We have (maybe just I have) gone overboard with the debate, as we usually do when it comes to recruiting rankings. I have gone out and found published academic research on the topic. The results suggest that there is in fact (surprise surprise) a strong correlation to team recruiting rankings and winning %. The quote is from a 2010 paper entitledrediction Vs. Production and is written by Jamie McNeilly Another guy ran a similar analysis and found a strong correlation b/w team recruiting rankings and wining %. My argument is that there is an important statistical correlation b/w recruiting rankings (at a team level more than individual level) and that when a team does much better or much worse than their recruiting rankings suggest, that the most likely factor is the quality of the coaching staff (something much harder to measure with data of course). Thus, I strongly believe that our team aggregate rankings over the past several years which is in between 50+ and 60+ would suggest that with adequate coaching we should have been around 60 in the nation last year and not 124th. Because HCMM has done the opposite of Embree-achieved winning % above what his recruiting numbers would suggest, that he and his crew are in fact a good coaches capable of altering the outcome of a few games a year at least. Thoughts?