To the extent that the chart is accurate, the coaches in the gray area are better at "coaching", and those in the red area are better at "recruiting", while those along the line are equal in both skills. If the goal is to win games, does it matter whether the coaches win it by recruiting better players, or by coaching up worse players? For example, on the chart Boston College teams have been about as good as Ohio's teams, despite having had much better recruiting. Is one "better" than the other? Or is it just that there are more than one way to get to the same place?
I think it's universally true that those schools in the gray want to see their schools recruiting better, while those in the red want to see their schools get more out of the players they have recruited. Given where Ohio is on the chart, it isn't surprising that the main complaint here is a desire for better recruiting (with the belief that better recruiting would move Ohio diagonally to the left, and that they would stay in the gray area).
Interestingly, had you placed Solich on the same chart when he was at Nebraska, his teams probably averaged about #20, and recruiting probably was about #35, so he was positioned well into the gray while there, too. The coach that followed him was more like #15 recruiting, #40 team rank, so he was well into the red, while their current coach is right on the line, so it can move around a lot, depending on who the coach is.
Last Edited: 10/3/2014 6:07:31 PM by L.C.