Paul, your #4-5 did not apply as recently as a few years ago, and as I pointed out, a few years ago Ohio did not have the facilities or tradition, either. Each year the case for Ohio gets stronger, and each year the recruiting class gets stronger as well. I don't know what more you want, well, actually I do, but I also know you probably will never get it, and if you do, you won't be as happy as you think because it will only last a year or two.
When you want to turn a program around, there are two approaches - one is the hot salesman that gets top recruiting classes. The other is the solid coach. The trouble with the "great recruiters" is that they often aren't very good coaches, so, they have spotty success, and, if they aren't careful, their record eventually catches up with them. These types are also good at selling themselves, so, they use that spotty success to sell themselves up the ranks, and they try not to stay in any one place too long. Often they sell themselves to the top, then crash and burn. When you do find a coach that is a great salesman, but also a good coach, they move right to the top, and quickly, because they are a rare breed. I'd put Brian Kelly in that group, by the way. He stayed at CMU 3 years, and Cincy 3 years, on his way to Notre Dame.
Is Solich cut from that same cloth? No, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I agree with you that his core strength is not recruiting, but instead is coaching. Obviously he's an adequate recruiter because, if he wasn't, Ohio wouldn't be winning. In my opinion, the best way to build a solid program is to build it on solid coaching. Following that method what you see happen is that over time, the program builds a reputation, and the recruiting classes get better. In this regard Solich is like such coaches as his mentor, Tom Osborne, Bill Snyder at Kansas State, and Jim Grobe, for that matter. These weren't great "salesmen", and the recruiting classes they brought in early in their careers weren't the greatest. Instead they built a reputation for a winning program, which in turn attracted better recruits, and over a long period of time the program continued to progress. I'm sure you can think of a lot of other coaches in this same mold. Sadly for Ohio, Grobe left just as he was establishing a reputation at Ohio, and Ohio took a step backwards, but had he stayed, I think Ohio would have continued to make steady progress.
As for this year's class, we'll see where it ends up being ranked, but I think it will be higher than 8th, though the ranking will be held back some by the small class size. I wouldn't put any stock in the current Rivals rankings because at this point their ratings are pretty meaningless. I'm guessing Rivals had some cutbacks in their budget this year because they have been very, very slow to rate players, not just for Ohio, but for all MAC teams. I think that less than 30% of the MAC recruits have been ranked yet.
247 Sports comes closer to having ranked the bulk of recruits. They also have Ohio 8th because their class will be smaller than some of the others. I prefer quality to quantity, however, and if you look at average ranking per player it is:
U.Mass 78.5 (0/8 ranked under 76, lowest 76)
Ohio 78.1 (1/10 ranked under 76, lowest 75)
Toledo at 77.65 (4/17 ranked under 76, lowest 73)
NIU 77.17 (5/12 ranked under 76, lowest 71)
BG 77.0 (3/12 ranked under 76, lowest 71)
Ball State 76.94 (6/17 ranked under 76, lowest 70)
Kent 76.38 (5/8 ranked under 76, lowest 71)
WMU 75.83 (7/13 ranked under 76, lowest 71)
CMU 75.78 (10/18 ranked under 76, lowest 71)
Akron 75.67 (3/6 ranked under 76, lowest 72)
Miami 75.00 (6/10 ranked under 76, lowest 73)
Buffalo 75.00 (3/5 ranked under 76, lowest 72)
EMU 74.50 (7/9 ranked under 76, lowest 70)
I'm not sure if there is grade inflation at work, because all MAC schools are way up from last year, but no one more so than Ohio. Ohio averaged 75.58 last year, but if you take out the three no-shows and the one that left, they only averaged 74.25. As far as the accuracy of their ratings, the ratings look pretty accurate to me. Their highest rated player was Sebastian Smith, who would have played had he not gotten hurt, at 85. Next were Windham and Laseak, who was listed as #2 at DE, but they kept his redshirt. Next came John Tanner at 75, who was also out with an injury. The ones recruited last year that did play were Tim Edmond (75), Daz Patterson (73), Matt Waters (74), and Ty Branz (72). Thus, you'll be happy to know that, in theory, every one of this years recruits are better than those 4.
I should add that their ratings are confusing because they have two for each player. Their rating, and a "composite" rating, which they pull from somewhere else. I personally think their rating of Daz was way low, and the composite for him agrees, coming in at 78. The composites were also much higher than theirs for a number of other players, and I hope those turn out to be right. This year their ratings are closer to the composite numbers, which I suppose accounts for the grade inflation. The average composite for last year, excluding no-shows, was 76.8.
Last Edited: 11/20/2012 9:25:25 PM by L.C.