This recruiting class is only about halfway over. A fairer statement is that they've signed a player from Arizona the last two classes.
You'll have to forgive me for ignoring bountiful, but the fact remains Kelly and Co. have made a demonstrable effort to build a recruiting network (i.e. know the coaches and talent) in Arizona. The list of offers in AZ is higher than under Weis/Willingham/Davie etc. You're right, Arizona has never been a pipeline for Notre Dame--and of course that's true, there aren't many states further away from South Bend.
Two years ago we saw the coaching staff put out a lot of offers into Arizona and Texas, and it paid dividends. This year we're seeing them flood Louisiana with offers, and that too will pay dividends. This staff does a remarkable job of targeting vulnerable talent-rich areas and getting after it, and Arizona, Phoenix especially, is one of them.
It seems as though we are talking near each other, but not necessarily having the same conversation.
I am not questioning the coaches' efforts in recruiting the state. Whether that pays dividends in the future is not a debate I'm having. My point does not even have anything to do with the future but with the past. The past leads me to wonder if there is something about the state of AZ (the culture, the weather, or some unknown, possibly unidentifiable other factor) that historically has caused recruits to not be so interested in ND. There have been many AZ recruits that say they had high interest in ND, but very rarely has ND been in serious contention for signing them.
So I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Maybe that history is changing, maybe it's not. My point is, in the past it seems as though there is something other than not recruiting the state hard enough that is causing ND to miss out on AZ recruits.
Also, that is not a "fairer" way of stating ND's success with AZ recruits. Fairer means you are not skewing or slanting the stats in your favor of your point. Your way of saying they signed two recruits in the last two years is a completely biased way of assessing the situation.
For example, if a hitter has 4 at-bats in a game, strikes out the first two times, hits the ball his 3rd at bat but is thrown out, and on his third at bat gets a single but the game is still being played (whether he scores and that single means anything to the final outcome is still in doubt); that is stating it plainly with no bias. Your way would be "well, to be fair he did hit the ball his last two at bats." That is not fairer way of saying how well the hitter hit.
Kelly & Co has signed 4 classes (at-bats), they struck out the first two classes, they "hit the ball" by signing Neal but were "thrown out", and it is yet to be seen if Luke's signing (a single) adds anything appreciable to the success of the team. That's the fairest way of saying it, because it is simple facts.
