SMQ has an awesome post on recruting rankings and correlation with on the field success. I suggest all of you "but Mack has the best class every year so he must be underachieving types" go take a read. sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228 In pertinent part: Texas actually slightly overachieves--indeed, does better than OU.
47 Texas A&M 24-34 .414 14 -33 oops.....Having tied for the 14th best class over the last few years with Notre Dame, they have tied for the 47th best record in that same span (coaching problems with Fran?). I thought that was interesting as well that we tend to think we are underachieving big time around here, when in fact we are right on par if not slightly better than our recruiting.
Of course recruiting rankings do matter. But, there should be some method of reducing the ranking of a class if, for example, you signed two 5-star quarterbacks. One of the quarterbacks would actually be no more valuable than a 1-star. Stars don't matter if you never leave the bench. It is not uncommon for elite teams to sign 2 4-star rubbing backs every year. At any given time they couldl have 7 4-star backs on the bench. Those stars help their recruiting rankings but may not help their team other than depth. Personally, I think Mack is underrated for his recruiting mix by not having too many redundant "stars" in his recruiting classes. But then, nobody asked me.
