Look how I worded the question:

Why do teams that dominate on the field also dominate the rankings? I didn't say teams that dominate the rankings dominate the field.

The implication being that it takes more than just talent to succeed, but its hard to succeed without it. It takes more than water to grow plants, but without it, you can't grow anything.

There's a group of schools that compete for the same pot of highly regarded recruits. I don't believe Clemson is THAT much better at identifying talent than Texas or FSU. They have better coaching, and a better culture. That's the main difference.

So if you agree that Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc... are among the tops in the nation in terms of talent, and the recruiting rankings validate that notion....what are we arguing about here?

I can buy the argument that when you get to classes ranking between say 35 - 75....its a crap shoot. But the guys at the top and close to it? No, the recruiting rankings fall closely in line with the performance you'd expect. This is not to say talent isn't squandered (Texas, FSU, etc).