Copying my post from another thread, as I believe it addresses the three-year slippage that we all have seen:
"I really think the regression in defensive performance [can substitute overall team performance in as well] has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group.
We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking."
My point is if we want to win like a Top 10 program again (consistently and sustainably), we probably have to recruit at a Top 10 level (or very close to it). And recruiting at a Top 10 level with our strenous academic requirements is a herculean effort. If anything, our recruiting classes have become higher ranked, so it is possible that the fruits of that improved recruiting will materialize as the team continues to develop.
I am not saying we cannot quibble about certain offensive and defensive scheme aspects. However, if people feel we are not performing up to the standard from 2011-2015, I would say look at recruiting (and our recruiting rankings relative to the CFP teams) and go from there. Looking at scheme only, without looking at recruiting, is like describing the weather based on day-to-day measurements/inferences, without examining the overall climate.
"I really think the regression in defensive performance [can substitute overall team performance in as well] has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group.
We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking."
My point is if we want to win like a Top 10 program again (consistently and sustainably), we probably have to recruit at a Top 10 level (or very close to it). And recruiting at a Top 10 level with our strenous academic requirements is a herculean effort. If anything, our recruiting classes have become higher ranked, so it is possible that the fruits of that improved recruiting will materialize as the team continues to develop.
I am not saying we cannot quibble about certain offensive and defensive scheme aspects. However, if people feel we are not performing up to the standard from 2011-2015, I would say look at recruiting (and our recruiting rankings relative to the CFP teams) and go from there. Looking at scheme only, without looking at recruiting, is like describing the weather based on day-to-day measurements/inferences, without examining the overall climate.