In hind-sight, the 92 class was extremely talented. But as I recall, they weren't even a top 15 recruiting class. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.That was also 15 years ago and there wasnt the same scholarship limit. In 1992 Nebraska had one of the best recruiting classes ever. So those guys were juniors and seniors correct?? So they must have been some pretty good players before they got here.In my honest opinion, saying something like this goes against everything it means to be a Cornhusker. So, respectfully, I must disagree with your logic.Look at Nick Saban for example. Guy can flat out coach. Like him or not, that isn't the point. He is at Michigan St. and I don't recall him have the success he has at LSU and Bama. And it isn't like he learned how to coach overnight. It doesn't matter how good a coach is, without good players you won't win. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh**...Not even Bo Pelini.
Your example can be flipped right back around. There are plenty of coaches who had success at smaller schools who go on to coach the "big boys", and they end up falling flat on their face. Dan Hawkins had a lot of success at Boise State, but when he got to a school that without question had better athletes (according to star and recruiting rankings), he failed. Hawkins has yet to have a season of better than .500 at Colorado. Going 53-11 at a place like Boise State (that had not even gone to a BCS bowl game at this point) and then going 13-24 in his first three seasons at CU says a lot.
I'm not saying recruiting isn't important, but coaching is much more important. Like I said in my other post, Nebraska had multiple walk-ons starting during the 1995 National Championship game. Florida had way better athletes according to those beloved star rankings, yet Nebraska ripped them apart like they were a High school team.
I'm not saying the players we recruited weren't good or even great, but believing that recruiting is much more important just doesn't make sense. What about Boise State beating Oklahoma a few years ago? Oklahoma's third stringers are rated higher than Boise State's first stringers. Even without the gimmick plays, they scored 40+ points against one of the best defenses in the country. That game took place during the current scholarship limit.
Or what about Appalachian St. taking down Michigan? If recruiting is what mattered more, Michigan would have walked away with a clear victory simply because they had pound for pound better athletes. They just got straight up outcoached.
If recruiting were more important, there would be no such thing as upset victories, because the team with better athletes would win regardless.