Is this still a debate? Recruiting correlates DIRECTLY with results. It is proven again and again.
I would argue it is 100% part of the equation than just "coachin em up". Let me explain:
It is membership fee into the BIG BOY echelon. Look at Rivals or 247 Top 20 and that is pretty much the cut off line. You simply cannot even think to compete without a Top 20 class.
Also it depends what are you vying for? A small bowl once every few years vs. some mediocre team...sure then classes in 30s/40s are fine. Welcome to participation trophy night.
But big New Year bowls and competing for the upper tier of the B1G or SEC or PAC...you better first recruit really well.
And YES, before someone replies...coaching matters ALOT. But that comes AFTER you have paid the fee for the country club. USC, UF or Michigan could hire more mediocre HCs and still be miles ahead of programs that have no history / investment in football.
Does Rutgers Admin care to compete with the best?
I would argue it is 100% part of the equation than just "coachin em up". Let me explain:
It is membership fee into the BIG BOY echelon. Look at Rivals or 247 Top 20 and that is pretty much the cut off line. You simply cannot even think to compete without a Top 20 class.
Also it depends what are you vying for? A small bowl once every few years vs. some mediocre team...sure then classes in 30s/40s are fine. Welcome to participation trophy night.
But big New Year bowls and competing for the upper tier of the B1G or SEC or PAC...you better first recruit really well.
And YES, before someone replies...coaching matters ALOT. But that comes AFTER you have paid the fee for the country club. USC, UF or Michigan could hire more mediocre HCs and still be miles ahead of programs that have no history / investment in football.
Does Rutgers Admin care to compete with the best?