[gailtate]

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree. The quality of the roster can reasonably be predicted by the number of stars for each team member. However, the quality of the roster is measured by how they actually perform. It is often true that the predictions are fairly accurate, but not always. The measurement is how they play, not how others expected them to play. Some recruits come in as 5 star guys and end up as total busts. Some recruits come in a 3 star guys and turn out to be great players.

It is also a bit complex. Was Josh Rosen a bust at UCLA or did he live up to the hype? How about his pro career? The predictions are one thing, the Ws are another. At UCLA, Rosen may have been a player who lived up to the hype but still didn't win championships because of the players around him. It also may be that they didn't win championships because Rosen had some major flaws. Which was it? The only objective measure of a roster is how many games it wins. There probably is no objective measure of each individual player.

I stand on my comment. The best teams always have most of the best players, the best records and the best prospects for continued success because that's where the BEST PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. Not all of them, of course, but most of them. Enough of them to keep those teams in championship contention. I'm done here.

[gailtate]

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree. The quality of the roster can reasonably be predicted by the number of stars for each team member. However, the quality of the roster is measured by how they actually perform. It is often true that the predictions are fairly accurate, but not always. The measurement is how they play, not how others expected them to play. Some recruits come in as 5 star guys and end up as total busts. Some recruits come in a 3 star guys and turn out to be great players.

It is also a bit complex. Was Josh Rosen a bust at UCLA or did he live up to the hype? How about his pro career? The predictions are one thing, the Ws are another. At UCLA, Rosen may have been a player who lived up to the hype but still didn't win championships because of the players around him. It also may be that they didn't win championships because Rosen had some major flaws. Which was it? The only objective measure of a roster is how many games it wins. There probably is no objective measure of each individual player.

I stand on my comment. The best teams always have most of the best players, the best records and the best prospects for continued success because that's where the BEST PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. Not all of them, of course, but most of them. Enough of them to keep those teams in championship contention. I'm done here.