UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

nothing to do with signing as many 5* as possible and you will instantly be good. Oregon vs. Indiana is a recent but prime example. The Yankees in the early 2000s were better when they had less "star" power than they are today when they are loaded with stars. The same for the Boston Red Sox and Oakland A's turnarounds. That's literally how they did it. Find the overlooked and underloved value. Guys no one wanted. The non-5* types.

Do 5*'s tend to have more "talent" with less required evaluation? Sure. Just because you get a group of 5*, will you instantly be good or guaranteed wins? No. Sports history is littered with teams full of talent that underperformed and teams with little talent that worked well as a *team* to win more than expected.

Yes, there is a balance, but what I'm pointing out is the fallacy that all you need to do is get the best players possible to win. That is more of the motto today. Specifically on this board, there is constant moaning about lack of 5* and not being able to win because of it. Cignetti has taken the losingest school in college football history (I believe that's what they said before the game) and turned it into an instant winner without five stars. There are a lot of ways to go about winning, but having a proven plan is the best one. Processes don't tend to hinge on stars.