Put it this way, Jim, once you guys reached the point where you consistently had the highest ranked recruiting classes in the WAC... you consistently won the conference. Fresno State fell off and Hawaii had one big year with June Jones' genius for the spread and a CU quarterback transfer at the helm. Otherwise, you were right where you should have been based on class rankings.
Similarly, Ohio State has been bringing in the best Big Ten classes and dominating the conference. USC the same in the Pac-12.
You can look at programs like Ole Miss and say, "Look at their class rankings. They should be winning a lot more with classes ranked in the 20s." But you're not considering that those classes put them at 9th in their conference. Or you could look at Notre Dame and question performance versus class rank, but they're playing USC, Michigan, Michigan State and Stanford every year too plus a host of other teams that recruit well. Their 2010 team only went 7-5 during the season... and that included a 28-3 beatdown they laid on Utah. This was in a transitional year with a new coach and system.
Some programs do seem to do a lot less with more. The prime examples that come to mind are UCLA and Texas A&M. Going back to 2010 again, that UCLA team went 4-8. It played a 9-game Pac-10 schedule plus 3 OOC games (Kansas State, #23 Houston, #7 Texas). They lost to KSU, but whipped Houston and Texas. That same season, Texas A&M had a 9-4 record. Most Boise State fans would consider that a poor season. It included losses to Oklahoma State (road), Arkansas, Misouri and LSU. The latter 3 were all ranked at the time they played them (#11, #21 and #11 respectively), while OSU finished the year 10-2. Two of the aTm wins were against Top 10 Nebraska and Oklahoma teams. They also beat Texas, who was unranked at the time.
The point I'm making is that it's all relative. The talent may be great, but so is just about everyone else's in the conference. It's a grind where everyone has a realistic shot at pulling an upset and your Top 20 talent may actually make you less talented in several games a year.
Also referencing 2010, consider the 5-7 CU team that almost no one from a national perspective would consider good. Those 5 wins included blowouts of Colorado State and Hawaii, a close win over Georgia, and conference wins against Kansas State and Iowa State. The 7 losses (other than the 4th quarter collapse at Kansas that sealed our coach getting fired) were all against good teams. Cal (bowl team), Missouri (bowl team), Baylor (bowl team), Texas Tech (bowl team), Oklahoma (bowl team), and Nebraska (bowl team). That was a CU team that had a 3* QB who set school passing records and first round draft picks at LT and CB. All were 3* prospects. Problem is, when that's your talent level you can't hold up during that kind of week-to-week grind in a power conference. We have tried the Boise State approach. We had teams that, from 2006-2011, would have won 8-11 games a year in a conference like the MWC or WAC. But with CU's schedule, we haven't had a winning record in that period.
I really have no patience for the Boise State fans who try to come here and lecture us about talent, recruiting and star rankings. You don't have a ****ing clue what it's like in a power conference. Your approach has been an utter failure. Koetter put Arizona State into the crapper and HaLkins was even worse at CU. The Boise State model is wonderful for what it is. But it's not exportable to a power conference where a game against Georgia is just another game on the schedule that's preceded and followed by games that are just as tough or tougher.
