Regular Season Standings VS Recruiting Rankings

[razorjack12]

The following are the Regular Season Standings for every SEC Team from 2005-2014 compared to their average SEC Recruiting Ranking per Rivals from 2002-2014.

#1  Alabama     61-19  (4th)

#2  LSU            56-24  (2nd)

#3  Georgia      54-26  (3rd)

#4  Florida       53-27   (1st)

#5  Auburn      46-34   (5th)

#6  South Car  44-36  (7th)

#7  Arkansas   34-46  (9th)

#8  Tennessee  31-49  (6th)

#9  Miss St      30-50  (10th)

#10 Ole Miss     24-56  (8th)

#11 Vandy        22-58  (12th)

#12 Kentucky    20-60  (11th)

* * * * * * * * * *
I did not include aTm and Mizzou in the above list because we only have 3 years of of standings to work with.  But here's how those two programs have done:

Missouri  16-8  (12th)
aTm  13-11  (7th)

* * * * * * * * * *

Its uncanny how a teams final ranking in the standings will almost always be within 2 places of their recruiting ranking average.

[trphog]

So what your saying is that recruiting rankings do matter. +1

[harrisburghog]

Scarey

[Hoginsavga]

The following are the Regular Season Standings for every SEC Team from 2005-2014 compared to their average SEC Recruiting Ranking per Rivals from 2002-2014.

#1  Alabama     61-19  (4th)

#2  LSU            56-24  (2nd)

#3  Georgia      54-26  (3rd)

#4  Florida       53-27   (1st)

#5  Auburn      46-34   (5th)

#6  South Car  44-36  (7th)

#7  Arkansas   34-46  (9th)

#8  Tennessee  31-49  (6th)

#9  Miss St      30-50  (10th)

#10 Ole Miss     24-56  (8th)

#11 Vandy        22-58  (12th)

#12 Kentucky    20-60  (11th)

* * * * * * * * * *
I did not include aTm and Mizzou in the above list because we only have 3 years of of standings to work with.  But here's how those two programs have done:

Missouri  16-8  (12th)
aTm  13-11  (7th)

* * * * * * * * * *

Its uncanny how a teams final ranking in the standings will almost always be within 2 places of their recruiting ranking average.

Throw out the last three seasons caused by cycle gait and we look a lot better. I didn't do the math (too lazy) but it may put us in 5th place. Not bad. It will be exciting to watch us get back to the elite years under CBB as he will coach our Hogs up much in the same manner as Coach Broyles did during his tenure. WPS.

[jkstock04]

Throw out the last three seasons caused by cycle gait and we look a lot better. I didn't do the math (too lazy) but it may put us in 5th place. Not bad. It will be exciting to watch us get back to the elite years under CBB as he will coach our Hogs up much in the same manner as Coach Broyles did during his tenure. WPS.

That's the only problem with this data, it doesn't take into account different periods/coaches. Take Bama for instance, included in his data are the pre Saban years when they were on probation. How accurate is that when thrown into the equation?

The bottom line is that there is an overall strong correlation of higher ranked recruiting classes = more success. The only reason anyone would disagree is if they had an agenda.

[trphog]

The only reason anyone would disagree is if they had an agenda.

Agreed.

[Pork Twain]

I do not understand why people pretend that recruiting does not matter, but that does not mean that a team full of 3*s cannot compete with Bama or OSU.  For that to happen a team must have a VERY low miss rate on the players at the top of their board.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/5-star-recruits-last-decade/

[razorjack12]

That's the only problem with this data, it doesn't take into account different periods/coaches. Take Bama for instance, included in his data are the pre Saban years when they were on probation. How accurate is that when thrown into the equation?

Fairly accurate when you look at the data closely.  in 2002 and 2003 Alabama had the 11th and 12th ranked recruiting classes.   They finished 12-12 in conference from 2005-2007.

They have only lost 9 conference games since.

[Hoginsavga]

That's the only problem with this data, it doesn't take into account different periods/coaches. Take Bama for instance, included in his data are the pre Saban years when they were on probation. How accurate is that when thrown into the equation?

The bottom line is that there is an overall strong correlation of higher ranked recruiting classes = more success. The only reason anyone would disagree is if they had an agenda.

You are correct on both counts. I was a little surprised that Miles and Richt matched their wins with recruiting since many posters on HV tend to believe they coach below the level of their players' talents. Bama and FL are the two biggest oddballs which says a lot about the solid coaching of Saban. Don't care much for Miles or Saban but Richt is a stand up guy. Of course I have to say this since my wife and one daughter went to GA. My wife sometimes reads my posts.

[Theolesnort]

The following are the Regular Season Standings for every SEC Team from 2005-2014 compared to their average SEC Recruiting Ranking per Rivals from 2002-2014.

#1  Alabama     61-19  (4th)

#2  LSU            56-24  (2nd)

#3  Georgia      54-26  (3rd)

#4  Florida       53-27   (1st)

#5  Auburn      46-34   (5th)

#6  South Car  44-36  (7th)

#7  Arkansas   34-46  (9th)

#8  Tennessee  31-49  (6th)

#9  Miss St      30-50  (10th)

#10 Ole Miss     24-56  (8th)

#11 Vandy        22-58  (12th)

#12 Kentucky    20-60  (11th)

* * * * * * * * * *
I did not include aTm and Mizzou in the above list because we only have 3 years of of standings to work with.  But here's how those two programs have done:

Missouri  16-8  (12th)
aTm  13-11  (7th)

* * * * * * * * * *

Its uncanny how a teams final ranking in the standings will almost always be within 2 places of their recruiting ranking average.

What is truly uncanny is Missouri. Think about it. In your first 5 teams do the rankings follow the teams or do the teams follow the rankings? Think about that too with no preconceived bias.

[Hoginsavga]

 What is truly uncanny is Missouri. Think about it. In your first 5 teams do the rankings follow the teams or do the teams follow the rankings? Think about that too with no preconceived bias.
[/quote]



I try not to think about Mizzou, haha, but they have lucked out with the east division having down years since they joined the SEC. Nevertheless you have a point. They will eventually reach their level of incompetence.

[houstonoutgusin]

In my line of work I frequently use historical data to predict future events. This data proves to me there a direct correlation between recruiting rankings and long term program success. Over the long term if you average 7th in recruiting you will average about 7th in your conference.

The data says the way to win more is to recruit better, but you have to do so handicapped by your conference win/loss record. Tough spot to be in.

[Piggfoot]

I believe in the data. Unfortunately there will always be those who  take a few years where the data does not exactly predict the outcome and use that data to discredit the rankings. Nothing in life is 100% but the star system is the best indicator that we have.
Individual kids may not end up as predicted, some better and some don't live up to their ranking.
I do believe Arkansas kids are more times than not, ranked inaccurately, especially those from smaller schools and most unfortunately at times , when those from larger schools are hyped by enthusiastic and biased evaluators.
I like kids who fly under the radar. I believe these kids have more to prove than some.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

In my line of work I frequently use historical data to predict future events. This data proves to me there a direct correlation between recruiting rankings and long term program success. Over the long term if you average 7th in recruiting you will average about 7th in your conference.

The data says the way to win more is to recruit better, but you have to do so handicapped by your conference win/loss record. Tough spot to be in.

Not only does the data say this, but every fricking college coach in America says it too.  It's why recruiting is so cutthroat.  Talent is the life blood of a program.

[Hoginsavga]

Not only does the data say this, but every fricking college coach in America says it too.  It's why recruiting is so cutthroat.  Talent is the life blood of a program.

So true!  You could probably show the same data by conferences and get very similar results. The SEC typically has the most teams ranked in the top 25 when it comes to recruiting and final polls for the season results.

[Theolesnort]

No one says recruiting doesn't matter it is crucial and is the lifeblood of any program. What doesn't matter is recruiting rankings by a bunch of subscription selling business. The best programs with the best coaches do the best recruiting. Do you seriously believe that Bielema will finish with the tenth best class in the SEC this year? No he will not because he is a very good coach that does his own evaluations without any subscription service help. It is laughable that anyone here thinks that Ark has the tenth best talent or worse in the SEC despite that being the best that Ark looks by the rankings of the past few years. I mentioned Missouri and what about Kansas St? Then on the other end of the spectrum you have Texas and Notre Dame who both come in way behind their recruiting rankings. Texas will be back because Strong is a good coach. Before Arkansas's recruiting rankings come up Bielema will have us winning and putting out more pro players than imagined for a so lowly recruit ranked program. In most cases the rankings follow the good coaches and good schools. One more point look up Rival's where they rerank their rankings 5 years later, you will be enlightened.

[Dark Helmet Hog]

The following are the Regular Season Standings for every SEC Team from 2005-2014 compared to their average SEC Recruiting Ranking per Rivals from 2002-2014.

#1  Alabama     61-19  (4th)

#2  LSU            56-24  (2nd)

#3  Georgia      54-26  (3rd)

#4  Florida       53-27   (1st)

#5  Auburn      46-34   (5th)

#6  South Car  44-36  (7th)

#7  Arkansas   34-46  (9th)

#8  Tennessee  31-49  (6th)

#9  Miss St      30-50  (10th)

#10 Ole Miss     24-56  (8th)

#11 Vandy        22-58  (12th)

#12 Kentucky    20-60  (11th)

* * * * * * * * * *
I did not include aTm and Mizzou in the above list because we only have 3 years of of standings to work with.  But here's how those two programs have done:

Missouri  16-8  (12th)
aTm  13-11  (7th)

* * * * * * * * * *

Its uncanny how a teams final ranking in the standings will almost always be within 2 places of their recruiting ranking average.

To begin, let me make this clear. Recruiting and talent are most definitely important. However, the rankings from all the services are a joke. The differences in rankings even inside the top 20 can be miniscule and do not address how each team recruits to their specific needs. 

Here's the problem with this specific comparison. The recruits rankings are "adjusted" and "tweaked" throughout the recruiting year. The offer list has a lot to do with these "adjustments". In the end, the recruiting services create themselves a system that can't miss that terribly year in and year out, so I would definitely expect to see a distinct correlation over time. However, the entire ranking system itself is a sham designed to sell subscriptions.

[Dark Helmet Hog]

In my line of work I frequently use historical data to predict future events. This data proves to me there a direct correlation between recruiting rankings and long term program success. Over the long term if you average 7th in recruiting you will average about 7th in your conference.

The data says the way to win more is to recruit better, but you have to do so handicapped by your conference win/loss record. Tough spot to be in.

Do you typically use flawed data in your analysis? Try figuring the process capability of this process...

[MuskogeeHogFan]

What is truly uncanny is Missouri. Think about it. In your first 5 teams do the rankings follow the teams or do the teams follow the rankings? Think about that too with no preconceived bias.

If you compare recruiting ranking averages from 2005-2013 against W-L percentages from 2007-2014 (allowing for potential JC signees from 2013 for the 2014 season) and then look at the number of NFL draftees from each team (not including FA signees) which may have something do with player development even if they weren't a particularly highly ranked player when signed, you get a very skewed picture that probably takes into account each teams SOS as well.

Here are some examples from the 40 teams that I compared.
                  2007-2014           2005-2013                  2007-2014
Team              Win%            Avg Class Rank           # of NFL Draftees
Oregon            .840                     22.2                           29
Alabama          .835                       5.4                           44
Ohio St            .806                      9.8                           41
Okla                .766                     10.2                           40
LSU                 .764                      9.1                           53
TCU                 .757                      53                            20
FSU                 .733                      7.8                           36
USC                 .731                      4.7                           51
Wisc                .710                     48.1                           28
Mizz                 .710                     36.1                           20
Georgia             .708                      8.9                           41
Mich St             .708                     35.1                          19
Okla St             .702                     31.4                           13
Va Tech            .694                     24.1                           27
Florida               .692                     5.9                            40
Clemson             .689                    17.0                           35
Texas                .683                     9.0                            32
Stanford            .683                     37.0                           21
Penn St             .676                     29.2                           29
Nebraska            .670                    19.4                           27
S. Carolina          .663                    18.2                           28
Auburn               .644                    10.9                           25
K-State              .604                    54.9                           13
Notre Dame         .598                    14.0                           35
Texas A&M          .592                    20.6                           20
Arkansas             .554                    29.8                           26

So it isn't the highest recruiting ranking or the amount of NFL talent that you produce that directly correlates to your win percentage? Or is it? The comparison of SEC schools alone is probably more accurate because you are least comparing similar conference levels of competition.

[MissippHog]

I try not to think about Mizzou, haha, but they have lucked out with the east division having down years since they joined the SEC. Nevertheless you have a point. They will eventually reach their level of incompetence.

But doesn't this go against the OP's prevailing thought?  Just about every team has recruited better than them yet they've gone to the SECCG the past two years.  I thought higher recruiting ratings = better record.

[redeye]

This is good proof that recruiting rankings aren't irrelevant.  However, the biggest thing to me is that we're 9th, when we used to always finish 7th, so I guess we've fallen some?  I'm also surprised Ole Miss is higher, but I guess their last few classes have really helped, along with the bad one's we've had in recent times.

Ultimately, I still think our classes are a little underrated and this could also be proof of that.  But I'll finish by saying this is in the wrong forum.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Correlation does not equal causation.  In fact, it is probably the opposite in this case (players that the higher ranked teams recruit are higher rated because they are being recruited by higher ranked teams--not teams are achieving higher rankings because they are recruiting higher rated players).

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Correlation does not equal causation.  In fact, it is probably the opposite in this case (players that the higher ranked teams recruit are higher rated because they are being recruited by higher ranked teams--not teams are achieving higher rankings because they are recruiting higher rated players).

Whichever comes first, the chicken (winning) or the egg (recruiting), one does seem to perpetuate the other unless a program goes off track (Florida). There are always the outlyiers (Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin as examples), but it seems that for the most part the common denominator is recruited talent.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

But doesn't this go against the OP's prevailing thought?  Just about every team has recruited better than them yet they've gone to the SECCG the past two years.  I thought higher recruiting ratings = better record.

It's a general rule.  And rules have exceptions.  The trick is to avoid the urge to argue the exception instead of the rule.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Correlation does not equal causation.  In fact, it is probably the opposite in this case (players that the higher ranked teams recruit are higher rated because they are being recruited by higher ranked teams--not teams are achieving higher rankings because they are recruiting higher rated players).

What do you believe to be the causation?

[Science Fiction Greg]

What do you believe to be the causation?

I stated that in the parenthetical.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I stated that in the parenthetical.

Yes you did.  Sorry.  I actually somewhat agree, and I'd suggest it's the only reason the services have any level of credibility.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Yes you did.  Sorry.  I actually somewhat agree, and I'd suggest it's the only reason the services have any level of credibility.

100% agree.  I don't think they are worthless services, but I do believe they are WAY overvalued.  I believe even more that they are grossly misused.  An example would be claiming that a difference of rankings of 10 or 15 spots is somehow significant when teams that far apart often have equivalent average star ratings.  You see stuff like that all the time.  Then they will cite things like the OP and just repeat that recruiting rankings matter.  It's a tad bit frustrating, so I try to avoid those types of conversations altogether.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

100% agree.  I don't think they are worthless services, but I do believe they are WAY overvalued.  I believe even more that they are grossly misused.  An example would be claiming that a difference of rankings of 10 or 15 spots is somehow significant when teams that far apart often have equivalent average star rankings.  You see stuff like that all the time.  Then they will cite things like the OP and just repeat that recruiting rankings matter.  It's a tad bit frustrating, so I try to avoid those types of conversations altogether.

The exceptions to the rule are the outlyiers that might be effected by the offensive systems they run or the conference in which they play. The best case against "systems" might be Wisconsin and perhaps K-State. But for the most part teams with higher recruiting rankings do tend to win more games. And while that certainly tends to be true in the SEC, it does extend to some extent to other P-5 conferences.

Just look at the example that I provided above that goes outside the realm of the SEC.

[Science Fiction Greg]

The exceptions to the rule are the outlyiers that might be effected by the offensive systems they run or the conference in which they play. The best case against "systems" might be Wisconsin and perhaps K-State. But for the most part teams with higher recruiting rankings do tend to win more games. And while that certainly tends to be true in the SEC, it does extend to some extent to other P-5 conferences.

Just look at the example that I provided above that goes outside the realm of the SEC.

It doesn't appear as if you understood my point.  I understand that teams with higher recruiting rankings tend to win more games.  I'm saying that the higher recruiting rankings are not causing the winning.  Instead, I believe the winning is causing the higher recruiting rankings.  Exceptions to the correlation are completely irrelevant to what I said.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

It doesn't appear as if you understood my point.  I understand that teams with higher recruiting rankings tend to win more games.  I'm saying that the higher recruiting rankings are not causing the winning.  Instead, I believe the winning is causing the higher recruiting rankings.  Exceptions to the correlation are completely irrelevant to what I said.

And there is the devil in the details. It is easy to say that you recruit better because you are winning, just as it is easy to say that you win more because you are recruiting better. But one has to come first, although what is actually "first", may end up being different with different programs.

In our case at Arkansas, the staff is selling integrity and a quest to be an uncommon man, challenging athletes to not only be great athletes who achieve more than they previously thought possible, but to be uncommon men in terms of integrity. Of course there are all those players that Bielema and his staff have put in the NFL for those who have dreams of playing at the next level.

At Alabama, they have history and tradition to sell, and especially since the arrival of Saban. But their tradition helped them bridge the gap between not winning enough when he took over, and the tradition and history of playing ball at Alabama.

Different schools do it in different ways and not because that is how they want it to be, but because that is the current hand that they have been dealt over time and that they are forced to try to overcome.

Bottom line, there isn't a single, hard and fast rule that applies because so many schools are pursuing an enhanced level of success, but from different angles.

The team with more talent tends to win more. And the team that wins more, tends to garner more talent. But now we are back to the chicken and egg argument and again, and there isn't one common recipe that works for every team.

[Science Fiction Greg]

It is easy to say that you recruit better because you are winning.

This sentence tells me you still don't understand what I'm saying.  Recruiting services rank teams higher that are traditional winners.  When a team that is a traditional winner begins recruiting a player, especially one that hasn't been thoroughly evaluated by the services, that player gets a closer look.  And what do you know, they tend to see a lot of value in that player.  It may not even be a conscious decision by the services to favor recruits of traditionally winning teams, but it almost certainly is at least to some degree.  It obviously happens either way, as a general trend.  This tends to cause a much greater correlation in winning percentage and recruiting ranking than would be present if the recruits were evaluated in a vacuum.

I am not saying that teams recruit better after they start winning.  That probably happens to as a general trend, but it's not what I'm talking about.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

This sentence tells me you still don't understand what I'm saying.  Recruiting services rank teams higher that are traditional winners.  When a team that is a traditional winner begins recruiting a player, especially one that hasn't been thoroughly evaluated by the services, that player gets a closer look.  And what do you know, they tend to see a lot of value in that player.  It may not even be a conscious decision by the services to favor recruits of traditionally winning teams, but it almost certainly is at least to some degree.  It obviously happens either way, as a general trend.  This tends to cause a much greater correlation in winning percentage and recruiting ranking than would be present if the recruits were evaluated in a vacuum.

I am not saying that teams recruit better after they start winning.  That probably happens to as a general trend, but it's not what I'm talking about.

And yet, even though some are overrated (and that does happen) they continue to win at a high rate. If those players are truly overrated and only as good as other players that may be slightly lower rated, why do these teams continue to win at a high rate? Coaching only? And if your premise is true, why is that Oregon's classes (who has won more games than anyone since 2007) hasn't had more highly ranked classes?

[devildoghawg]

Statistics in a bubble will say whatever you want them too.  I'm betting if you did this for all 120 FBS teams it would be a much different picture. 

[Science Fiction Greg]

And yet, even though some are overrated (and that does happen) they continue to win at a high rate. If those players are truly overrated and only as good as other players that may be slightly lower rated, why do these teams continue to win at a high rate? Coaching only? And if your premise is true, why is that Oregon's classes (who has won more games than anyone since 2007) hasn't had more highly ranked classes?

Of course they win at a high rate.  They are traditionally winners for a variety of reasons.  Coaching is one, facilities, overall program, you name it. Recruiting is still a reason.  It's not just a numbers game, you know.

No idea, on Oregon, could be any number of reasons.  But as you know, exceptions don't mean anything when talking about general trends, which is what we are doing.

I honestly think this bias in rankings is very evident.  I also think it is completely expected.  Evaluating that many prospects correctly is an impossible task.  It's only natural to take some shortcuts, especially ones that will increase the correlation over the long haul.  Also shortcuts that will sell subscriptions.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Of course they win at a high rate.  They are traditionally winners for a variety of reasons.  Coaching is one, facilities, overall program, you name it. Recruiting is still a reason.  It's not just a numbers game, you know.

No idea, on Oregon, could be any number of reasons.  But as you know, exceptions don't mean anything when talking about general trends, which is what we are doing.

I honestly think this bias in rankings is very evident.  I also think it is completely expected.  Evaluating that many prospects correctly is an impossible task.  It's only natural to take some shortcuts, especially ones that will increase the correlation over the long haul.  Also shortcuts that will sell subscriptions.

There still has to be some degree of relevance. Results that prove out over the course of 9 years aren't a coincidence.

I don't believe that recruiting rankings are the "be-all", "end-all", but when you see them correlate to winning over an extended period of time any number of excuses and reasons can be made, but the results remain.

I'm going to stick with the notion that while recruiting rankings and evaluations are not finite in particular, they do tend to be a somewhat reliable indicator of future success, as it relates to teams in general. Results have proven that to be more true, than not.

And as I said before, you are always going to have those teams that are outlyiers that succeed for other reasons that may have more to do with a staff that is better at development or systems that provide teams with greater equalization of opportunities to win.

But that's JMO.

[razorjack12]

But doesn't this go against the OP's prevailing thought?  Just about every team has recruited better than them yet they've gone to the SECCG the past two years.  I thought higher recruiting ratings = better record.

But in some ways Missouri's recruiting ranking was a predictor of their performance.

In the 23 SEC Title games since 1992, only 7 appearances in the title game were from teams in the bottom half of recruiting rankings.

Those teams in the bottom half of recruiting went 0-7 in those games.

The average margin of defeat for those teams was 23 points per game.

Missouri made two of those appearances and lost both games.  Missouris' avg margin of defeat was 23 points.....Basically Missouri performed at the same standard as the other "bottom half" teams.

Missouri was fortunate to catch the SEC East at a time when it was in disarray. However once they got onto the big stage they wilted against superior competition.   Mizzou will regress toward the mean once Tennessee and Florida get their act together.

[Science Fiction Greg]

There still has to be some degree of relevance. Results that prove out over the course of 9 years aren't a coincidence.

I don't believe that recruiting rankings are the "be-all", "end-all", but when you see them correlate to winning over an extended period of time any number of excuses and reasons can be made, but the results remain.

I'm going to stick with the notion that while recruiting rankings and evaluations are not finite in particular, they do tend to be a somewhat reliable indicator of future success, as it relates to teams in general. Results have proven that to be more true, than not.

And as I said before, you are always going to have those teams that are outlyiers that succeed for other reasons that may have more to do with a staff that is better at development or systems that provide teams with greater equalization of opportunities to win.

But that's JMO.

Nobody said they are a coincidence.  My statement is basically that this level of correlation is exaggerated by unintentional and sometimes even intentional bias towards traditionally winning programs.  Obviously there would still be some correlation if the ratings were done without bias, but it would be a much lower correlation.

These are not "excuses," they are examples of the famous maxim "correlation does not equal causation."  It is simply fallacious to assume that these results must mean that the recruiting rankings are causing these results.  It *could* mean that, but there would be a lot more legwork going into showing that than just demonstrating a correlation.

[bennyl08]

If you compare recruiting ranking averages from 2005-2013 against W-L percentages from 2007-2014 (allowing for potential JC signees from 2013 for the 2014 season) and then look at the number of NFL draftees from each team (not including FA signees) which may have something do with player development even if they weren't a particularly highly ranked player when signed, you get a very skewed picture that probably takes into account each teams SOS as well.

Here are some examples from the 40 teams that I compared.
                  2007-2014           2005-2013                  2007-2014
Team              Win%            Avg Class Rank           # of NFL Draftees
USC                 .731                      4.7                           51
Alabama          .835                       5.4                           44
Florida             .692                     5.9                            40
FSU                 .733                      7.8                           36
Georgia            .708                      8.9                           41
Texas               .683                     9.0                            32
LSU                 .764                      9.1                           53
Ohio St            .806                      9.8                           41
Okla                .766                     10.2                           40
Auburn            .644                    10.9                           25
Notre Dame     .598                    14.0                           35
Clemson          .689                    17.0                           35
S. Carolina       .663                    18.2                           28
Nebraska         .670                    19.4                           27
Texas A&M      .592                    20.6                           20
Oregon            .840                     22.2                           29
Va Tech           .694                     24.1                           27
Penn St           .676                     29.2                           29
Arkansas           .554                    29.8                           26
Okla St             .702                     31.4                           13
Mich St             .708                     35.1                          19
Mizz                 .710                     36.1                           20
Stanford            .683                     37.0                           21
Wisc                .710                     48.1                           28
TCU                 .757                      53                            20
K-State              .604                    54.9                           13

So it isn't the highest recruiting ranking or the amount of NFL talent that you produce that directly correlates to your win percentage? Or is it? The comparison of SEC schools alone is probably more accurate because you are least comparing similar conference levels of competition.

Reordered to sort by recruiting rankings. The data corresponds very well to a logarithmic function with the given data. Recruiting rankings translate well into the talent level of a team. It can't determine how good the team chemistry is, or how well coached it is (and hence winning %). However, as far as it relates to the physical talent on the team, it does its job.

(having trouble posting graph, but -12.26ln(x)+65.449 is the equation of the curve with r^2 value of 0.70825)

[John Futrall]

Reordered to sort by recruiting rankings. The data corresponds very well to a logarithmic function with the given data. Recruiting rankings translate well into the talent level of a team. It can't determine how good the team chemistry is, or how well coached it is (and hence winning %). However, as far as it relates to the physical talent on the team, it does its job.

(having trouble posting graph, but -12.26ln(x)+65.449 is the equation of the curve with r^2 value of 0.70825)

Linear regressions on hogville?   Nice!

[razorjack12]

And if your premise is true, why is that Oregon's classes (who has won more games than anyone since 2007) hasn't had more highly ranked classes?

Yet Oregon has still failed to win a National Title.  I would argue the reason for this is because they have failed to recruit better players than the eventual national champion.

Let's take a look at the 4 year recruiting rankings for each of the national champions over the past 10 years, starting with the year each team won the title.

Ohio State  3, 2, 4, 11

FSU  10, 6, 2, 10

Alabama 1, 1, 5, 1

Alabama 1, 5, 1, 1

Auburn 4, 19, 20, 7

Alabama 1, 1, 10, 11

Florida 3, 1, 2, 15

LSU 4, 7, 22, 2

Florida 2, 15, 10, 2

Texas 20, 18, 15 ,1

30 out of 40 classes were Top Ten classes
10 out of 40 were ranked #1

* * * * * * * *

Lets examine the recruiting rankings of Oregons two national title contenders:

Oregon 2010

13, 32, 19, 11

Oregon 2014

26, 22, 16, 9


Oregon has performed at a high level over the past few years...but they have yet to win the big game because they were unable to recruit at the same level as their title game opponent.

[Bacons Rebellion]

If you compare recruiting ranking averages from 2005-2013 against W-L percentages from 2007-2014 (allowing for potential JC signees from 2013 for the 2014 season) and then look at the number of NFL draftees from each team (not including FA signees) which may have something do with player development even if they weren't a particularly highly ranked player when signed, you get a very skewed picture that probably takes into account each teams SOS as well.

Here are some examples from the 40 teams that I compared.
                  2007-2014           2005-2013                  2007-2014
Team              Win%            Avg Class Rank           # of NFL Draftees
Oregon            .840                     22.2                           29
Alabama          .835                       5.4                           44
Ohio St            .806                      9.8                           41
Okla                .766                     10.2                           40
LSU                 .764                      9.1                           53
TCU                 .757                      53                            20
FSU                 .733                      7.8                           36
USC                 .731                      4.7                           51
Wisc                .710                     48.1                           28
Mizz                 .710                     36.1                           20
Georgia             .708                      8.9                           41
Mich St             .708                     35.1                          19
Okla St             .702                     31.4                           13
Va Tech            .694                     24.1                           27
Florida               .692                     5.9                            40
Clemson             .689                    17.0                           35
Texas                .683                     9.0                            32
Stanford            .683                     37.0                           21
Penn St             .676                     29.2                           29
Nebraska            .670                    19.4                           27
S. Carolina          .663                    18.2                           28
Auburn               .644                    10.9                           25
K-State              .604                    54.9                           13
Notre Dame         .598                    14.0                           35
Texas A&M          .592                    20.6                           20
Arkansas             .554                    29.8                           26

So it isn't the highest recruiting ranking or the amount of NFL talent that you produce that directly correlates to your win percentage? Or is it? The comparison of SEC schools alone is probably more accurate because you are least comparing similar conference levels of competition.

I'm in a hotel on a business trip with little to do.

Using your data, the p-value of class rank is 0.36.
Meaning average class rank is not significant in predicting wins for those 40 teams.

The p-value of NFL draftees is .03
Meaning the number of NFL draftees you had IS significant in predicting wins for those 40 teams. (After the fact, of course.)

[Dark Helmet Hog]

I'm in a hotel on a business trip with little to do.

Using your data, the p-value of class rank is 0.36.
Meaning average class rank is not significant in predicting wins for those 40 teams.

The p-value of NFL draftees is .03
Meaning the number of NFL draftees you had IS significant in predicting wins for those 40 teams. (After the fact, of course.)

Did you use Minitab?

[Fatty McGee]

The best programs with the best coaches do the best recruiting.

The question should be asked though, do the recruits make the coach?  And moreover, does the location of the school matter more than even the coach?  Most recruits go to school within 200 miles of their homes, after all.

I would say recruiting is far more important than Xs and Os in a coach's career.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

The question should be asked though, do the recruits make the coach?  And moreover, does the location of the school matter more than even the coach?  Most recruits go to school within 200 miles of their homes, after all.

I would say recruiting is far more important than Xs and Os in a coach's career.

Guaran-dang-tee it.  The best coaches generally go where the talent is.  It's why the SEC has been so dominant in recent years.  The vast majority of HS talent resides in the southeast, and that talent stays in the southeast.

[Theolesnort]

The question should be asked though, do the recruits make the coach?  And moreover, does the location of the school matter more than even the coach?  Most recruits go to school within 200 miles of their homes, after all.

I would say recruiting is far more important than Xs and Os in a coach's career.

Fatty the best coaches are much more than x's and O's, they can hire that in their assistants. The really great coaches set the tone of the team. The team feeds off the head coach as he motivates and make them believe in their system where they work hard in practice the weight room and the field. The team becomes an extension of the coaches personality and determination. I can remember lots of Bama and LSU teams that didn't win because they didn't have the right coach to play for, not because they didn't have talent. Of course recruiting is important but the recruited talent must fit the scheme of what the system is. Just a hodge podge of talent will not get it done, but the talent has to fit what they are doing. Fitting square pegs no matter how sturdy will not work in round holes. This is why people underrate Bielema, he knows what he wants and he knows how to get it. You already know this.

[Theolesnort]

100% agree.  I don't think they are worthless services, but I do believe they are WAY overvalued.  I believe even more that they are grossly misused.  An example would be claiming that a difference of rankings of 10 or 15 spots is somehow significant when teams that far apart often have equivalent average star ratings.  You see stuff like that all the time.  Then they will cite things like the OP and just repeat that recruiting rankings matter.  It's a tad bit frustrating, so I try to avoid those types of conversations altogether.

Quite intelligent and profound..

[MissippHog]

  But in some ways Missouri's recruiting ranking was a predictor of their performance.

In the 23 SEC Title games since 1992, only 7 appearances in the title game were from teams in the bottom half of recruiting rankings.

Those teams in the bottom half of recruiting went 0-7 in those games.

The average margin of defeat for those teams was 23 points per game.

Missouri made two of those appearances and lost both games.  Missouris' avg margin of defeat was 23 points.....Basically Missouri performed at the same standard as the other "bottom half" teams.

Missouri was fortunate to catch the SEC East at a time when it was in disarray. However once they got onto the big stage they wilted against superior competition.   Mizzou will regress toward the mean once Tennessee and Florida get their act together.

But that's my point.  Since Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee to an extent have been recruiting at such a high level, Missouri shouldn't have even sniffed the SECCG (that's if you believe that recruiting rankings can be used as a predictor to winning.) 

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

So what your saying is that recruiting rankings do matter. +1

nOT FOR tENNESSE OR oLE mISS.. wHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND MATH...

[bennyl08]

Did you use Minitab?

I'm pretty sure only college freshmen/intro to statistics students use minitab. Most serious statisticians i know use R. Granted, if you're only using stats for a few things, might as well use minitab because it's not a bad program. Also possible he's using matlab if statistics is only a small subset of what he does.