Marginalizing Recruiting Data and Cumulative Recruiting Rankings
by Seth C on Dec 26, 2011 7:00 AM CST
in Texas Tech Football Recruiting 2012
Email
PrintI've been thinking about recruiting rankings and I've always had a tough time figuring out how to marginalize the fact that ESPN doesn't rank JUCO rankings in comparison to how a team really stacks up in comparison to other teams. So what turned out to be an exercise to figure out how to "grade" a particular class without penalizing a class for taking a handful of JUCO players, who still have value to a program and don't deserve a non-ranking, has actually turned into a bit more in terms of evaluating the success or failure of a particular school's recruiting class. What this has turned into is trying to figure out what is the difference between having the best recruiting class in the nation vs.the bottom of a conference and trying to figure out what that means, or if we can even figure out what all of this recruiting data really means, if if means anything.
There's a few things to note that went on in my thought process:
- Rivals and Scout will almost always assign some sort of grade to just about every player. It's really quite remarkable to how they are able to filter almost each and every player and assign some sort of grade.
- Every scouting service still uses stars, but Rivals, ESPN and 24/7 also utilize some sort of grade.
- My initial thought to figure some of this out was to take the star given to each player and divide by 5. Thus, for a 3-star player that would be 60.0%.
- Next, I thought that the analysis for just one service was just fine, but what about utilizing as many services and grades as possible, doing the same thing above, which is to take, for example, the Rivals Rating and divide it by 6.1, which is the highest rating possible, and then get another percentage. Thus, a Rivals Rating of 5.4 would be 88.5%
- Now, we take what ever is available, so if ESPN doesn't grade a JUCO player, then that non-grade just didn't get included into the overall average. I've never understood why ESPN doesn't rank JUCO players, maybe it's a resources thing, but after doing this exercise, I've started to think that the overall average is the grade of a class with the thought being that the more information, the better, but it could also, perhaps, be thought of the percentage of a player's chance of success. So, Rivals, Scout and ESPN are essentially saying that Malcolm Brown is near of a guarantee to have a successful college football career.
- So, to give you an example for Texas Tech, TE Jace Amaro would be given a 78% chance of being a successful player. Of course, all of these rankings don't mean much of anything if a player exceeds expectations, but you shouldn't look at recruiting rankings as the final evaluation of a player. NFL teams, who have 3 or 4 years to evaluate a player, don't always have the best success rate.
- I am also tired of the argument of, "Well, Michael Crabtree was a 2-star player." Well, he was and he wasn't. According to Rivals, he was a 4-star player with a rating of 5.8 out of 6.1. According to Scout, he was a 2-star player. According to ESPN, which didn't hand out stars at that time, gave him a grade of 40. Put all of those together, and you get a rating of 71.7%, which seems about right for a player that showed tremendous athleticism as a high school player, but played quarterback in high school so you weren't sure what you were going to get. That seems more accurate because there's no doubt that Rivals was more right on Crabtree, but they're not going to hit all of the time, but taking an average of the three services gives a more accurate idea of what could be expected from a player.
The next thought was that I already had the numbers for the Texas Tech classes for 2010 and 2011 and utilized Rivals, Scout, ESPN and 24/7 (I didn't utilize 24/7 in 2010), but I needed a comparison. So I took what many thought was the best nation in the country and the best in the Big 12, Texas, and one of the worst, Kansas St. Yes, recruiting rankings do not reflect wins or losses on the field. K-State and Bill Snyder own Texas on the field, but Texas out-performs K-State according to every recruiting service.
Thus, taking all of the recruiting services together, for the 2011 recruiting classes UT gets an 80.2% grade, while KSU gets a 64.5% percent. For comparison purposes, Texas Tech had the third or fourth best class in the Big 12 last year and generally thought of a top 20 or 25 class and their grade for the 2011 class was 71.5%.
Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but doing this exercise has somewhat helped me in that I've always thought that what UT does is so far ahead of what teams like Texas Tech do, or Kansas St. do on the recruiting trail, but for me, this marginalizes that thought, especially when you consider the fact that the difference between Kansas St.'s 2011 class and Texas Tech's 2011 class isn't all that great, especially if you were to think of a overall average as being the overall chance of success of each player signed. If I think of UT's class as having an 80.2% chance of success, then it makes more sense to me in that they have more near-guarantees in players that will have success, while Kansas St. has still accumulated talent, but there are more unknowns with the players that K-State signed, especially JUCO's, so the chance of success is more unknown and that needs to be factored.
To bring this back a bit back to Texas Tech, I was curious if Texas Tech was still seemingly on target with what the 2011 class did, especially with 8 JUCO players and as of right now, Texas Tech does have an average of 70.3%, so this is still probably a top 20 or 25 class, even with all of the JUCO players.
I also realize that maybe marginalizing the recruiting data (i.e. taking out ESPN's non-ranking of JUCO players) or taking a cumulative look at all of the rankings is perhaps not the best way to take this information, but this seems like a better method than just relying on just one service to declare that a player is or is not going to have success.
All of the data and tables are after the jump.
2011 Texas Recruiting Class
| Player | Rivals | % | Rivals Rating | % | Scout | % | ESPN | % | ESPN Grade | % | AVERAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Ash | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 74.7% |
| Joe Bergeron | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 70.3% |
| Malcolm Brown | 5 | 100.0% | 6.1 | 100.0% | 5 | 100.0% | 5 | 100.0% | 86 | 86.0% | 97.2% |
| Josh Cochran | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 74.4% |
| Quandre Diggs | 4 | 80.0% | 5.9 | 96.7% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 83 | 83.0% | 83.9% |
| Taylor Doyle | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 70.1% |
| Steven Edmond | 4 | 80.0% | 6 | 98.4% | 5 | 100.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 81 | 81.0% | 87.9% |
| Sheroid Evans | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 83.0% |
| Sedrick Flowers | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 81 | 81.0% | 83.2% |
| Garrett Greenlea | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 83.0% |
| Marcus Hutchins | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 69.6% |
| Desmond Jackson | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 5 | 100.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 82 | 82.0% | 87.4% |
| M.J. McFarland | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 3 | 60.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 78.8% |
| Chet Moss | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 74.8% |
| Miles Onyegbule | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 74.3% |
| Cedric Reed | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 83.0% |
| Quincy Russell | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 82.8% |
| Leroy Scott | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 78.7% |
| Jaxon Shipley | 4 | 80.0% | 5.9 | 96.7% | 5 | 100.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 87.1% |
| Kendall Thompson | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 78.8% |
| Mykkele Thompson | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 78.6% |
| Josh Turner | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 81 | 81.0% | 83.2% |
| AVERAGE | 80.2% |
2011 Kansas St. Recruiting Class
| Player | Rivals | % | Rivals Rating | % | Scout | % | ESPN | % | ESPN Grade | % | AVERAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante Barnett | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 60.9% |
| Marquel Bryant | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 64.7% |
| Morgan Burns | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 69 | 69.0% | 60.2% |
| Jade Cathey | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 73 | 73.0% | 61.0% |
| Allen Chapman | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | - | - | 70.6% | ||
| Lamonte Clark | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 70.0% |
| Kip Daily | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 63.9% | ||
| Tyler Davidson | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 56.2% | ||
| Hunter Davis | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 70.3% |
| Glenn Gronkowski | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 68 | 68.0% | 55.3% |
| Samuel Harvill | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 70.0% |
| Tyler Lockett | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 74 | 74.0% | 65.2% |
| Vaikalfi Lutui | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 56.2% | ||
| Nigel Malone | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 63.9% | ||
| Brandon Mickens | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 65.1% |
| Mike Moore | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 69.8% |
| Angelo Pease | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 63.9% | ||
| Daniel Sams | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 73 | 73.0% | 61.3% |
| Ian Seau | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 70.4% |
| Shaun Simon | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 63.9% | ||
| Boston Stiverson | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 3 | 60.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 71 | 71.0% | 59.9% |
| Bo Tillman | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | - | - | 70.6% | ||
| Justin Tuggle | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | - | - | 70.6% | ||
| Cody Whitehair | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 74 | 74.0% | 61.2% |
| Meshak Williams | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | - | - | 71.1% | ||
| Dillon Wilson | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 60.7% |
| AVERAGE | 64.5% |
2011 Texas Tech Recruiting Class
| Player | Rivals | % | Rivals Grade | % | Scout | % | ESPN | % | ESPN Grade | % | AVERAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Brewer | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 70.3% |
| Kenny Williams | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 83.0% |
| Bradley Marquez | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 78.5% |
| Derek Edwards | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 74.8% |
| Marcus Kennard | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 2 | 40.0% | 71.7% | ||||
| Jakeem Grant | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 69.0% |
| Jace Amaro | 4 | 80.0% | 5.9 | 96.7% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 78.9% |
| Tony Morales | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 74.6% |
| Alfredo Morales | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 69.9% |
| Le'Raven Clark | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 74.5% |
| Matt Wilson | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 70.1% | ||||
| Dennell Wesley | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | 63.4% | ||||
| Leon Mackey | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 3 | 60.0% | 78.4% | ||||
| Donte Phillips | 2 | 40.0% | 5.4 | 88.5% | 3 | 60.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 74 | 74.0% | 60.5% |
| Delvon Simmons | 4 | 80.0% | 5.9 | 96.7% | 5 | 100.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 87.1% |
| Kindred Evans | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 69.4% |
| Branden Jackson | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 74.3% |
| Cooper Washington | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 70.3% |
| Blake Dees | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 73 | 73.0% | 64.6% |
| Sam Eguavoen | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 65.4% |
| Justin Cooper | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 74 | 74.0% | 60.8% |
| Jeremy Reynolds | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 65.4% |
| Ronnie Daniels | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 69.6% |
| LaDarrin Robertson | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 69.4% |
| DeAndre Washington | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 74.3% |
| J.J. Gaines | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 69.8% |
| AVERAGE | 71.5% |
2012 Texas Tech Recruiting Class
| Position | Commit | Ht/Wt | Rivals | % | Rivals Grade | % | Scout | % | ESPN | % | ESPN Grade | % | 24/7 | % | 24/7 Grade | % | AVERAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QB | CLAYTON NICHOLAS | 6-3/205 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 88 | 88.0% | 74.3% |
| RB | QUINTON WHITE | 5-8/180 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 82 | 82.0% | 69.8% |
| WR | REGINALD DAVIS | 6-1/185 | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 81 | 81.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 91 | 91.0% | 83.9% |
| WR | DOMINIQUE WHEELER | 6-2/178 | 4 | 80.0% | 5.9 | 96.7% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 82 | 82.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 95 | 95.0% | 84.8% |
| WR | SADALE FOSTER | 5-8/185 | 2 | 40.0% | 5.3 | 86.9% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | - | - | 55.6% | ||||
| WR | JAVON BELL | 5-8/185 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 4 | 80.0% | - | - | 4 | 80.0% | 95 | 95.0% | 81.7% | ||
| C | JARED KASTER | 6-4/268 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 88 | 88.0% | 71.1% |
| OL | TREY KEENAN | 6-5/270 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 90 | 90.0% | 74.5% |
| OL | RASHAD FORTENBERRY | 6-5/285 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | - | - | 63.9% | ||||
| DL | J.J. BYNUM | 6-3/275 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 87 | 87.0% | 71.1% |
| DL | MICHAEL STARTS | 6-5/285 | 4 | 80.0% | 5.8 | 95.1% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 80 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 94 | 94.0% | 84.2% |
| DL | ANTHONY SMITH | 6-0/291 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 86 | 86.0% | 70.5% |
| DL | CHASE ROBISON | 6-4/225 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 63.6% |
| DL | DESIMON GREEN | 6-5/230 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 89 | 89.0% | 71.0% |
| DL | LEE ADAMS | 6-3/265 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | - | - | 2 | 40.0% | 84 | 84.0% | 67.2% | ||
| LB | KRIS WILLIAMS | 6-2/200 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 81 | 81.0% | 69.6% |
| LB | RYAN FLANNIGAN | 6-1/200 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 79 | 79.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 86 | 86.0% | 71.0% |
| LB | WILL SMITH | 6-3/220 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 4 | 80.0% | - | - | 2 | 40.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 69.2% | ||
| LB | CHRIS PAYNE | 5-11/215 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | 2 | 40.0% | 77 | 77.0% | 61.4% | ||
| DB | LA'DARIUS NEWBOLD | 6-1/180 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.7 | 93.4% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 75 | 75.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 82 | 82.0% | 70.1% |
| DB | MICAH AWE | 6-0/210 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 84 | 84.0% | 67.5% |
| DB | THIERRY NGUEMA | 6-0/175 | 2 | 40.0% | 5.3 | 86.9% | 3 | 60.0% | - | - | - | - | 62.3% | ||||
| DB | AUSTIN STEWART | 6-2/200 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.6 | 91.8% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | - | - | 63.9% | ||||
| DB | BRUCE JONES | 5-9/175 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 2 | 40.0% | - | - | - | - | 63.4% | ||||
| ATH | KEENON WARD | 5-9/176 | 3 | 60.0% | 5.5 | 90.2% | 3 | 60.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 78 | 78.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 87 | 87.0% | 70.7% |
| AVERAGE | 70.3% |
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh wow.
Do I read that right? If a 1 star team has up to a 50% chance of winning, and a 5 star team has up to a 90% chance – then our margin of error for recruiting is 60%, because there is only a 40% difference.
Chances are recruiting doesn’t make any difference, or lets say it DOES make a difference only 40% of the time.
But 60% leaves a lot of room for statistical anomalies, and If my math is right- this is where the rubber meets the road.
This makes Mack Brown and other “championship” (Cough!) coaches look silly. They buy the “best” product with lower chances of success than the savvy coach who can spot UNDER-ranked players that are somewhere in the middle, Oh sure they can get a few more good players than the best simply by accident, but the numbers are telling. Not to mention, some of the highest ranked players can be – what’s the word – useless? Is that name calling? I dunno.
If you take the whole picture, this explains why top teams with top coaches don’t stay at the top for very long.
Hey, didn’t we have a coach one time who knew how to…
Well, really the data reflects the opposite of what you're saying, so you might want to take another look at the graph
Y-axis is winning percentage, X-axis is against what type of competition the winning percentage is against. So for instance on the far left of the graph you’re looking at the winning percentage against a 5-star team: a 5-star team has about a 50% chance of winning, a 3-star team has a ~47% chance, a 4-star team has a ~38% chance, a 2 star team has a ~29% chance, while a 1-star team has only a 10% chance of beating a 5-star team. The data suggests that in aggregate, the more highly ranked your recruits, the higher your winning percentage across the board is, and in addition you begin to completely dominate below average talent (2 star and below).
The one anomaly is that 3 star teams seem to outperform or perform as well as 4 star teams in certain matchups, which suggests that the difference between a 3 star and a 4 star recruit is a lot smaller than, say, the difference between a 4 and a 5 star recruit or a 2 and a 3 star recruit. The overall suggestion is that while there are diamonds in the rough out there to be found on the recruiting trail, overall your fate as a team will still be determined by your ability to attract the most top-rated talent.
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
Simple averages then
I was looking at the range.
Nice post Seth and great chart mojave
"This time it's different."
by LondonRaider on Dec 26, 2011 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
I just link stuff
all the work is Hinton’s
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 3:26 PM CST up reply actions
Excellent review!!!
Add what Seth wrote and the graph by mojavereject together, and it looks like the players we have (barring injuries and other losses) are good enough to compete with the 4- and 5-star classes. I consider Tech to be a 3-star class because most of our players are. So really, it is COACHING that makes a very strong difference, and the leadership and work ethic and mental toughness of the players that may make or break a season. Sadly, we had too many injuries, and probably had inadequate coaching, and lost a lot when we lost the leadership of Dees and Stephens.
Well if I am going to get on board with a 5-7 season because of injuries, youth, and bad coaching;
then is it not unreasonable to expect 2012 to be at least an 8-4 season with a decent bowl victory. Right.
Because our young players are not young anymore, some will come back from injuries (I pray for Stepehens), and we have brought in experienced coaches, and now we will have back to back top 30 classes, and if you throw in home games with Texas, OU, and Missouri, shouldn’t this be our break out year under Tommy.
Happy New Years DTN – First.
"Oh, yeah. We don't even talk about Bowls much. We're so far away from being a team right now that can have a chance to compete in a Bowl." HC Tommy Tuberville.
And I forgot, great work Seth and thanks Mojavereject.
"Oh, yeah. We don't even talk about Bowls much. We're so far away from being a team right now that can have a chance to compete in a Bowl." HC Tommy Tuberville.
Btech, you make a good point. And darn it, you were first with HNY!
Question:
If CG is still the DC, and he gets along with and takes good advice from the more experienced coaches, AND switches defenses as needed to fit the opponent, score, and our players, who will be coaching the DB?
I'm not sure
the home field advantage exists anymore. Seems we perform better on the road under Tubs leadership. The stadium seems to stay full the entire game away from the Jones.
Ancedote
Coach Tubs tewted a merry Christmas to everyone. So did Coach Brown. What’s missing from this picture?
And he does not call back recruits either.
"Oh, yeah. We don't even talk about Bowls much. We're so far away from being a team right now that can have a chance to compete in a Bowl." HC Tommy Tuberville.
We're gonna need an "allegedly" font
"Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles." ~ RW Emerson
by raider realist on Dec 26, 2011 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
Great analysis Seth
You really do your homework….
I’ve always hated recruiting/rating services and I’ve never felt recruiting class rankings meant a hill of beans in wins and losses
My oldest son (who played basketball) was always rated as a 4 or 5 star recruit, depending on the service. All the ranks were based on the summer circuit games. (nike, adidas. etc) In my sons case that was Nike circuit. These guys actually doing the ranking, rarely, if ever, went and actually watched a game, they would pull stats from the tournaments, call me and ask who all had offered my son schollys , and then talk to those coaches, to ask them why they were offering my son. So, assuming that football is at least similar to basketball (and I have no idea just speculating)….it’s more what the coach’s at various schools think of the kid.
So if a school like Texas is interested in the kid he gets a higher star rating, …..Not saying Malcom Brown won’t succeed at Texas, and not saying coaches at Texas don’t know what they’re doing or how to evaluate talent, just saying a lot of this is hype, for entertainment value. “My school has a higher recruiting ranking than your’s does” (see Texas A&M for the last decade).
My point is… 4 star, 5 star, a million star…find kids that fit your needs and program and go win with them. Coaching is, was, and will be, more important at Texas Tech ( as well as K State) than recruiting.
"My point is… 4 star, 5 star, a million star…find kids that fit your needs and program and go win with them."
Well, the numbers say ‘find kids (with at least 3 stars) that fit your needs and program and go win with them’, but you’re on the right track.
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 11:04 AM CST up reply actions
yes..not discounting
the “numbers” , not saying Texas doesn’t have an advantage over Texas State, or even us…just saying, Martellus Bennet was a 5 star guy, Wes Welker was a no star guy…and the Rival’s guys have no idea. So some of those 3 star guys may actually be 5 star guys and some of those 5 star guys are actually 3 star, depends on “who” is offering them….We will never out recruit Texas, Oklahoma, or Aggy…..We have to coach the 3 star guys up to 5 stars and find some kids that Rival’s missed on. Leach did that…..don’t think Tubby can.
by Bryan Moore on Dec 26, 2011 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
I aso would say to you
that the law of averages of say a 5 star school like Texas or OU would tell you they have increased chances of “finding” more kids who live up to their hype than does a 3 or 4 star like Tech….we have to “hit” on more of our kids than they do…because of shear numbers.
I think this is just where we differ in that I don’t think that recruiting rankings are the only things that determine if a program wins or loses, but they do mean something. There is a reason why N. Carolina and Kansas and Duke are regularly elite teams in college basketball, or LSU and Alabama are elite teams in football. They all have fantastic coaches, but they also recruit the best athletes in the country. It’s about hitting on just about any kid, not just for Texas Tech, but for any school. I think that recruiting rankings are like odds in that they have accumulated enough data to be very sure about what type of player Jonathan Gray is and by all accounts, he is a very good player, but someone like Sadale Foster, who played in a JUCO in California and was pretty good for a pretty good team, but they don’t know enough data about Foster, whereas they know quite a bit about Gray to make an evaluation about what type of player he actually is or think he can be.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
I totally agree with your post BM
BTW Did your son go on to play college basketball, and if so, where?
"This time it's different."
by LondonRaider on Dec 26, 2011 2:55 PM CST up reply actions
he did...
Played at Tulane. Has played in the D League, Europe, and Australia professionally.
Broke my heart…he was going to Tech, until James Dickey got fired …. he had no interest in playing for Coach Knight.
86.5 grade average by 24/7
Meanwhile, according to Seth’s numbers for 2012 class, the following is our average percentages:
For all players with six ratings….70.7%
For players with less than six…..64.0%
For all players listed…………………68.3%
I am not sure where this puts Tech, but those with greater than 80% ranking are:
WR Reginald Davis at ……………82.6%
WR Dominique Wheeler at ……83.1%
DL Michael Starts at ………………82.5%
Those with under 80%, but more than 70% ranking:
QB Clayton Nicholas at 72.1%
WR Javon Bell at 78.4%
OL Trey Keenan at 71.9%
All the rest are under 70%, with one being under 60%:
LB Chris Payne at 57.6%
So, the biggest longshot to ‘make it’ is obviously Payne, while the one with the biggest expectations is Wheeler.
I am still not sure how all this will pan out, bit we have six players that are probably considered as the best bets to contribute early. For me, that is a decent number. Now, it is up to the coaches to get the best results from an perceived better class than we usually see arriving, although the actual overall averag is less than in 2011. Clear as mud, huh?
TTpilk
"Never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill
It just means that Payne will kick ass.
"Oh, yeah. We don't even talk about Bowls much. We're so far away from being a team right now that can have a chance to compete in a Bowl." HC Tommy Tuberville.
I’m noy sure I follow. For me the point wasn’t to take just one service but to tally all of them, which is why foster is the biggest longshot according to the experts,
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Then both Foster and Payne will suprise all.
"Oh, yeah. We don't even talk about Bowls much. We're so far away from being a team right now that can have a chance to compete in a Bowl." HC Tommy Tuberville.
Not one service
Seth,
I took all the services, added their rankings up, then divided by the number of services used for your analysis. That being done, I missed on FOster, with Payne just above him. So, with Foster at 55.6% you were right that he is the longest shot of the group, with Payne next.
Sorry about the mixup. The rest should be OK, though.
Another note:
The 2011 class had two over 80% avg., compared to three for 2012 class.
The 2011 class had ten between 70% and 80%, while 2012 had only three.
That is why the 2011 class wound up higher ranked than 2012 class, based on avg. alone, for all players. Of course, 2012 has the 24/7 percentages included, where the 2011 class does not. And I think I’ll stop there. This is confusing.
TTpilk
"Never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill
The only thing missing
in this analysis is a discussion of “impact players”. I think the higher the recruiting ranking, the higher the chance for that player making a significant impact.
For example, when Von Miller came out of high school, he was a 4-star recruit on most of the services who rank recruits. And there is no doubt that he was an impact player at the collegiate level, and is now an impact player in the NFL.
On the other hand, Wes Welker was not ranked by just about everybody, yet he was an impact player in college, and also in the NFL.
A football team is always composed of “role players” and “impact players”. The higher number of impact players, the better the team. I believe this is why teams like Alabama have the edge. They have enough high-level recruits such that they have the luxury of playing them as “role players”. Then, when one guy goes down with an injury, the back-up guy steps in and “viola”- they don’t miss a beat.
Sorting through all of this data, I wonder if we can determine the recruiting ranking as a predictor of an “impact player”. My gut tells me probably not, given the examples above.
When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt.
The recruiting *is* the predictor of a player making an impact
Think of it as an investment rating (for the purposes of argument, let’s say in this hypothetical investment ratings are actually trustworthy). A guy like Jadeveon Clowney, who was a 5 star DL out of high school and the #1 consensus recruit in the country last offseason, is the equivalent of a AAA investment, while a a 5’9" slot receiver out of rural Oklahoma is a junk bond. You can make money off junk bonds, but the risk/reward ratio is skewed- if the slot receiver is Wes Welker, you look like a genius, if he’s Coulton Chelf, well, he was just a 1 or 2 star recruit in the first place, so what did you expect?
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
The finance analogy doesn't work for me
Because there are “guaranteed” investments like T-bills. As far as I know, there are no guarantees in recruiting rankings, and that’s why I used those two examples.
The point I was trying to make is that recruiting rankings are not that accurate. I look at teams like UT and Florida as examples. These schools are always ranked in the top 20 in recruiting, so therefore, they should have the most impact players year after year, right? But both of these schools have had back-to-back “down” years. Hard to justify based on recruiting rankings alone.
There are many, many intangibles that ultimately come into play. Leadership, coaching, “football IQ”, young men that mature at different rates, young men that don’t mature at all, attitudes, work ethic, etc.
I commend Seth and others for their analysis. But I also think that we should not put too much “trust” in the data. After all, K-State compared to UT had a really bad recruiting class. But they whipped UT’s behind didn’t they, along with a lot of other schools including Tech.
When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt.
Of course there are many intangibles. We’re talking about real live human beings and human beings, for the most part are difficult to predict. However, to just look at the schools that recruit well, but the results don’t show on the field and vice versa isn’t fair. If you read Hinton’s piece, it clearly demonstrates that the more highly rated the recruiting class, the more likely you win. Alabama and LSU had top 6 recruiting classes the last two years. Does their success have something to do with coaching and other things? Sure, but it also has to do with recruiting some highly rated players and they also drop players at a much higher rate than other teams (i.e. the sign more players than they have spots available and drop current players).
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Not to derail but there's no such thing as "guaranteed", there is only the least risky option, I agree it's an imperfect analogy however in that football recruits don't generally cleave to the financial pattern of risky bets having the highest rewards
But in other sense, the risk/reward dilemma of ‘safe’ investments (ie blue chip recruits) vs ‘risky’ investments (the low-ranked prospects among which many around here seem to see the next Wes Welker lurking) shines through when you consider that you have a finite number of scholarships available to offer in a given year, and a finite number of scholarships within the program as a whole, and each one represents an opportunity cost.
What I mean by that is that you have to weigh a scholarship you offer to one player against what you could potentially get from another player for the ‘cost’ of that scholarship. So from that perspective, pursuing higher ranked players pays off both in magnitude of return (potential impact/star players) and likelihood of success (wins) over pursuing comparable players of a lower recruit ranking who are “gritty” or “want it more” or “fit the system” or whatever backhanded compliment we’re giving to scrub athletes these days. You can talk about entitlement or laziness all you want, but ultimately those are coachable issues and are part of another discussion- highly ranked recruits aren’t inherently lazy or of lower moral fiber, just as lower ranked recruits aren’t automatically all secretly amazing players who just need a chance to blossom. Reality’s more complicated and more interesting than a movie plot.
On another note, it’s funny that you would take the example of Florida and UT’s relative lack of success over the past two seasons as support for your thesis, whereas I’d consider it to be a data point in my favor. Since 2000, UF’s cumulative win percentage: 73.4%, not to mention 3 conference championships and 2 national titles. Since 2000, UT’s cumulative win percentage: 79.7%, plus of course 2 conference titles and a national one. I think those results speak for themselves, personally.
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
also one more Dr Saturday graph, and I hope it will persuade you that recruit rankings really do predict potential "impact"
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 6:26 PM CST up reply actions
This graph undermines the rating system more than supports it
Only six percent of 5 stars become All Americans, and that’s supposed to justify that the system works?
This is where the finance analogy fails. A US T-bill has a a virtually 100 chance of not defaulting. A five star recruit has a a 94 percent chance of being a bust (by definition a 5-star prospect that fails to materialize into an All American surely constitutes a bust).
"This time it's different."
by LondonRaider on Dec 26, 2011 7:33 PM CST up reply actions
Well let's not overreach
For one thing, All-Americans make up such a miniscule percentage of the player population that there are bound to be outstanding players that don’t receive that recognition. Individual accolades are nice, but they’re not an exclusive criteria for success- all All-Americans are great players, but not all great players are All-Americans, etc. If 1.3% of players at a given time are 5-star recruits, but only .69% of players can be named All-Americans, 100% of All-Americans could be 5 star recruits, and nearly half of 5 star recruits could still be failures. You see what I’m saying?
As it stands, 5 star recruits make up something like a little over 1% of the entire high school prospect population, while 3 star and below players make up over 85% of the same population- if recruiting experts were full of it, there’s a very good chance you wouldn’t see any 5 star recruits at all make those award lists
For another thing, no one’s claiming that recruiting rankings are accurate all the time, and there are so many variables that can either enhance or diminish a player’s performance on a college team beyond their athletic ability, that there’s bound to be misses, and bad ones to boot. However, the only graph that would undermine the rating system would be one that showed you a random distribution of All-Americans that was not consistent with the ratings system’s ability to evaluate them, and clearly that’s not the case. Could they be more accurate? Of course, but statistically the argument that they’re bunk just doesn’t hold up, and a lot of what I’m seeing in here is irrational suspicion of the system because a few data points go the other way.
As for the finance credit ratings analogy, I think you’re getting bogged down in the fact that one system has vastly more efficient mechanisms to minimize risk (like states and reserve banks and armies and shit), but that doesn’t mean that both systems aren’t fundamentally similar in many respects. If various studies can be believed, a football player at a major college football university can represent as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue per year, and that’s just because of the jersey they wear and what that means to the people paying frankly silly amounts of money to come see them play, and that’s completely aside from their individual statistics. It’s no joke, and it goes way past how fast a kid can run the 40 or how much he can bench press.
That scholarship is inarguably an investment and due to the scarcity of those scholarships and the competitive nature of the game, recruit rankings can play a valuable role in the calculus of how those decisions get made; especially given how little time a football coach has to devote to the stupidly optimistic proposition of hopping in a car/plane to travel across a country full of thousands of high school football players to find the 25 or so every year that are in the Goldilocks Zone for their program. It’s not a perfect analogy, but the OP was asking why the system lacked a metric for gauging the “impact” of recruits, when in fact that is quite literally what the system is, for all it’s warts. I stand by the comparison.
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 8:48 PM CST up reply actions
Another Aspect To Consider...
The real prospects of becoming an All American are significantly higher than he presents in the graph.
He graphs 2009 All Americans for five recruiting classes. 2009 recruits have four more years to be named All American if they are redshirted.
I expect the total number of All Americans for the classes 2005 through 2009 would be a great deal higher than +/- 7%.
recruiting is grossly overrated
to a large degree. Unless you’re Texas or a handful of other schoolsyou have a much smaller chance of getting a “sure thing”. 4 star or 2 star it doesn’t really matter. Neither will make much of a difference until at least their third year on campus. By then, that player’s success relies largely on the coaching staff and the system that’s been implemented. Therein lies the problem with us. We can get all the great 4 stars and yada yada yada players but it doesn’t matter. None of these guys are sure things. We have no jadeveon clowneys or johnathan grays. Furthermore, we have an inept coaching staff to groom these guys that still need much improvement. That’s why i don’t think recruiting matters particulary for Texas Tech. We don’t have a coaching staff that can polish diamonds in the rough. For this coaching staff to be really successful they need ronnie browns and cadallac williams – which we have no one of remote resemblence. It’s Tech. We don’t need 4 star mumbo jumbo. We need a staff that can maximize talent – like the last staff. Or else, were no better than a&m then the past decade.
Teach me how to Doege teach me teach me how to Doege!!!
Recruiting rankings are NOT over-rated...
The fact that someone has 4 stars beside their name means that they’ve been evaluated and deemed bigger, strong, faster, and possessing better technique than a 2 star prospect. This matters! Unless you don’t want bigger, stronger, faster, better players.
Also… I think Matt Hinton did a piece on how accurately recruiting stars predict future success… and he found that they were VERY predictive… I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m sure someone could find it.
FYI, Mojave linked Hinton’s article in the first comment on this post. The graph in his comment is from that post.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
That's not the Hinton article that I had in mind...
I linked it above… sorry, I overlooked mojave’s link or I would have been more specific about the article I was talking about here…
It is a yearly ritual for Hinton to do that type of post. Expect one in February.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
meh..
Our team is now full of big, fast, and athletic guys. But, they can’t tackle, they blow easy assignments, and they flat out don’t make plays they should. Obviously recruiting natters, but not to the extreme ppl make it out to be. A&m had great athletes the entire 2000s and were terrible for the most part. We have clearly adopted their business plan. No, ill take a group of 3 star rankings and a solid coaching staff that can maximize their talent than what we have now.
Teach me how to Doege teach me teach me how to Doege!!!
I think what this post and the discussion surrounding it brings to light
is that A) There’s a strong correlation between winning and bringing in players that professionally recruiting services rank highly, and B) Texas Tech’s recruiting, while not the best, suggests that this is a talented but underperforming team and not, as many have claimed, an empty cupboard.
by mojavereject on Dec 26, 2011 6:19 PM CST up reply actions
I want TTU to be a top 10 team
Having said this, I feel Tech presently has talent to produce a top 40 team.
I am in no way saying Tech can’t bust out a Top 20 final ranking next year or after. But when I look at our roster, it just doesn’t appear we’ve employed a Top 20 recruiting priority to enough areas. In some areas, we’ve chased off depth that could have been contributing.
Agree, but
I think the point you make earlier about the quality level between 5-star, 4-star, 3-star and 2-star recruits is more accurate.
Now, let’s put our logic hats on.
The supply of 5-star prospects is limited. Few teams have such prospects.
Most elite teams have 4-star and 3-star talent.
The difference between 4-star and 3-star talent is in reality difficult to distinguish.
Ergo, the differences between good teams and elite teams reflect factors that go beyond talent (coaching, leadership, system, intangibles, etc).
Conclusion:
Good players are the building blocks, but good players alone aren’t going to get you to the promise land.
"This time it's different."
by LondonRaider on Dec 26, 2011 7:43 PM CST up reply actions
perhaps i shouldve clarified
Recruiting rankings dont matter. Recruiting does matter. See this year.
Teach me how to Doege teach me teach me how to Doege!!!
I don’t think I understand. They do matter some but are not the only predictor of a team’s success.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Someone had some free time over the holidays
Great read Seth. I think you’re right, the rating services are subjective and it really just depends who has the better scouts. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure, and all that jazz.
The chicken is involved but the pig is committed
by maddraven1716 on Dec 26, 2011 6:19 PM CST via mobile reply actions
This, and my thought was that a cumulative rank was better than just taking one service as absolute.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Yeah, it made me think about recruiting services
You could look at the average of each, but as you showed with Crabtree, 2 star rivals and 4 star recruits, I don’t think an average of three stars would be right. In this case, rivals just got out scouted by scout. 4 stars could have been the more precise. Then again, maybe Tech brought out talent, but that’s a while other topic.
The chicken is involved but the pig is committed
by maddraven1716 on Dec 26, 2011 7:46 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Grammar was terrible, but it's the holidays
The chicken is involved but the pig is committed
by maddraven1716 on Dec 26, 2011 7:47 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Strong recruiting doesn't guarantee success, but
it is a minimum requirement for invitation to the college football adult’s table.
Schools can overachieve and have isolated moments of success, but in order to have sustainable top tier success, strong recruiting is a minimum requirement.
Examples: Florida, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, OU………in the not so distant past, Miami
If Tubs can produce a winner this year and get Tech into a bowl, that will be great. With all that has been written about stars, percentages and grades, I just hope Tech will start having similar success or better than what we had under Leach. The number of wins he led Tech to, when filtering in the recruiting averages, has got to be greater than most when comparing the number of wins to the class ranking. That means Leach did get more out of his “underrated” players than most coaches. Can Tubs do this? Only time will tell. However, if we could look back on his Auburn teams and be able to apply similar data to them as we could have done here to Tech, I think Leach will still wind up head and shoulders above Tubs in the overall scheme of things. If Tubs can get similar results at Tech as did Leach, percentage wise, I think we all will be happy. Like I said above, this is confusing. So, just WIN! It doesn’t matter to me who you have on the team, just WIN!
TTpilk
"Never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill
I think what we fail to consider is just how few 5* kids come in to college each year. I would guess there are fewer than 20 kids ranked that high each Feb who sign. There are dozens of 4* recruits each year, and even more 3* and 2* kids. Frankly, the 3 and 4 are what make up the vast majority of any elite program’s roster with the occasional 5* thrown in. But if you are stocked with 2* and NA athletes, you will always struggle; I don’t care who the coach is. You need enough of the kids who are really good (not great) to succeed. And then coaching, but that’s not what this is about right now.
I’m more concerned with “fit” for a kid. Is he really close maturity wise to being able to handle being away from home? Is he somewhat close to being physically mature? Does he have passable speed (this usually can’t be improved all that much from one level to the next)? Does he have a desire to be great? Is he a decent fit for more than one of the systems you run, assuming many kids switch positions and sides of the ball? Is he the cockiest SOB on campus who thinks he’s smarter than the coaches (don’t want him…)?
11/12/11...66-6...I once was blind, but now I see.
I am not sure that strong correlations can be made about HS and JUCO recruiting.
Yes, the one above that represent teams with 5 stars vs 4 stars vs 3’s etc are about what one can get, it represents the 2001 class.
It is important to keep in mind that all classes are not the same. I.e., last season’s rb class was so deep that one could have moved any number of guys to another year and he likely could have gained one more star, maybe two if the numbers were just right. An extreme thought on the idea is it is possible to think that the guy ranked at the bottom of the 4’s could have been at the top of the 5’s in a year more favorable to him.
5 stars won 0.5 vs other 5’s, they won 0.6 vs 4’s, but they won at more like 0.56 – 0.57 vs 3’s. There is some else going on and it could be that the 5’s identified do in fact shine vs the crowd, and the 4’s are essentially equal vs other 4’s, little different than vs 3’s. Amazingly the 3’s win against other 3’s at about the same rate as they do vs 5’s.
Some of that implies that if you are recruiting classes that are ranked consistently with 3’s, you have a pretty good chance of having winning football, there is not that much diffence between winning with 3’s and winning with 4’s.
Another point which I sense, perhaps wrongly, is that the players are ranked by the coaching staffs differently than by the ranking services. I believe the recruiting services include in their rankings the value that a particular coaching staff seems to place in a recruit. And that the impact on the recruit’s value is significant enough to make a difference between 5’s and 4’s between 4’s and 3’s. The recruiting services rankings in fact lag behind the coach’s valuations and at best guess at those.
We see plenty of outliers both in terms of guys who were ranked by the recruiting services low but who did well on the field, and vice versa, guys who are considered busts.
Whatever the impact on winning, it remains a great deal of fun to think about the rankings and compare those who rank higher and lower…but it does not mean as much as we would like to think. Good coaching makes a great impact, we see that as a coach and the core of his staff make progress up the food chain of college sports. In front of that is the HC who seems to be able to make some nice level of success in what ever role he has been charged to fulfill.
Living large in Texas...Texas forever.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
