The Great Debate: Coaching vs. Recruiting, part 1

Since the Gators won the BCS Championship game on January 8th there have been people (on message boards, blogs and so forth) that contend that Florida fans should somehow be grateful to Ron Zook. After all, most of the key players on the Gators squad were recruited by Zook. And while several key contributors were not holdovers from the Zook era, like Dallas Baker, Percy Harvin, Tim Tebow, Ryan Smith and Reggie Nelson (save the emails, Nelson had to be re-recruited by Urban Meyer), the truth is that this was largely Zook's team. That said I don't think Florida "owes" Zook anything and I don't think he deserves credit for the championship. Why? Well, because I believe that while Zook was able to bring in players who were thought to be talented, they were never able to really prove their talent until Meyer came along.

So this is the backdrop for the great debate. Call it coaching vs. recruiting or talent vs. coaching, whatever but please read on and add your thoughts to the debate.

In my mind, the job description for a big time college coach is two-fold: 1. Find the most talented players possible and 2. Get optimal performance from them. As in any profession with multiple responsibilities there are men in coaching that can perform all of the required responsibilities well, some that are good at one but not the other, and some that are good at neither.

I would like to take a look at the 3 most recent Gator coaches and share my opinions as they pertain to each one's coaching and recruiting abilities.

First off is the Old Ball Coach, Steve Spurrier. If you don't know about this man, you have been living under a rock. When Spurrier took over the Gators' head coaching duties in 1990 the team was on probation with the NCAA and had accumulated a combined record of 14-10 in the two seasons prior to his return to Gainesville. The Gators had also just lost their best offensive player from the previous year, Emmitt Smith who went pro after his Junior season. In his first two seasons Spurrier accumulated a 19-4 record, won an unofficial SEC championship and then Florida's first legitimate SEC champonship. It was an instant turnaround. Spurrier was able to take another coach's players and make winners out of them. But the winning didn't stop when those players moved on. Spurrier would go on to accumulate a record of 122-27-1, win 6 conference championships and one "National Championship". In Spurrier's last year with the Gators, the team finished third in both major polls. It is safe to say that Spurrier handled the primary responsibilities of coach quite well. He introduced high-powered, pass-often offense to the SEC and changed the way the conference plays the game.

I contend that it is also safe to say that, in his 12 seasons at Florida, he was able to recruit enough good players to achieve these successes. But the latter half of Spurrier's tenure with the Gators coincided with the widespread adoption of the Internet. With the Internet came ways for people to engage in discussions about their favorite things. And while college football always had fans that were "recruitniks" (people that kept track of who the most highly-touted high school players were and which teams were able to recruit them successfully), the Internet made this hobby much easier to participate in. Suddenly anyone could learn from "experts" about high school players they had never heard about but that were supposed to be the next big thing. And just like that the recruiting wars took on a whole new meaning because someone was keeping score and people were paying closer attention than ever before.

Now I don't know coach Spurrier but I'm pretty sure that he understood the importance of having good players though perhaps he cared less about what self-appointed experts felt about them.

Which brings me to Ron Zook. When Zook arrived in 2003 he took over a team with a combined record of 20-5 during the two previous seasons. Those seasons included an SEC title in 2000 and the aforementined number 3 ranking to end the year in 2001.

In his first two seasons with Gators, Zook went 16-10. That was worst two-year stretch for the Gators since 1988-1989. And it was just around this time that the debate about talent, and how much of it the Gators actually had under scholarship, began. In an effort to excuse Zook's sub-par performance on the field a myth was constructed. The myth was that when Spurrier took off for the pros, he left the cupboard bare of the talent needed to continue competing at a high level, that Zook needed time so that he could get play-makers. Believers in the myth claim that Spurrier simply was never a particularly good recruiter and that he had lost interest in recruiting over the years anyway. Some even went as far as to say that he had foreseen the lean times that were just on the horizon and that this was the reason he left for the NFL (completely dismissing the 25 million reasons that Spurrier had to become the head coach of the Redskins and the fact that 12 years is a long time at any job).

In any case, the problem with the Gators, according to some, wasn't the present coach, his philospophy, decision-making or motivational skills; the problem was that he inherited a team with insufficient talent.

I strenuously object to that theory and I have 3 main arguments as to why I think it's a canard:

1. As a rule, I subscribe to the principle that the best indicator of future perfomance is past performance. In Spurrier's 12 seasons in Gainesville he had some great seasons and some so so seasons but he never lost 5 games, much less in back-to-back years. He took over a team that he had no part in recruiting and made an instant impact. Spurrier was seemingly able to recruit players that were good enough to keep the Gators ranked in the top 15 for most of those 12 years. The proponents of the myth want you to believe that at some point Spurrier either forgot how to recruit or simply decided that he didn't want to do it anymore. In my opinion that's the same as saying that he didn't care about winning anymore, a premise that I don't accept because there is no proof that this has ever been the case with Spurrier. In short, I don't think a leopard can change its spots. A winner is a winner and a loser is a loser.

2. The team that Zook took over in 2002 had 12 future NFL players on the roster including the Heisman trophy runner-up and current Chicago Bears starting QB, Rex Grossman (who is one game away from the super bowl).

3. Football is a team game. There are 11 people on the field for each team and they all have to share in the execution of a plan in order to succeed. There is more specialization in American football than in any other sport. There are great athletes and then there are great football players. Because playing styles vary widely not every team has use for the same types of players. Some programs prefer bigger players and bruising backs to grind out a ground game while others build upon a foundation of speedy receivers and heady quarterbacks. Some teams use tight ends and full backs while others go 5 wide. Just because Zook didn't think the players he inherited were good enough to play the type of football that he supposedly wanted to play (something he told AP reporter Eddie Pells in 2003) it doesn't mean that they weren't good enough to win in a different system or for a different coach.

To me it boils down to a simple question: If Steve Spurrier had stayed for 2002 and 2003 would have accumulated a better record than 16-10? A look at my "Magic 8-ball" says "All signs point to yes."

The reason I believe that is that is the crux of this debate. Are great players born or made?

The problem, as I see it, is that the recruitniks blindly follow the pronouncements of the recruiting experts who rank each school's recruiting classes based upon the ratings they assign to thousands of high school players from around the country. Now maybe I'm naive but if literally dozens of college football experts can be wrong about how good Ohio State is compared to Florida when both teams had all of their games televised, how can a handful of so-called experts say with any degree of certainty who the best left tackle or quarterback in the country is? If you think they can, I have two words for you: Ron Powlus.

We have all seen NFL teams pick first round "busts" over the years. Think about that. With millions of dollars on the line, a team of professional scouts and executives can be wrong about a player on which there is infinitely more film and information about than a high school player from say Immokalee, Florida. A college player is closer physically to what he will be as a pro than a High School senior is to what he may be as even as a college sophomore. For this reason, even if we were able to know who the best high school quarterback is today, it doesn't mean that he's going to be the best sophomore QB in two years.

And this is all without taking one very important thing into account: coaching. The top high school player can quickly turn into a bust if he isn't paired with the right coach to bring the potential within him to fruition. This includes getting the player mentally prepared (learning the playbook), physically prepared (strength training), academically prepared (keeping him eligible), etc. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around does it make a sound? If a 5-star recruit isn't coached properly does he make a splash?

Another question: If Ron Zook had coached the Boise State Broncos this year would they have finished 13-0?

To be continued...

Add your comments to the debate.