Recruiting doesn’t matter at the smallest school in division one... The way we are going to continue to win is to out-evaluate the rest of the conference. We have to find the kids that didn’t get a ton of offers and we have to offer first.
I get what you re trying to say, but recruiting matters. A lot. While it is possible to out-evaluate from time to time, it is unlikely that Tulsa will be able to recruit a roster of players who were all appreciably under evaluated by everyone else.
And yes, finding someone early and making an offer does help. But it comes with the risk that they do not pan out as anticipated or, unfortunately more likely, others catch on that they are good and we are again in an head to head battle...which may not bode well. At that juncture, retaining less talented players isn't going to overcome the problem and having a 3 deep roster of less talented players doesn't matter (talent meaning skill, size, etc. all together).
Talent scouting is an art, not a science. Yes coaching, development, retention and all that comes into play. But there's a reason the "big boys" usually win, and it isn't a 21+ point gap in coaching talent. There's a reason seeing a team without the top players competing with the big boys is always an exciting story. If one were to run recruiting rankings next to win/loss rankings three year later, the more desirable recruits usually win.
Actually, no nee for such a hypothetical exercise, the numbers have been run, here is one example (yes it has faults, but it is a good example anyway):
http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...ings-vs-on-field-success-national-signing-day
Looking at the numbers, it is very possible to punch above your class by a certain margin (particularly if you snipe a few strong recruits and can build on them). TCU, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State and other have been doing so fairly regularly. Oklahoma State has recruiting classes in ranked in the low 20s, but cracks the top 25 for results. Wisconsin classes in the 40s, and cracks the top 15. And it is possible to under achieve with great recruits (see, e.g., Texas).
But results even close to that go from rare to "look at these freaks" once you drop below the 50% mark of recruiting classes (only Boise State and K State in the data set above, covering 2010-2014). Tulsa has been having to punch about our recruiting levels to be mediocre. Now, to screw up my entire argument, there may now be data to suggest we are under-performing given our recruiting.
But dang it, my macro point still stands!
(Sorry if it sounds like I'm trashing Tulsa or bashing our recruits, but objectively they are not as desirable based on offers and stars and the results speak for themselves)
