUY; 10-11-2019 at 09:36 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    Coaching and all the other things play a factor but in the end it comes down to the players. Talent does have to go hand in hand with the recruiting rankings but you have to have the right players to be successful.

    I look at it this way. If you swapped the players from Alabama and Rutgers leaving all other factors the same. Does anyone not think that Rutgers would at the very least be a factor in the Big Ten even with their coaching mess? On the flip side, the Alabama coaches might be able to cover some of the deficiencies with the Rutgers players but Alabama would not be a force in the SEC with Rutgers current talent.
    I think you meant to type: "Talent doesn't have to go hand in hand with recruiting rankings.." On that I agree because recruiting rankings are much more uncertain in football than in basketball, at least outside of the very top teams.

    Your second paragraph illustrates why talent should be a much more highly weighted in college football because of the gross disparities in talent you encounter in matchups. You don't have those anywhere to the same degree in pro football or pro sports in general.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,243

    Default

    If it’s talent levels we’re going to get blown out of the water this Saturday. Fortunately it’s about half and half as far as performance goes. It’s pretty hard to win conference or national championships but when teams edge into that top 20 range in national recruiting there is a potential for a championship as Clemson showed in recent years and going back historically maybe others. Wisconsin and Iowa and Northwestern and Purdue won conference championships despite talent levels in the 30s and 40s. It’s a huge factor but maybe overrated to some extent at times.

    People tend to discount that the best coaches and teachers rise to the top programs and that tends to elevate them to a higher gear. Others fade away as the coaching carousel turns.

  6. #6

    Default

    80# talent. 20% everything else.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,243

    Default

    Part of the reason some coaches do better than expected may be partly from recognizing unheralded or underrecrtuited players or taking a chance on guys that don’t rate as well for the next level. AWII, TM2, Bateman.

    We’ve had this argument before but if the top 5 recruiting teams play the teams rated 80-85 they probably win 90-95% of the time but it gets a lot murkier pitting 30th vs 40th or 20th vs 25th. What is the discount factor for a lesser class? The spread has to be a factor when discussing win probability.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The Woodlands, TX
    Posts
    1,526
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The single most important duty of a head college football coach is recruiting recruiting and recruiting!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonTXGopher View Post
    The single most important duty of a head college football coach is recruiting recruiting and recruiting!
    This might be correct, but too many people let the rankings define how well recruiting is going. What is as important as landing guys that are highly rated is recruiting the type of players you need for your system. There are plenty of examples out there to show us that you cant just throw a bunch of highly rated recruits into the mix and hope a winner pops out. Conversely, plenty of coaches have been able to field teams that performed much higher than their recruiting ratings because they knew their system, and recruited the right guys.

  10. #10

    Default

    I'd say 70 percent on the talent/enthusiasm and 30 percent on the coaching/in game decisions. Not to discredit the latter at all, much goes into it. However, talent and enthusiasm goes a long way. I was listening to ESPNU Radio on Sirius not long ago and they were talking in depth about Dabo Swiney. The conversation was boiling down to Swiney maybe not being the greatest X's and O's guy, but a great recruiter who's able to inject a lot of energy into the program. The results have been great of course.
    You guys are playing like this is some throw away game up in Rochester.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IceBoxGopher View Post
    I was listening to ESPNU Radio on Sirius not long ago and they were talking in depth about Dabo Swiney. The conversation was boiling down to Swiney maybe not being the greatest X's and O's guy, but a great recruiter who's able to inject a lot of energy into the program. The results have been great of course.
    Why does that sound familiar /s

    Hopefully Fleck can pull off a similar transformation here

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The Woodlands, TX
    Posts
    1,526
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleedsmaroonandgold View Post
    This might be correct, but too many people let the rankings define how well recruiting is going. What is as important as landing guys that are highly rated is recruiting the type of players you need for your system. There are plenty of examples out there to show us that you cant just throw a bunch of highly rated recruits into the mix and hope a winner pops out. Conversely, plenty of coaches have been able to field teams that performed much higher than their recruiting ratings because they knew their system, and recruited the right guys.
    Alabama signs 20+ four and five star players every year. Not a P5 coach out there that couldn't win championships with that kind of talent. When it comes to finding talent that can be developed like most coaches have to do, I get it. The top programs can't help be succesful on some level with top five classes every year. Now, if you want to discuss the difference between the 17th and 31st ranked recruiting class, we can debate that all day.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonTXGopher View Post
    Alabama signs 20+ four and five star players every year. Not a P5 coach out there that couldn't win championships with that kind of talent. When it comes to finding talent that can be developed like most coaches have to do, I get it. The top programs can't help be succesful on some level with top five classes every year. Now, if you want to discuss the difference between the 17th and 31st ranked recruiting class, we can debate that all day.
    Isn’t that exactly what we’re talking about? Any team loaded up with mostly blue chip players is going to be a tough out (although that isn’t always the case either, see TN, USC, et al). Alabma might have 70 consensus blue chippers (made it up) while the 15th ranked team might have 25 (also made up) and the 35th ranked team has 5 or 6.

    The Big Ten West is much more evenly balanced and in theory coaching is at least 50% of the equation to success and even more. Furthermore winning begets better recruits and the virtuous cycle begins. What comes first chicken/egg type stuff. I’d argue teams like ours have to build slowly over a number of years. That requires a great staff.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonTXGopher View Post
    The single most important duty of a head college football coach is recruiting recruiting and recruiting!
    Tennessee

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleedsmaroonandgold View Post
    This might be correct, but too many people let the rankings define how well recruiting is going.
    Bingo. Maybe the most accurate statement ever posted on GH.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Consensus Top 25 Class, 4 of final 5, 80% underclassmen, Youngest Team, 2nd Youngest Team, Best Back-To-Back Classes Ever, 9 Scholarship Seniors, HS Teacher, 8-Hour Radius, Major Paycut

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •