Eleven Warriors

All I've heard is all buckeye, no reason no expect anything different

you  all miss the point  they  come to play football at OHIO STATE   be cause of the  school not  the  coaches  thats the player  we  want  and have  been  getting  since the  end of  time.

the  show  boaters can go  elswhere

my memory  serves me right  texas has  had top recruiting  class last  5  years  but they never  put it together on the  gridiron

same goes for Florida State. past few years have killed it recruiting, and never put it together as well.

I have this same argument with Kentucky Basketball fans all the time.  Wall, Cousins, Davis, Gilchrest, and Lamb didn't care that they went to Kentucky, they care that they played for Calipari and are going to the NBA.  The name on the front of the jersey isn't that important and fans need to wrap their heads around that.

ABSOLUTELY people want to come for a certain coach.  Jim Tressel was able to land certain players because of the kind of man he was.  Urban Meyer is able to land top level talent because he has put some many guys in the NFL.  Not only did they make it there, they've done very well.  For goodness sake he made Alex Smith and Tim Tebow First round picks. 

We'll need him to beat Purdue in 2014.

@FIDO - For what it's worth, I think Cooper was probably one of the first collegiate coaches to really embrace what BTALBERT is talking about.  Cooper used the superb facilities and brand recognition of Ohio State to recruit on a national level that really hadn't been done by Hayes or Bruce.  He turned Ohio State into a veritable "NFL Academy"; and in my opinion that's the same tradition a lot of coaches today uphold and it's that brand that's really sold to recruits.  Sure there are other factors; but more than anything else, players don't normally commit to a school, they commit to a coach.  And that's precisely the reason that a lot of media pundits have been up in arms about the liquidity of coaches between jobs while the recruits that commit to them are very constrained once they've chosen their school.

The real truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle, but remember the lack of parity in the NCAA.  The richest programs have the best facilities, can afford the best coaches, have the best "brands", recruit the best players, and ultimately win the most games and make the most money.  It's really hard for upstarts to work their way into the elite, hence the cyclical rates of most mediocre teams' fortunes compared to the relative consistency enjoyed by the elite.  Furthermore, those upstarts' cycles of greatness are typically due to exceptional coaching staffs and begin to wane when those staffs begin to leave for better pastures.  

Hodge: I don't disagree with anything you said; I just thought Albert was stretching the point too far. Where does the NFL factory end and the university infrastructure begin? Also, the richest programs with the best facilities not only can afford the best coaches; they make those coaches a little better by virtue of the association. Obviously, that only goes so far, as the likes of John Malkovich at Texas or John Blake at Oklahoma attest. No question, having a great coach is the highest priority for the athletic department and the recruit. But Urbz didn't recruit many 5-stars to Utah.

@BTALBERT  - Not to split hairs or anything (I almost completely agree with your point), but Woodard was about as Buckeye as they come.  Pretty sure he mentioned countless times that he grew up a big fan.