I'd be curious to see your level of commitment here brother. So why don't we do this. Let's see the top 3 players each of those kids position coaches while with us had coached up at the college level. Signed them out of high school and coached up throughout college. I get underachievement. However I also know first hand how important it is to have teammates who hold you accountable(we haven't had a group of leaders here except a small handful forever) & coaches capable of getting the best out of you. As an administration and as a staff we've let down the kids who have signed with us for the last 18 years. Changing that,was the first step in getting the results out of the student athletes that we desire.
I think we're looking at this from 2 different perspectives - I think you're talking about development, and I'm looking at it purely from a numbers/math perspective.
Even if you look at Alabama (or any top team) - they're going to have plenty of top recruits over the years that didn't work out.
The difference - Miami gets 2-3 Top 100 players in each class (on average) - so we NEED a 100% hit rate to truly be competitive, and that will never happen. A 50% hit rate is more realistic - so we're getting 3-5 that work our over a 3 year period. Not near enough.
Alabama gets 8-10 Top 100 players in each recruiting class - so if only 50% hit, you don't remember the 12-15 that didn't work out - you just remember the12-15 that do. Because a majority of your starting players are big time guys that worked out.
My point was 1 single player doesn't tip the scales (for any team...except for Cam Newton) - it's how many top players you're signing, because some are bound to not work out no matter what. It's a numbers game.