I think most would agree, but the counterpoint is also valid that a lot of recruiting is about momentum too. These kids are all interconnected on social media and talk to each other on visits and camp circuits. Landing big time commitments builds and keeps momentum and builds legitimacy around belief in the program and what you are selling to other top end recruits. It is not the end all, but it does matter.
I don't understand how recruiting, a job and process that never actually stops, garners "momentum." It's made up pundit speak for me. The word itself is overused in sports as it is. These coaches are recruiting year round, non stop, as far down to freshmen and eighth graders. Back in the day, Mack Brown used to offer a bunch of kids and they'd all verbal. Texas would essentially be done with their class by summer. You'd have the late closer programs like Poodle's SC and Bowden's FSU that would sign guys into January and February. So what's better?
Again, I ask, if Moore verbals today but doesn't actually sign in December how is momentum now better for the program than the end result of the player never coming at all? I just don't get what we're saying here. Sure, all these guys talk and know each other, but are you going to make such a major decision with a large percentage being based on what a guy a few states over is doing? There has to be some individuality to the process left where WR are going to have to decide if they want to be at Notre Dame, or anywhere else for that matter, if a certain QB is not. I'd put good money on ND signing Moore but not Tate in the end. To be honest, I'm skeptical of a player who would want to sign at a school simply because another player did. If that's the overriding reason for a commitment, knowing we are in the age of the transfer portal, good luck with that.
Jimmy Clausen was supposed to generate recruiting momentum. The immediate momentum generated was Mike Ragone and Steve Paskorz.