Was it this board where someone posted the analysis correlating performance with recruiting? It was very thorough over an extended period and closely examined all schools that our performed or under performed relative to recruiting. It also only counted games between BCS conference teams to correct for the cupcake games.
FWIW, GT was a school that had outperformed its recruiting by a decent percentage. So the conclusion is either that the coaches imrpoved the players they got or were better at evaluating talent than the recruiting services. (I think it was more of the latter IMO.)
The conclusion of the study was (surprise) that for the most part there was a HIGH correlation between recruiting and on field success.
Found the link:
http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228
Excerpt:
"Boston College, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech and Oregon State have a much stronger record as “overachievers” – they play more higher-ranked teams and are all at about .500 against that “superior” talent. Wake Forest is on pace to join that group after the last two seasons, especially if the ACC remains so
friendly to conservative, defensive teams, but like their fellow recruiting bottom-dwellers in the Big East, their success is a result of beating teams in the middle of the pack, almost never (Wake’s two-year streak over Florida State, one of the real underachievers, is an exception) against teams at the top."