Lets look at talent from another angle....as an example.
Pick any academic discipline.......say math. (arithmetic thru calculus)
Some students in a math class have an aptitude to grasp the concepts and succeed, and some don't (often despite extra help by the teacher). For the sake of this illustration, I will assume the teacher is well credentialed and respected by peers.
Now would it be safe to say a student that excels in the calculus class is more skilled in math than the student that struggles in calculus but does fine with arithmetic. Doesn't imply that the latter student is stupid, only that they can't develop the skills required by higher level math exercises.
The same could be said for the degrees of talent in any sport. Some athletes have a lower ceiling of achievement than others. Some can hit home runs, some can't. All would be better than me!
UConn's recruiting classes have historically been rated lower than others when accessing talent. Many had few or no offers.....and those that had other offers, many were from 1-aa or MAC/C-USA type schools. Yes, some have had other BCS offers, but not a multitude of other BCS offers. Ofter RE proclaimed them as "under the radar".
Yes... there are good coaches and bad coaches. But you are not going to get a bunch of league or national championships with a team of under the radar type athletes. I don't care who the coach is.
There are a lot of suggestions of who would be desirable coaches when RE left, and if/when PP leaves. None of these potential acclaimed coaches established their resumes with squads of athletes that had low ceilings. More likely than not, the majority of the players in their recruited classes had higher ceilings than UConns.
Lets me make this clear......I am not criticizing our players. They all tried their best to be successful at the FBS level......some could, some couldn't. Some may be more successful at the FCS level.......their ceiling is lower.
Incoming talent, wether at the athlete or coaches level DOES matter.
