Regular Season Standings VS Recruiting Rankings

[Theolesnort]

Here is the main point I want to make. Say that Arkansas finishes around 20Th in the rankings but in those 20 teams we are ninth or tenth in the SEC. The services say we have about the tenth best recruiting class in the SEC. What does that really mean even if it were true? AS some have pointed out the difference between 25Th and the lower eight nine and ten are not all that great. So when Bret says he has a vision or a plan of what he wants to do and he is going to do it right and he recruits proportionally the right numbers to fit his wants and needs does that mean he really recruited ninth or tenth best in the conference? You better not believe that because as a program he is catching up and catching up fast to the better teams. In a sense he might be recruiting in the top two or three in the conference as far as fitting his system. Might be or maybe are the key words. That is why we will just have to wait and see how all the cogs fit together along with some key development. Georgia and some of our other brethren in the conference recruit great athletes in every recruiting class but sad for them they don't seem to vet them early enough to weed out potential problem recruits. Character can make a difference and there are a lot of different things that need to be taken into consideration in evaluating a classes and it's potential. The recruiting services skim over a lot of stuff and don't go beneath the surface and in many cases only give a superficial perusal. The really good coaches are a lot more through and even they get it wrong to many times.

[hawginbigd1]

Same old arguments, glad to see here that some people get it. Recruiting does matter, but it is not the absolute that many purport it to be.

Gotta be top 10 in recruiting to be top 10, correlation is good, but outliers are cast a way to fit the belief, or explained away by conference or SOS.

You can only win the whole enchilada if you have the best rated recruits. Auburn doesn't count because it doesn't fit the mold.

There are a couple reasons IMO this is not the real cause and effect:

1. as others have mentioned rankings are continually changed, and the people that offer you matter as much or more than the individual recruits ability/measurables. The rankings also reflect bonus points for getting the mythical top 100 athletes which again skews the rankings.

2. The real Causation that matters more than anything IMO is that the top of the winning charts who generally have a composite of the top recruiting rankings, what do they have in common? They have the almost inarguably best coaches in the country!! Recruits didn't make them the best, they were the best and the recruits found them.

as a side note, i don't think there is a huge argument that the 2 best are playing next Sunday for the SB. 2.4 and 2.3 are the composite ratings for the starters of each team.

RJ12 don't read or comment I know there is no use introducing any material that disagrees with your beliefs.

[razorjack12]

RJ12 don't read or comment I know there is no use introducing any material that disagrees with your beliefs.

Thank you for telling me not to read or respond to posts in a thread I started.

[Hoggish1]

Georgia and some of our other brethren in the conference recruit great athletes in every recruiting class but sad for them they don't seem to vet them early enough to weed out potential problem recruits. Character can make a difference and there are a lot of different things that need to be taken into consideration in evaluating a classes and it's potential. The recruiting services skim over a lot of stuff and don't go beneath the surface and in many cases only give a superficial perusal. The really good coaches are a lot more through and even they get it wrong to many times.

Excelllent points!

As for UGA, you are right about the character up front, but to Richts credit, he unloads them fast if problems arise and the Bamers, Albarns and Oldpisses of the conference are right there to snap them up.

Grabbing other schools' problems invites chemistry and morale problems that aren't worth the risk.

[hawginbigd1]

  Thank you for telling me not to read or respond to posts in a thread I started.

Yeah that was pretty asinine of me! Mea Culpa.

[Theolesnort]

Actually this is one of the better discussions about recruiting rankings in a long time. Thank you Razorjack12 for getting the ball rolling and I really mean it without any malice. Great post and great response pro and con.

[DeltaBoy]

Too bad Recruiting is not like Math 2+2 =4 while in Recruiting it could look like 2+3-2= 4

[razorjack12]

Too bad Recruiting is not like Math 2+2 =4 while in Recruiting it could look like 2+3-2= 4

The thing is, recruiting is not an EXACT science or precise mathematical formula.  There is still a lot of the human element when it comes to rankings and performance by the players.

So when a 2 Star players becomes an NFL Pro-Bowler, or a team with a lower recruiting ranking beats a team with a higher ranking...Many people use this as proof positive that recruiting rankings are worthless.

The better use of recruiting rankings is to consider them as a guide as to how teams may perform.  And I think its a very good guide.

For instance, no team in the bottom half of  SEC recruiting rankings has won an SEC Title game since the first title game was launched 23 years ago. 

0-23 is more than a coincidence.

[Science Fiction Greg]

  The thing is, recruiting is not an EXACT science or precise mathematical formula.  There is still a lot of the human element when it comes to rankings and performance by the players.

So when a 2 Star players becomes an NFL Pro-Bowler, or a team with a lower recruiting ranking beats a team with a higher ranking...Many people use this as proof positive that recruiting rankings are worthless.

The better use of recruiting rankings is to consider them as a guide as to how teams may perform.  And I think its a very good guide.

For instance, no team in the bottom half of  SEC recruiting rankings has won an SEC Title game since the first title game was launched 23 years ago. 

0-23 is more than a coincidence.

Sure, but it's not a coincidence that every time the seat belt light is turned on on a plane, the ride gets bumpy, either.  Just don't go trying to convince me that the light is what caused the bumpiness.

[razorjack12]

Sure, but it's not a coincidence that every time the seat belt light is turned on on a plane, the ride gets bumpy, either.  Just don't go trying to convince me that the light is what caused the bumpiness.

The seat belt light is an indicator of turbulence.

Just as recruiting rankings are an indicator of which teams are landing the best talent.

[Science Fiction Greg]

The seat belt light is an indicator of turbulence.

Just as recruiting rankings are an indicator of which teams are landing the best talent.

I'll just say you didn't understand the analogy and leave it at that.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I'll just say you didn't understand the analogy and leave it at that.

I understood your analogy, but it hardly applies.

[Science Fiction Greg]

I understood your analogy, but it hardly applies.

It applies directly.  It is simply an illustration that correlation does not imply causation, which so many people in this thread are trying so hard to infer.  It's fine, you guys can buck against it all you want.  As I mentioned earlier, I try to avoid conversations like this for this reason.  I will leave it to you guys, now.  Enjoy.

[bennyl08]

It applies directly.  It is simply an illustration that correlation does not imply causation, which so many people in this thread are trying so hard to infer.  It's fine, you guys can buck against it all you want.  As I mentioned earlier, I try to avoid conversations like this for this reason.  I will leave it to you guys, now.  Enjoy.

The problem with your illustration is that you got it backwards. You are putting the effect before the cause. Obviously the light coming on does not cause turbulence. The presence/likelihood of turbulence causes the light to come on. Same thing with recruiting. Being a 4/5* star player does not cause you to be a better player. Being a highly athletic individual causes you to be ranked 4/5*.

The thing many people arguing against the importance of recruiting rankings get wrong is what recruiting rankings mean. They argue about the importance of the coach, the player's fit into the coach's scheme, the players work ethic, etc... That is all good and well and true. However, IMO, it is completely irrelevant. Michael Sam had great work ethic, good coaching, good fit in the scheme, and became one of the best defenders in the SEC during his time at Missouri. He did that all as a 2* player. Missouri as a team had great success, in large part from players like him. None of the "star gazers" are denying that happens. However, through all that hard work and collegiate success, he was too stiff (pardon the pun) to even be drafted. That is what recruiting rankings tell in large part. Of course, there are many players that they miss like Flowers, and there are guys who don't put in the work to live up to their potential. Recruiting rankings don't try to evaluate work ethic or character. That is not their intended purpose. They try and evaluate how athletic a player is and how well he plays. In large part it is the same thing that happens in the NFL, only the people who rank college players tend to do a bit more personality/work ethic evaluation when available. Look at Ronnie Wingo Jr. The falcons called him back up at the end of the year. There are scores of running backs with better production than Wingo who the NFL never even bothered to get their numbers because they don't have the measurables. At the same time, measurables don't equate to production at the next level always either. Look at Bryce Brown. Insane combine numbers, but he didn't produce much in college or the NFL, but he was a highly rated recruit out of HS and rightfully so.

[TheGrove68]

Recruiting rankings clearly have some validity but some teams out perform those ranking,while others underperform compared to their rankings.

The 7 lower rated Sec teams that made it to the finals to lose to the higher ranked teams doesn't prove that those teams didn't out perform their evaluated talent....it just proves that a More talented team was superior and won.

Recruiting rankings a  fluid Imo to a degree with teams out performing or under performing by 10 slots. Teams Like Mich.,ND,A&M,Texas have all been through stages of having high rated classes but not performing up to snuff. While teams like V-tech,Mizzou,Wisc.,KSU,or okie st.,TCU out perform their rankings.

Now the real question or topic of discussion is how far a team can Over perform their rankings? I doubt we will see a squad like Mizzou who's avg. rankings is in the Mid-30's win a national title but I do believe a program who avg. in the mid-20's could do it.

Because the rankings could easily be skewed by 10 slots and in reality those mid-20 classes could be top 15 classes and if your that talented and well coached then it could be done.

[TheGrove68]

How can the east be so down According to their avg. recruiting rankings in the sec FL-1st,UGA-3rd,Tenn.-6th,SC-7th there is some talent on those squads..how has little ole Mizzou at 12th beaten these vastily superior talented teams not once but twice for a division title the last 2yrs.

Weird to that Espn has now bumped are team ranking to 26th so has 247....scout even has us at 29th ranked team!! I hope we continue to out perform our even more talented higher rankings by the same degree....I will take that level of incompetence in buckets.

[Science Fiction Greg]

The problem with your illustration is that you got it backwards.

"Problem with"
"Whole point of"

What's the difference!
I've stated multiple times in this thread that I believe teams get higher recruiting rankings when they are winning programs, not teams are winning programs because they have high recruiting rankings.  It's literally the whole point, not a problem with my illustration.

This is why I get frustrated trying to talk about this.

[jkstock04]

"Problem with"
"Whole point of"

What's the difference!
I've stated multiple times in this thread that I believe teams get higher recruiting rankings when they are winning programs, not teams are winning programs because they have high recruiting rankings.  It's literally the whole point, not a problem with my illustration.

This is why I get frustrated trying to talk about this.

In other words you believe it's not the players, but the coaches. I think there is some truth to this to be sure. Houston Nutt could've made Peyton Manning look inept with his system/coaching.

[Science Fiction Greg]

In other words you believe it's not the players, but the coaches. I think there is some truth to this to be sure. Houston Nutt could've made Peyton Manning look inept with his system/coaching.

I actually believe it's systemic.  It's not any one thing.  Recruiting services are biased towards players being recruited by traditional powers (partly unconsciously, partly because it's obviously advantageous to them in multiple ways--including artificially increasing the very correlation being refernced in this thread).  I believe those traditional powers continue to win, then, based on the same factors that made them traditional powers in the first place.  Stable, consistent coaching, finances, support, facilities, program organization, you name it.  Quality recruiting is obviously important and plays a role in that list just like the others.  In fact, I think it's very important, and one of the bigger things on that list.  I just don't think the correlation is as high as many in this thread think it is because of the referenced bias.

[razorjack12]

"
I've stated multiple times in this thread that I believe teams get higher recruiting rankings when they are winning programs, not teams are winning programs because they have high recruiting rankings.  It's literally the whole point, not a problem with my illustration.

Then why did Ole Miss receive a #7 national recruiting ranking immediately after finishing 7-6 in 2012?

Tennessee had a Top 10 class in 2014 but had two losing seasons preceding that class.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Then why did Ole Miss receive a #7 national recruiting ranking immediately after finishing 7-6 in 2012?

Tennessee had a Top 10 class in 2014 but had two losing seasons preceding that class.

The simple answer is they had outstanding recruiting years.  Please do not misunderstand what I said to mean that recruiting rankings are not at all based on reality.  It's a general trend.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

I think the recruiting service guys giving stars are using the top 10 method too.. If enough top 10 schools are after them they get more stars..

  It's a shameful sham to keep people employed. I hate it because in order for RD to have a job other shammy bullfarts can cling to the teets of the beast too.

[longpig]

Recruiting rankings clearly have some validity but some teams out perform those ranking,while others underperform compared to their rankings.

The 7 lower rated Sec teams that made it to the finals to lose to the higher ranked teams doesn't prove that those teams didn't out perform their evaluated talent....it just proves that a More talented team was superior and won.

Recruiting rankings a  fluid Imo to a degree with teams out performing or under performing by 10 slots. Teams Like Mich.,ND,A&M,Texas have all been through stages of having high rated classes but not performing up to snuff. While teams like V-tech,Mizzou,Wisc.,KSU,or okie st.,TCU out perform their rankings.

Now the real question or topic of discussion is how far a team can Over perform their rankings? I doubt we will see a squad like Mizzou who's avg. rankings is in the Mid-30's win a national title but I do believe a program who avg. in the mid-20's could do it.

Because the rankings could easily be skewed by 10 slots and in reality those mid-20 classes could be top 15 classes and if your that talented and well coached then it could be done.

No one but Auburn has won a championship lately without atleast one top 10 recruiting class and all top 15 classes in the 3 years prior.  Auburn had a 10 and  two mid 20's.  The X factor in Auburn's case being Cam Newton.

[Hoginsavga]

This may be a little off track to the thread but during that time frame the west division won/loss record against the east division was 75-51 according to my calculations and I included A&M and Missou.  This clearly shows the difference of difficulty the Hogs face as opposed to a team in the east division. Kudos to the OP for initiating this thread.

[TheGrove68]

No one but Auburn has won a championship lately without atleast one top 10 recruiting class and all top 15 classes in the 3 years prior.  Auburn had a 10 and  two mid 20's.  The X factor in Auburn's case being Cam Newton.

So auburn got close to doing it so it could still be done not often but possible.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No one but Auburn has won a championship lately without atleast one top 10 recruiting class and all top 15 classes in the 3 years prior.  Auburn had a 10 and  two mid 20's.  The X factor in Auburn's case being Cam Newton.

In fact, from the 2007 season through the 2014 season, looking back at the previous 4 years of recruiting rankings for teams prior to each of those seasons, teams that won either 14 or 13 games in P-5 competition averaged having recruiting classes in the top ten. There are always exceptions to that average as you pointed out, but overall and on average one of the ingredients needed to win at that level appears to have something to do with their recruiting rankings. So yeah, I agree.