We can win with the kids we've recruited and the kids we now have on the roster. Dantonio has been coaching at MSU since 07. MSU's rival rankings since 08 are 47, 17, 30, 31, 41, 40, 22, 22, 19. I think this is less about recruiting rankings (although we want the best classes we can get) and more about player development, consistently evaluating your roster and using each recruiting cycle to address roster needs. It was said that the previous HC looked at recruiting as a necessary evil. But if you look at the numbers on paper (below, taken from one of my previous posts), the previous staff did marginally better than MSU based just on rankings.
I would say that there is a lot more to this than just rivals rankings, and I don't mean "we'll put the stars on them". There are programs that have historically done well in these rankings that is not reflected in their win/loss record (see Texas) and those who have overperformed (see MSU). Presently the staff seems to be addressing some holes in the roster. Obviously you need talented kids, but you also need year to year balance in your recruiting efforts.
I don't have the expertise, but it would be interesting to see the number of kids each year that would be considered a "reach", either based on talent (Mason Wald) or academic issues/character. Seems we've had our share of those over the past decade. And I think the "reach" percentage is indicative of not taking recruiting seriously.
Year- # of contributors (class size, rivals rank)
8- 11 (28, 30) (Cally/Pelini hybrid)
09- 11 (20, 28)
10- 11 (21, 22)
11- 11 (19, 15)
12- 10 (so far) (17, 25)
13- 9 (so far) (25, 17)
14- 8 (so far) (24, 32)
15- 5 (so far) (20, 31) (Pelini/Riley hybrid)
16-NA (21, 25)
