Recruiting Stars & Data

[HurricaneU]

Another money piece from perhaps the best sports site out there. Football Study Hall compared recruiting rankings in head-to-head matchups. The conversation that follows the analysis does note differences in divisions - though it doesn't do a complete investigation of that particular variable.

At the least, its fodder for the off-season.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

 

[drifters1234]

I didn't need convincing.

But for those on the fence, that has to be extremely compelling, bordering on irrefutable.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

Anyone who seriously still denies that the recruiting rankings are a good indicator for talent/future success is a moron.

 

[Consigliere]

I don't think anyone disputes this I just think there is much more to it.

Somehow and someway, Oregon and Stanford can have the success their having and not sniff these top-10 recruiting rankings.

 

[NoahZach]

Don't need convincing either, but that study still falls a little short. The five-star teams also tend to have the five-star budgets for the five-star coaching staffs, the five-star training and nutrition and the ability to gather a pool of top end talent where the collective raises up the individual performances and final results. From my view, there are factors that help bring about the result beyond just the stars.

All of that said, the prior arguments against the rankings have faded away over the years as the information regarding high school players has become so much more accessible, eliminating the more wild variables of the past. Nowadays, if a kid is ranked, he likely has had several sets of eyes on him, not only watching a highlight tape, but seeing him in games, in camps, in 7-on-7s, etc. The volume of information and greater breadth of kids that now are in the system makes it harder and harder for the rankings to miss wildly.

Bottom line to me--the study might be somewhat flawed in methodology, but it still reaches the correct result.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

I don't think anyone disputes this I just think there is much more to it.

Somehow and someway, Oregon and Stanford can have the success their having and not sniff these top-10 recruiting rankings.

Chalk them up as outliers?

And to be fair, they both are under the article's "4 star" tier, so it's not like they aren't at least doing well in recruiting.

 

[HurricaneU]

Don't need convincing either, but that study still falls a little short. The five-star teams also tend to have the five-star budgets for the five-star coaching staffs, the five-star training and nutrition and the ability to gather a pool of top end talent where the collective raises up the individual performances and final results. From my view, there are factors that help bring about the result beyond just the stars.

All of that said, the prior arguments against the rankings have faded away over the years as the information regarding high school players has become so much more accessible, eliminating the more wild variables of the past. Nowadays, if a kid is ranked, he likely has had several sets of eyes on him, not only watching a highlight tape, but seeing him in games, in camps, in 7-on-7s, etc. The volume of information and greater breadth of kids that now are in the system makes it harder and harder for the rankings to miss wildly.

Bottom line to me--the study might be somewhat flawed in methodology, but it still reaches the correct result.

Agree. A detailed analysis of financial performance overlaid with the statistical data would be compelling. Unfortunately, much of that data such as access to personal jets, booster and alumni networks, staff time spent on recruiting would be all but impossible to collect.

It probably wouldn't be a huge reach to look at the athletic dept. allocations per football program and extrapolate from there. We know U Texas, Bama, Penn St. Florida, Ohio St, Nebraska have massive athletic dept. budgets. I think that analysis would be more useful to uncover who is under-performing per dollar.

I think this will become an increasingly problematic issue for college football as mega-conferences form and a playoff system (which I am a big fan of) develops.

 

[Dghustla]

Ryan Moore, Lance Legget, Kyle Wright, Robert Marve, Marcus Forton, Aldarius Johnson, storm Johnson, Arthur brown, ray ray Armstrong....the list goes on. **** A STAR! Give me a competent coach with midlevel talent with a decent ceiling and high FB Iq all day.

 

[DaU83]

I don't think anyone disputes this I just think there is much more to it.

Somehow and someway, Oregon and Stanford can have the success their having and not sniff these top-10 recruiting rankings.

they're ranked in the 4 star group, and the dude said Oregon just missed the 5 star group.

 

[bobbydigius]

I didn't need convincing.

But for those on the fence, that has to be extremely compelling, bordering on irrefutable.

I dont think those that didnt believe in the correlation of stars to success were ever going to be convinced anyway. Remember its not about whether or not stars matter to them as much as it was a rationalization on our recruiting short falls. Sure Miami always had diamond in the rough recruits that ended up stars, but we also had a plethora of Parade All Americans. On top of that, all the border line kids were then chalked up as three star or lower. Nevermind that Sean Taylor broke rushing records, because he wasnt a Max Preps or Parade All American he had to be a three star. Ive said this a million times, but there were actually people that convinced themselves and would have bet the house that Keion Payne was the best cover corner from STA in 2010 over Joyner and Riggs, and that Perry had a higher ceiling than Lemonier. Kevin Nelson was the best inside LB in Florida that year. The following year these same individuals tried to convince themselves that Chickillo was this monster pass rusher who may in fact be better than Clowney, and while Chickillo was a very good prospect he was never this unstoppable pass rushing DE.

The thing is that you got just trust your eyes. Its obvious Chad Thomas is a stud, just as its obvious that a player like Juwon Young was vastly underrated but Rivals. Just as Dalvin Cook, Tavon Ross, and Yearby were all studs regardless of stars.

 

[Consigliere]

I don't think anyone disputes this I just think there is much more to it.

Somehow and someway, Oregon and Stanford can have the success their having and not sniff these top-10 recruiting rankings.

Chalk them up as outliers?

And to be fair, they both are under the article's "4 star" tier, so it's not like they aren't at least doing well in recruiting.

I think there is something more important than just bringing in players or elite players. I think it is more hiring the right guy. I don't call it outliers because there are a bunch of guys who are available who would come in and beat the **** out of the other teams in the conference right away.

And to be fair both Stanford and Oregon don't do that well recruiting and to be fair rarely sniff the top 10/15 in recruiting rankings.

Stanford and Oregon are not doing that well at recruiting (see below). In fact, we do much better than them. The point is they hired the right guys who knew what they are doing. Texas and USC constantly kill it in recruiting but they haven't accomplished much recently. Perhaps the right coach is necessary to properly cook.


Stanford

2014: 19th Ranked Class

2013: 40th Ranked Class

2012: 12th Ranked Class

2011: 21st Ranked Class

2010: 18th Ranked Class

AVG Ranking: 22nd

2010-2014 W/L: 46-8 (31-5), 4 BCS Bowls and 2 Wins

Oregon

2014: 25th Ranked Class

2013: 26th Ranked Class

2012: 18th Ranked Class

2011: 14th Ranked Class

2010: 22nd Ranked Class

AVG Ranking: 21st

2010-2014 W/L: 47-6 (32-4), 3 BCS Bowls, 1 NC Game and 2 BCS Wins.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

I don't think anyone disputes this I just think there is much more to it.

Somehow and someway, Oregon and Stanford can have the success their having and not sniff these top-10 recruiting rankings.

Chalk them up as outliers?

And to be fair, they both are under the article's "4 star" tier, so it's not like they aren't at least doing well in recruiting.

I think there is something more important than just bringing in players or elite players. I think it is more hiring the right guy. I don't call it outliers because there are a bunch of guys who are available who would come in and beat the **** out of the other teams in the conference right away.

And to be fair both Stanford and Oregon don't do that well recruiting and to be fair rarely sniff the top 10/15 in recruiting rankings.

Stanford and Oregon are not doing that well at recruiting (see below). In fact, we do much better than them. The point is they hired the right guys who knew what they are doing. Texas and USC constantly kill it in recruiting but they haven't accomplished much recently. Perhaps the right coach is necessary to properly cook.


Stanford

2014: 19th Ranked Class

2013: 40th Ranked Class

2012: 12th Ranked Class

2011: 21st Ranked Class

2010: 18th Ranked Class

AVG Ranking: 22nd

2010-2014 W/L: 46-8 (31-5), 4 BCS Bowls and 2 Wins

Oregon

2014: 25th Ranked Class

2013: 26th Ranked Class

2012: 18th Ranked Class

2011: 14th Ranked Class

2010: 22nd Ranked Class

AVG Ranking: 21st

2010-2014 W/L: 47-6 (32-4), 3 BCS Bowls, 1 NC Game and 2 BCS Wins.

You are preaching to the choir my man.

 

[Miami82]

Ryan Moore, Lance Legget, Kyle Wright, Robert Marve, Marcus Forton, Aldarius Johnson, storm Johnson, Arthur brown, ray ray Armstrong....the list goes on. **** A STAR! Give me a competent coach with midlevel talent with a decent ceiling and high FB Iq all day.

What is Boise State?

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Why wasn't USC included in this analysis?

 

[Consigliere]

Why wasn't USC included in this analysis?

The only mention of USC is the following: the USC Trojans: Recent history is littered with once-touted flops, all of them hovering ominously over the proceedings like the ghosts of signing days past. USC over the last 5 years would be included with the elite recruiters but no real results.

I have a few issues with the article, but not with the message.

They go back 10 years for results, things have changed a lot over 10 years and is way to broad of analysis. The game has changed a lot over 10 years. IMO, 5 years should be sufficient. 5 years is the now, 10 years is way too much data and does not accurately reflect the changes in today IMO.

In addition, they rank 11 teams as 5-star teams. That is way too many. Of that group over the last 5 years, Texas (1 BCS appearance), Georgia (no BCS appearances), Notre Dame (1 BCS appearance), LSU (1 BCS appearance) and Michigan (1 BCS win) combined have the same amount of appearances as Stanford (4 BCS appearances) but Stanford has more wins (2 BCS wins).

My point is the message is true but there is an efficiency formula that IMO is unaccounted for and more important than just ranking the classes.

Nick Saban + Elite Recruits = Success (DUH), is it really necessary to make this claim?