What I think that means is that Dantonio and Beilein are great talent maximizers. They can get the most out of underrecruited kids, and win big with less talent than comparable programs. But I'm not sure the "developer" tag is accurate, because in that case I think you'd see their players produce more at the next level.
Well, yes and no. To maximize the talent, you
have to develop it. Very few of these 2* players are coming in ready to dominate the B1G. It requires improving their skills, improving their understanding of their role in a scheme, and improving their bodies.
Only issue is that once you've done that, they're *still* at a severe talent differential compared to the players that stick in the NFL or NBA. If you take those players, with their talent, and give them the same skills & understanding level of the Dantonio/Beilein lesser talent players, they're still going to have an edge.
There are ~60 P5 teams, with 85 scholarship players each. Given 1/4 turnover each year, that's 1275 players available each year, not counting G5 or FCS.
Only 224 players each year are drafted, and often those in the later rounds don't even stick as they're headed to a league of 32 teams with only 53 man rosters.
Similar issue with basketball, but probably worse due to players from overseas, and that there's more competition with Big East and other mid-major leagues that don't have as much talent dropoff as the difference between P5 and G5 in football.
Dantonio or Beilein [or Painter, who I think is in the same "do more with less" category] should be lauded for winning with what they have. But you shouldn't knock them for not having players who do more at the next level.
Talent still dominates, when you get into the rarefied air of the next level.
