Well what do you say when the kid and his parents meet with you and ask you "what is your plan for my son?" Do you say "well, I plan on having him ride the bench and hope he improves enough to beat out a freshman 5 star 3 years from now." Guess what, the kid is going to Nova, Michigan, etc.
Let's be abundantly clear: the statement I was opposing was the idea that "Cal should promise not to recruit over players".
So to honestly engage in this debate with me, you need to defend some version of that.
Which of the following things are you proposing?
a. Stop recruiting for that slot until a kid leaves
b. Only recruit 4 stars after you've recruited a 4 star for a certain slot, meaning you will only have 4 stars forever at that slot
c. Guarantee upperclassmen a starting spot over a freshman no matter how poorly they perform
d. ?
Not sure how else you'd do it, but I'd love to hear a cohesive, defensible concept around "not recruiting over" players.
As for me, I'd say exactly what Cal says - "I won't guarantee you anything, but I've had starters who were freshmen up to seniors who have been huge contributors. If you want it bad enough, you can earn that spot."
You know how I know that's what he says? Because that's what 100% of the kids say that Cal says. And they all claim that they love to hear that. Problem is, when they get beat, the sour grapes come out for some, who take their ball and go home.
It's not ideal, but again, unless you're a Yale law grad or something, I don't successfully see you defending what you appear to be defending here. You can't run a program where you guarantee everyone's spots. The obvious consequences would be disastrous and fans would riot.