...
But if you think recruiting is getting better .... then why are the results not? ...
I see three "eras" in recruiting under Solich:
1. The first was 2005-9, under Germano. There weren't a lot of highly rated recruits, but there were a lot of hidden gems. These recruits powered Ohio to the successes of 2009-12. It's still a shame that we never saw how good that 2012 team could have been.
2. The second recruiting "era" was 2010-12. I think the 2010 recruiting year was awful. It was very small, and even then there were a lot of players than never contributed. Smith and Dietz were hurt, and Kozak, Tarrant, Grady, Snyder, Jones, Atwell, and Stefanski vanished. I think 2011 looked good on paper, but had a lot of players who never contributed as much as hoped (Price, Haser, Welter, Hammonds, Bennett, Bell, Curtis), so it didn't turn out well as hoped. Then 2012 was another small class; it was good, but small, only 14 players, and then three of them promptly had career ending injuries (Tanner, Henry, Schany), making it even smaller. Those three classes contributed to your slump from 2013-15.
3. The third recruiting "era" was 2013-present. I see these classes as much better than 2010-12, and getting better each year. Based on what I have seen so far, I think they are substantially better than the classes of 2005-9, too. Time will tell us the answer to that.
I hope that this answers your question. When i said that I thought recruiting classes were improving, I was speaking of the last four years, and not a continuous improvement. There was definitely a valley in the middle. I guess that leads to two more questions:
1. If a valley in recruiting can lead to some worse years a few years later, why can't an upswing in recruiting lead to better years, too?
2. If they managed to remain bowl eligible, even with those not-very-good recruiting years, what can they do with the very good recruiting classes of 2014-17 (if they are as good as I think they are)?
Last Edited: 5/19/2017 11:56:13 AM by L.C.