A Philosophical Question About Recruiting

because sometimes they turn into the only college QB to win 4 bowl games as a starter

Since 1990 when Colorado and Washington won a share of the national title NO/ZERO/NADA team has won the title that is not getting almost exclusively 4 and 5 star recruits. If you want national championships you need the best players.

The only teams that say they want 2 and 3 star recruits are the teams that can’t get 4 and 5 star recruits. You don’t see Texas, LSU, Bama, Florida or anyone competing for a national title saying, "Dang guys, we are getting too many really talented players, lets go out and get a couple less talented players that we can feel all warm and cuddly about.."

And I can understand why it’s breaking 2 out of 3 for the Three and Under Stars. After all, this is West Virginia and that’s what we do, that’s what we’ve always done; find kids with stars in their eyes and a chip on their shoulder and tell them all we expect them to be over-achievers. Then, we try to coach them up to be the winners they beileve they can be.

However, I had to go with 5YS on this. Teams that win championships are made of championship caliber (Four and Five Star) players. I am tired of our moniker as the “winningest team to have never won a championship.” I want one. That means we have to go after the top-level talent. It doesn’t mean we don’t still have to coach them up once they get to Morgantown.

My recruiting philosophy would be to decline to give scholarships to talented players in order to keep the walk ons happy, self impose scholarship sanctions and only sign 19 players a year, acquire double secret probation silent verbal comittments, and gorge myself on unrated tight ends and legacies.

A lot more than “stars” should go into the recruiting equation. Character, academics, and work ethic are also very important. In general, we should go for the more talented recruits, but WVU is better off with a 3-star recruit with great character, academics and work ethic than a 5-star thug, even if the ratings are accurate.

But I voted for the 3 star scenario because I don’t think you’re going to win with just some random assortment of 4 and 5 star talent that you don’t have any control over. (I still don’t understand the scenario completely, maybe an example would help?)

To win big, you have to have talent and some semblance of chemistry or teamwork. Look at our 1998 team. All the talent in the world, but completely underachieved.

And if you’re picking the 3* guys you want, you’re going to get some absolute studs in there that you’re pretty sure are going to pan out.

I mean, if we’re buidling a team from examples at WVU, you have White, Slaton, Quincy, Reynaud, Schmitt, Henry, Pac Man, Stanchek, Mozes, Justice, Capers, Berry, Dingle, Williams, Thomas, Ivy, Wicks, Sands, Lorello, and Hogan, plus Bitancurt and Phil Brady.

On the other side, you have Geno, Snook, Devine, Gwaltney, Barrett, McCartney, Austin, Spain, Jenkins, Gradkowski Davenport, Finau, Irvin, Junius Lewis, Lankster, Brinson, Brandon Douglas, Vince Beamer, McAfee, and Kozlowski.

Obviously you could do some substituting here and there, but if those two teams are lining up, I’ll take the 3*s. Granted, the 5* team is loaded at some spots (RB, maybe QB), but there are plenty of holes, including OL and almost the entire D. To me, that’s what you would get just taking the 4 and 5 stars. Maybe it wouldn’t be that bad because you would have more stud players to choose from and maybe this is a bad example because WVU has had more 3 stars from which to choose, but yeah….that’s the basis for my opinion. Can you tell I’m not entirely sold? lol