Does anyone think the overall trajectory of a college football program is determined by the staff's "coaching" as opposed to its recruiting? It seems pretty obvious that the biggest difference between the winners and losers is recruiting, not scheme or clock management or player development.
This is undeniable in college basketball. Anyone care to argue it's not the case for football?
And what does that mean for BO?
I think it means if he loses games and can't recruit, he can't succeed. The rest is shuffling deck chairs.
This is undeniable in college basketball. Anyone care to argue it's not the case for football?
And what does that mean for BO?
I think it means if he loses games and can't recruit, he can't succeed. The rest is shuffling deck chairs.
Last edited:
