first point to you. You didn't even directly respond to what I said. Talk about comprehension fail. This has nothing to do with sake of arguing. You either made a stupid point or didn't explain it very well. But let's put that totally aside.

Go back to what I just explained. What is most realistic? In terms of QUANTITY, how much is BYU going to improve at the top? Are they going to land a handful more 4 star guys each class? What is it you're looking for? I doubt you'd demand what G$ did.

You're right, it needs to get better. But it is NOT going to be realistic for BYU to fix the problem just from one spot in the class (the top end). BYU can't land that many more elite prospects to cover. So where ELSE does it need to improve?

You think I'm arguing with your point, but I'm really just suggesting that the truth is in the middle. There have to be improvements from both spots, and it's MUCH more likely to make drastic improvements in the 3-star range first. You don't just start by all of the sudden landing a handful more elite recruits. Does this make any sense? Take your point and apply it directly to BYU and their unique situation.

So yeah, with improvement they'd get a few more of the elite, but far more 3-stars and far fewer 2/NRs. You might not think it's a difference maker but I believe I've pointed you to a handful of schools who prove it is. Plus, you have to start somewhere right? Once you start winning with those guys, THEN you can start landing more numbers at the top end.