A little perspective on recruiting

[tussin]

That's a fair point, but as we've discussed here many times, those programs all: (1) oversign/ grayshirt; (2) accept JuCos; (3) have lower admissions standards; etc. ND can't adopt their recruiting practices without becoming just another football factory.

At this point, it looks like Stanford's model is the only one that could potentially lead us back to another title without compromising our values. So we'd better hope you guys are wrong, and that Stanford is capable of breaking through with its largely 3-driven machine.

I'm not sure I agree with this. ND has the capability to have top 5 classes ever year. We would have had top 5-ish classes the last 4 years if they simply retained the top of their classes. This season would be a completely different story if you add guys like Darby, Greenberry, Vanderdoes, Kiel to this team and Golson doesn't get in trouble. I don't think it's a stretch to say we may be undefeated right now.

IMO, the real question is whether these attrition problems are simply bad luck, or should be considered a yearly inevitable cost at the top of the class that we need to prepare for. If it's bad luck, then no big deal... continue doing what we are doing and the program will build. If it's inevitable, then we need to adjust our recruiting strategy to the Stanford model or start taking JuCos to address depth issues.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Indeed. That is why we are so frustrated with grey shirting. It's such an enormous advantage. The NCAA needs to make every scholarship count. It's the only way to make it fair for everyone.

Not sure where you're seeing some huge advantage from grayshirting. It doesn't give a school extra players or scholarships. It just delays a player's enrollment to the following class, where he still counts against that class' 25 scholarships. It's not like you can sign 25 this year plus 5 grayshirts, and 25 next year for a total of 55. Those 5 grayshirts don't enroll until next year and count against next year's class, meaning you can only sign 20 new guys next year, for a total of 50.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm not sure I agree with this. ND has the capability to have top 5 classes ever year. We would have had top 5-ish classes the last 4 years if they simply retained the top of their classes. This season would be a completely different story if you add guys like Darby, Greenberry, Vanderdoes, Kiel to this team and Golson doesn't get in trouble. I don't think it's a stretch to say we may be undefeated right now.

IMO, the real question is whether these attrition problems are simply bad luck, or should be considered a yearly inevitable cost at the top of the class that we need to prepare for. If it's bad luck, then no big deal... continue doing what we are doing and the program will build. If it's inevitable, then we need to adjust our recruiting strategy to the Stanford model or start taking JuCos to address depth issues.

Agreed with everything until I got to this. As I mentioned above, if we utilize the Stanford strategy, then we should expect the same results. That is not good enough. I want championships.

I really want to hear everyone's thoughts on this idea. Instead of "filling bodies" with 3 stars with potential (and paying for it for 4 years if they don't pan out), why not only go after 3 stars that we have evaluated as high potential guys that are super athletic (kinda like Stanford, but on a more limited scale). After that, any "warm body" type kids are athletic preferred walk ons. That way, if they don't turn into Schmidt level players, we can fill their spot with a new preferred walk on or scholarship player.

This wouldn't be oversigning, as they aren't scholarship players. Are we going to miss on some 3 star guys with offers? Sure, but I think the benefits would outweigh the negatives and we would still have a pool of athletic guys with potential to "coach up".

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So the correlation between high school rankings and college/pro success is not 1. And it's not 0. I think everybody's clear on that.

There's lots of noise in individual-level data in any domain. There's less noise in aggregated data. The more interesting question is the correlation between class rankings and team success. As several have noted, my bet would be that this correlation is extremely high.

Exactly. Where's Nate Silver when you need him?

 

[irishog77]

I'm with Team Wooly.

(Although his plan may need some amending.)

 

[chubler]

I think Stanford is the best counter-example. I don't consider MSU to be an elite program. I also think Oregon and Baylor are unique cases when you look at their style of play and the type of recruits they need to succeed.

My point is pointed more towards national championship winners. You see a lot of recruiting success if you look at highly successful, dynasty-type, programs in recent history (Bama, USC, Florida, maybe Oklahoma). What's the last national champion that consisted of classes that weren't highly rated?

Not so sure you need "top recruits" filling out your entire roster to be successful. Take Wisconsin vs. Bama and OL for example- equal NFL draft production in recent years, believe it or not. Are Wisconsin's OL any worse prospects coming out of high school? I doubt it. IMO it has more to do with the fact that most of them play in the rural Midwest, while Bama's play in the deep south. Kids don't grow faster or stronger in the south than they do in the north, that's biological fact. There might be more fast ones down there due to demographics, but just because MSU doesn't have a roster full of southern guys doesn't mean they couldn't play defense with the best of them. It's the lack of blue-chip, elite recruits that results in both UW and MSU coming up just short most years.

Apart from the top guys (the 5*'s), there's not too much difference amongst prospects. Which lines right up with the earlier statistics- 50% of 5* is huge, but 10% and 3% aren't that different. So really it comes down to getting the 5*'s, and whether your coaching staff can find the 10% and the 3% "diamonds" among the huge amounts of 4- and 3-star "rough".

One more thought- Just because Wisconsin, MSU and Stanford are more traditional than Baylor and Oregon doesn't make them any less of a system-based program. Bama's the prime example of this, actually. At every one of those places, the identity is consistent all the way from recruiting to playcalling. You recruit guys who are suited for the plays you want to call, and you call plays suited to the players you recruit (and all the stuff in between). It works, no matter how high or low your recruits are rated. The converse is also true- lose your identity as a program, or fail to develop one, and even with top talent you end up like Texas in recent years, or (regardless of what circumstances drove this) Notre Dame on Offense under Brian Kelly.

 

[woolybug25]

Not so sure you need "top recruits" filling out your entire roster to be successful. Take Wisconsin vs. Bama and OL for example- equal NFL draft production in recent years, believe it or not. Are Wisconsin's OL any worse prospects coming out of high school? I doubt it. IMO it has more to do with the fact that most of them play in the rural Midwest, while Bama's play in the deep south. Kids don't grow faster or stronger in the south than they do in the north, that's biological fact. There might be more fast ones down there due to demographics, but just because MSU doesn't have a roster full of southern guys doesn't mean they couldn't play defense with the best of them. It's the lack of blue-chip, elite recruits that results in both UW and MSU coming up just short most years.

Apart from the top guys (the 5*'s), there's not too much difference amongst prospects. Which lines right up with the earlier statistics- 50% of 5* is huge, but 10% and 3% aren't that different. So really it comes down to getting the 5*'s, and whether your coaching staff can find the 10% and the 3% "diamonds" among the huge amounts of 4- and 3-star "rough".

One more thought- Just because Wisconsin, MSU and Stanford are more traditional than Baylor and Oregon doesn't make them any less of a system-based program. Bama's the prime example of this, actually. At every one of those places, the identity is consistent all the way from recruiting to playcalling. You recruit guys who are suited for the plays you want to call, and you call plays suited to the players you recruit (and all the stuff in between). It works, no matter how high or low your recruits are rated. The converse is also true- lose your identity as a program, or fail to develop one, and even with top talent you end up like Texas in recent years, or (regardless of what circumstances drove this) Notre Dame on Offense under Brian Kelly.

How many of the teams you mentioned have won a championship in your lifetime?

 

[chubler]

How many of the teams you mentioned have won a championship in your lifetime?

None of them. But my point wasn't that they win championships with 3* guys, it's that they're consistently just short of championships with 3* guys, and IMO they're held back by their lack of "elite" (5*) guys. Who's the last eye-popping talent you saw come out of MSU, Wisconsin, and Stanford? I can list Andrew Luck and Joe Thomas between the three schools since 2005, and yet they've got how many BCS wins between them in that same time period?

I don't think our approach with scholarship #'s or anything else like that is a primary factor holding us back from competing for NC's. I think all we need to do is get into a system like they do, which means you get good at picking the right 3* guys, and take advantage of our ability to actually GET those special players (Jaylon Smith, etc.).

 

[irishog77]

Not so sure you need "top recruits" filling out your entire roster to be successful. Take Wisconsin vs. Bama and OL for example- equal NFL draft production in recent years, believe it or not. Are Wisconsin's OL any worse prospects coming out of high school? I doubt it. IMO it has more to do with the fact that most of them play in the rural Midwest, while Bama's play in the deep south. Kids don't grow faster or stronger in the south than they do in the north, that's biological fact. There might be more fast ones down there due to demographics, but just because MSU doesn't have a roster full of southern guys doesn't mean they couldn't play defense with the best of them. It's the lack of blue-chip, elite recruits that results in both UW and MSU coming up just short most years.

Apart from the top guys (the 5*'s), there's not too much difference amongst prospects. Which lines right up with the earlier statistics- 50% of 5* is huge, but 10% and 3% aren't that different. So really it comes down to getting the 5*'s, and whether your coaching staff can find the 10% and the 3% "diamonds" among the huge amounts of 4- and 3-star "rough".

One more thought- Just because Wisconsin, MSU and Stanford are more traditional than Baylor and Oregon doesn't make them any less of a system-based program. Bama's the prime example of this, actually. At every one of those places, the identity is consistent all the way from recruiting to playcalling. You recruit guys who are suited for the plays you want to call, and you call plays suited to the players you recruit (and all the stuff in between). It works, no matter how high or low your recruits are rated. The converse is also true- lose your identity as a program, or fail to develop one, and even with top talent you end up like Texas in recent years, or (regardless of what circumstances drove this) Notre Dame on Offense under Brian Kelly.

How many of the teams you mentioned have won a championship in your lifetime?

I'll add that while 10% and 3% don't seem like that much of a difference (especially compared to 50%), it really is. Different sites have different amounts of 4-Stars, but let's say there are 225 4-Stars every year. So 22.5 dudes are getting drafted in rounds 1-3. The odds of ND having one of those guys are decent. How many 3-Stars are there? 300? Even at 225, that's only 6.75 players. And then ND's chances of having one of those dwindles considerably.

 

[woolybug25]

None of them. But my point wasn't that they win championships with 3* guys, it's that they're consistently just short of championships with 3* guys, and IMO they're held back by their lack of "elite" (5*) guys. Who's the last eye-popping talent you saw come out of MSU, Wisconsin, and Stanford? I can list Andrew Luck and Joe Thomas between the three schools since 2005, and yet they've got how many BCS wins between them in that same time period?

I don't think our approach with scholarship #'s or anything else like that is a primary factor holding us back from competing for NC's. I think all we need to do is get into a system like they do, which means you get good at picking the right 3* guys, and take advantage of our ability to actually GET those special players (Jaylon Smith, etc.).

See, I don't think "consistently just short of championships" is what we should be striving for. We want championships, and the data shows that you do that by having consistent top 10 classes. We are capable of doing that now, so how do we take that next step? Imo, we do that by not missing on 3 star "bodies". We utulize preferred walkons for the depth athletes that supplement our elite recruits. That way, when they miss, we aren't stuck with them.

That being said, there are some three stars we would still go after. If the staff evaluated them as "High Potential" guys that the recruiting sites just missed on, then let's "coach em' up". But if they are truly a project, I think we should do what we did with Schmidt and use preferred walk on status. There are a lot of talented kids that would rather pay their way at ND and earn a scholly, then get a free ride to Ball State (no offense, Beau).

 

[chubler]

I'll add that while 10% and 3% don't seem like that much of a difference (especially compared to 50%), it really is. Different sites have different amounts of 4-Stars, but let's say there are 225 4-Stars every year. So 22.5 dudes are getting drafted in rounds 1-3. The odds of ND having one of those guys are decent. How many 3-Stars are there? 300? Even at 225, that's only 6.75 players. And then ND's chances of having one of those dwindles considerably.

Honestly I was just (mis)using those percentages to argue my opinion that a roster made up of all 4* guys isn't all that different, talent-wise, from a roster made up of all 3* guys, except for the 22.5 and the 6.75 who become major difference-makers. I simply think that getting the right 3* guys for your team and your system (applies to 4* and 5* as well) goes a lot farther than getting more total stars on your roster.

 

[chubler]

See, I don't think "consistently just short of championships" is what we should be striving for. We want championships, and the data shows that you do that by having consistent top 10 classes. We are capable of doing that now, so how do we take that next step? Imo, we do that by not missing on 3 star "bodies". We utulize preferred walkons for the depth athletes that supplement our elite recruits. That way, when they miss, we aren't stuck with them.

That being said, there are some three stars we would still go after. If the staff evaluated them as "High Potential" guys that the recruiting sites just missed on, then let's "coach em' up". But if they are truly a project, I think we should do what we did with Schmidt and use preferred walk on status. There are a lot of talented kids that would rather pay their way at ND and earn a scholly, then get a free ride to Ball State (no offense, Beau).

Wait a second. Are we saying the same thing here in different ways?

I want an identity and a consistent system, and then I want to fill that system with the best guys for that system, regardless of star ranking. I think that's the best way to maximize your return on the large number of 3*s you inevitably have to take.

When I draw those comparisons, its not because I want us to become a mirror image of any one of those programs. I'm just trying to illustrate my opinion that I think the correlation you're pointing out is flawed. If you can get to just below championship level without a single "superstar", I think the real difference between consistently above average and consistently championship level isn't about average star level or "average talent level", or some significant difference in the talent of average player. I think you can manufacture that with 3*s, like Stanford. You can't manufacture the superstars, and I think they're what puts great programs over the top of merely good ones.

 

[irishog77]

See, I don't think "consistently just short of championships" is what we should be striving for. We want championships, and the data shows that you do that by having consistent top 10 classes. We are capable of doing that now, so how do we take that next step? Imo, we do that by not missing on 3 star "bodies". We utulize preferred walkons for the depth athletes that supplement our elite recruits. That way, when they miss, we aren't stuck with them.

That being said, there are some three stars we would still go after. If the staff evaluated them as "High Potential" guys that the recruiting sites just missed on, then let's "coach em' up". But if they are truly a project, I think we should do what we did with Schmidt and use preferred walk on status. There are a lot of talented kids that would rather pay their way at ND and earn a scholly, then get a free ride to Ball State (no offense, Beau).

I think it's a lot harder, though, than perhaps you're making it out to be to get walk-ons at ND. Not a lot of people have the scratch for that. And even supposing a family does have the money to pay for ND, how many parents will willingly pay ND tuition, in the hopes of getting a schollie...in 2-3 years, when they've got full rides waiting for them at various schools?

If education, or even Catholic education, is important for parents-- sure, they'll kick that idea around and mull it over. But perhaps they'll decide on, say, BC who is offering a full ride...or a lower division school, even getting a partial ride.

 

[gkIrish]

People talk about the "Stanford model" all the time but what does that even mean?

 

[irishog77]

I think, often times, schools/programs/coaches become "system" programs because that's the only way they can realistically compete. Harbaugh knew (knows) Stanford could never be usc, so adopting a "system" is a way to level the playing field. Wisconsin knows they're a 2nd-tier program, and realistically, due to weather, population, geography, money, and demographics, they'll continue to be a 2nd-tier program. If they went out and hired Saban tomorrow, would they start winning natty's? No. But, by employing and adhering to a "system," they can compete.

 

[gkIrish]

I think, often times, schools/programs/coaches become "system" programs because that's the only way they can realistically compete. Harbaugh knew (knows) Stanford could never be usc, so adopting a "system" is a way to level the playing field. Wisconsin knows they're a 2nd-tier program, and realistically, due to weather, population, geography, money, and demographics, they'll continue to be a 2nd-tier program. If they went out and hired Saban tomorrow, would they start winning natty's? No. But, by employing and adhering to a "system," they can compete.

I get the concept of a system. And I get that Stanford has a tradition of having a dominant O-line, great defense, and smart QBs. What I don't get is what people mean when they say ND should adopt the Stanford model.

Are they saying we should (a) recruit the same kids Stanford does and play the way they do? Or (b) we should decide what system we want to use and recruit kids to fit that system?

If B, isn't that what we already do?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think it's a lot harder, though, than perhaps you're making it out to be to get walk-ons at ND. Not a lot of people have the scratch for that. And even supposing a family does have the money to pay for ND, how many parents will willingly pay ND tuition, in the hopes of getting a schollie...in 2-3 years, when they've got full rides waiting for them at various schools?

If education, or even Catholic education, is important for parents-- sure, they'll kick that idea around and mull it over. But perhaps they'll decide on, say, BC who is offering a full ride...or a lower division school, even getting a partial ride.

Agreed. Schmidt-type players, who turn down multiple full ride offers to Division I schools in favor of walking-on at ND, are really rare. We've expanded the preferred walk-on system recently to help with roster management, which is a great idea, but it's not enough to reliably keep us near the scholarship cap with quality depth guys.

I'm not sure what the answer is. As mr7183 pointed out, the issue isn't recruiting; it's retention. If our recent high profile defections can be attributed to nothing more than a run of bad luck, then we don't have anything to worry about. But if this continues to happen, we'll be better off adopting the Stanford model of finding and developing solid fit/ high potential 3 rather than reaching for and missing on or eventually losing high 4 and 5 recruits.

 

[palinurus]

and signing JuCo players, whom rarely are rated above 3 stars, if at all.

Cam Newton as a 3 star is hilarious. No one in the country thought he was anything but a game changing player. He got in trouble and teams had to decide whether they wanted to risk the trouble.

True. In fact, a lot of schools would have offered him money to play for them if that wasn't against the rules.

 

[irishog77]

I get the concept of a system. And I get that Stanford has a tradition of having a dominant O-line, great defense, and smart QBs. What I don't get is what people mean when they say ND should adopt the Stanford model.

Are they saying we should (a) recruit the same kids Stanford does and play the way they do? Or (b) we should decide what system we want to use and recruit kids to fit that system?

If B, isn't that what we already do?

Honestly, I don't know that there is a "Stanford Model." (And my prior post wasn't an attempt to answer your question-- it was just another thought on the topic of "systems.")

For me, I think ND fans notice that Stanford has had a pretty good run the last 4 years. They face similar obstacles to ND as far as academics, admission, and recruiting nationally go. They also don't have a rabid fan base, great facilities, or a student body that cares all that much about them (in contrast to ND). Yet they're winning. They do offer better weather and a better location than ND.

So why can't ND win like Stanford?

True, Stanford certainly has an identity and runs a "system" these days. I don't think that ND has to play similarly to Stanford in order to win games though. Although, many aspects of their philosophy correlates to winning at all levels of football. So maybe ND would be better off playing more like Stanford.

My appreciation of Stanford stems mainly from their ability to execute their philosophy, regardless of who their QB or coach seem to be. Harbaugh taught and handed over something special to Shaw. But credit goes to Shaw as well for not dropping off in execution. In other words, they don't have excuses as to why they're losing games (we don't have a QB, we're hurt, etc.). If ND could execute, whatever their philosophy is, then I think they would be winning games at a rate that Stanford has been.

I do think, however, that it will be tough for Stanford to sustain their success. In the long run, ND should win more games than them. But ND has got to start executing better.

 

[tussin]

I really think reconsidering the ND policy on JuCos will solve all of ND's roster issues. ND has no trouble in recruiting, they just lose too many players that they are counting on for numbers because of transfers, dropouts, etc. We don't need world beater, Cam Newton JuCos either, just dependable guys that can come in and contribute.

ND lost to Pitt because we didn't execute. But the fact our team was decimated with injuries didn't help either. Calabrese should never be playing nose guard. If Vanderdoes doesn't transfer or we are able to plug in JuCos we probably don't have that problem.

 

[EddytoNow]

I think Stanford is the best counter-example. I don't consider MSU to be an elite program. I also think Oregon and Baylor are unique cases when you look at their style of play and the type of recruits they need to succeed.

My point is pointed more towards national championship winners. You see a lot of recruiting success if you look at highly successful, dynasty-type, programs in recent history (Bama, USC, Florida, maybe Oklahoma). What's the last national champion that consisted of classes that weren't highly rated?

You're right. They're not an elite team. They are an elite defense with a run-stuffing front seven and two lock-down corners. If their offense was just a little above average, they'd deserve a place in the top ten.

 

[woolybug25]

Wait a second. Are we saying the same thing here in different ways?

I want an identity and a consistent system, and then I want to fill that system with the best guys for that system, regardless of star ranking. I think that's the best way to maximize your return on the large number of 3*s you inevitably have to take.

When I draw those comparisons, its not because I want us to become a mirror image of any one of those programs. I'm just trying to illustrate my opinion that I think the correlation you're pointing out is flawed. If you can get to just below championship level without a single "superstar", I think the real difference between consistently above average and consistently championship level isn't about average star level or "average talent level", or some significant difference in the talent of average player. I think you can manufacture that with 3*s, like Stanford. You can't manufacture the superstars, and I think they're what puts great programs over the top of merely good ones.

I think we are pretty close to opinions here. Might have misread you a bit earlier.

Agreed. Schmidt-type players, who turn down multiple full ride offers to Division I schools in favor of walking-on at ND, are really rare. We've expanded the preferred walk-on system recently to help with roster management, which is a great idea, but it's not enough to reliably keep us near the scholarship cap with quality depth guys.

I don't think it's nearly as rare as people think, and they don't have to be kids that are turning down other major offers. There is a bevy of financial considerations and financial assitance programs for preferred walk on's. They also get preferred student loans. These are kids that see the big picture and also know that they normally wouldn't be able to get into a school like Notre Dame. We are fair with them and let them know that a scholly isn't guaranteed, but if they make a consistent contribution on the field, they will earn their full ride. They can always go back to smaller schools, equipped with coaching from a world class staff. It's a win-win for both parties.

Marquis Dickerson is one of these walk ons. We have actually had quite a few over the years. Furthermore, you can have TWENTY preferred walk ons that don't count against the 85 limit. So even if they are a real long shot, at least its a shot. There are plenty of dudes that don't have solid D1 offers that have size, speed or a combination that makes them worth being bodies for us.

 

[aubeirish]

Not sure where you're seeing some huge advantage from grayshirting. It doesn't give a school extra players or scholarships. It just delays a player's enrollment to the following class, where he still counts against that class' 25 scholarships. It's not like you can sign 25 this year plus 5 grayshirts, and 25 next year for a total of 55. Those 5 grayshirts don't enroll until next year and count against next year's class, meaning you can only sign 20 new guys next year, for a total of 50.

Well, you get to evaluate up close all these recruits and determine which ones you want or which ones you don't. Once a player sign with Notre Dame, the staff has no choice to take him unless he does something stupid or transfers.

You have to realize that the learning curve between the time a guy signs and the time he reports to campus is huge. It's the time in their life where they improve the most. Therefore, having more players in camp gets you a bigger pool to choose from.

 

[woolybug25]

Oh... this may be unpopular, but i'm going to say it anyway.

Unless a kid is a crazy elite talent that can bomb 60 yard fg's on the reg... then I think we should only take kickers as preferred walkons.

 

[ThePiombino]

Oh... this may be unpopular, but i'm going to say it anyway.

Unless a kid is a crazy elite talent that can bomb 60 yard fg's on the reg... then I think we should only take kickers as preferred walkons.

Normally I would agree, but I feel like a guy like Brindza was worth it - kickoffs, punts, and field goals all rolled into one schollie.

 

[aubeirish]

Normally I would agree, but I feel like a guy like Brindza was worth it - kickoffs, punts, and field goals all rolled into one schollie.

I don't think Kelly would offer a kicker unless he thinks he is a game changer. So, there is some truth to both sides I guess.

 

[chubler]

Agreed. Schmidt-type players, who turn down multiple full ride offers to Division I schools in favor of walking-on at ND, are really rare. We've expanded the preferred walk-on system recently to help with roster management, which is a great idea, but it's not enough to reliably keep us near the scholarship cap with quality depth guys.

I'm not sure what the answer is. As mr7183 pointed out, the issue isn't recruiting; it's retention. If our recent high profile defections can be attributed to nothing more than a run of bad luck, then we don't have anything to worry about. But if this continues to happen, we'll be better off adopting the Stanford model of finding and developing solid fit/ high potential 3 rather than reaching for and missing on or eventually losing high 4 and 5 recruits.

I tend to think it's a bit of bad luck and a bit of a lack of a system. And by "system", I mean an established offensive and defensive philosophy. To go back to the Stanford example, when an OL commits, he's placed in a pipeline that's been operating the same way for a few years, with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and expectations. And you can see what those are coming in, so you know exactly what you're getting into. In a system like that, no 5* OL is gonna transfer when he doesn't get to play right away because he knows going in he has to develop and do his time. A really talented guy might move along faster, but that's the exception. Stability and depth like that at a position keeps guys around and makes them better as well- Think about how many top TE's we've brought in in the last 5 years, and how many have transferred. And they all teach and help each other, because ideally the TE's do 95% of the same things from year to year in a stable offensive philosophy. When you've got that continuity, good things happen in every aspect of your program.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Normally I would agree, but I feel like a guy like Brindza was worth it - kickoffs, punts, and field goals all rolled into one schollie.

Absolutely. Good combo K/Ps are well worth a scholarship.

I tend to think it's a bit of bad luck and a bit of a lack of a system. And by "system", I mean an established offensive and defensive philosophy. To go back to the Stanford example, when an OL commits, he's placed in a pipeline that's been operating the same way for a few years, with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and expectations. And you can see what those are coming in, so you know exactly what you're getting into. In a system like that, no 5* OL is gonna transfer when he doesn't get to play right away because he knows going in he has to develop and do his time. A really talented guy might move along faster, but that's the exception. Stability and depth like that at a position keeps guys around and makes them better as well- Think about how many top TE's we've brought in in the last 5 years, and how many have transferred. And they all teach and help each other, because ideally the TE's do 95% of the same things from year to year in a stable offensive philosophy. When you've got that continuity, good things happen in every aspect of your program.

Do we lack a system? It seems pretty clear that Kelly simply hasn't had a QB capable of running his offense outside of 2012. I wouldn't attribute any of our offensive transfers to "lack of identity" either-- Prestwood flunked out, Ferguson got caught smoking in his dorm, Neal moved back to be with his kid (allegedly), and Kiel's a flake. I could see your theory applying to Kiel; he might have chosen to stick around at a place like USC during the Carroll years, but that's pure speculation.

And on defense, Diaco's system was a Swiss watch from the end of 2011 through November 2012.

 

[Irish#1]

And then you have the topic of coaching up. When you look at MSU and just their defense, there is a bunch of nobodies on it. And yet its one of the better defenses year in and year out.

But they typically don't have the fire power on O to make them a contender.

 

[stlnd01]

But they typically don't have the fire power on O to make them a contender.

Maybe not for national titles but they're on track to play in their second Big Ten title game in three years. And when they had a legit QB a couple of years ago they beat a good Georgia team in the Outback. Like this year, it was their loss to us that kept from being even higher-rated.
But, it would be interesting to see how they'd fare in a conference with more offensive firepower.