But wait. I thought it was all about talent? If Richt is the best coach we can get, and we have more talent than anyone else in our division, why didn't we win the Coastal more than once in three years?
I don't disagree with you all that much at the end of the day. I just don't agree with this bold and broad assertion that "it's not the X's and O's, it's the Jimmy's and Joe's." Players matter, and coaching matters.
At the point where this program is at, the only way to get the Joe's is to first win based on X's and O's. We've got a solid talent advantage over our divisional competitors, we need to beat them with the talent that we have before we can expect to improve our talent level substantially. Being a "salesman" is not the answer in this day and age. Sure, it worked for Howard back in 1979. Those were different times.
We totally agree that both coaching and talent matter.
I think where we disagree is:
1) I think the importance of talent outweighs the importance of coaching. Not by a lot, but it is more important.
Example - I think getting talented players like Lingard, Silvera, and Bolden potentially makes more of a difference for the rest of the season than the X and O adjustments Manny is making right now.
2) I don't think consistently winning 10 games is "the only way" to get a Top 10 recruiting class. Using your Butch Jones example - he got back to back Top 10 recruiting classes at a school that has back to back 5 win seasons. As a result, he got back back 9 win seasons.
3) I think the "bags/$$$" argument can be a cop out. If Alabama and Georgia are going head to head for a recruit, I don't think the recruit just always goes with which team gives him the most $$. This is where I think developing relationships and being a salesman makes the difference. I don't think the importance of a coaches ability to sell a recruit on his program has ever or will ever go away.