Started By
Message
Bowl team recruiting rankings, last four years
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:39 am
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:39 am
The recruiting ranking of each team for each of the last four years is added and then divided by four to deliver an over-all yearly average team recruit ranking (note: low number is better than high number). These are calculated from the 247sports composite rankings. These "recruiting rankings" are used to compare the theoretical power of teams based on their original recruiting.
No attempt is made to adjust for development since recruitment, dropouts, transfers, suspensions, failure to recruit a balanced class, exceptional game-changing athlete, etc. Important to todays game, there is also no inclusion of the effect of JC players and graduate transfers.
Generally if a game has a greater than 10 point disparity, the higher ranked team (the team with the lowest average number) wins about 75 percent. Games with teams ranked within about 10 points have been shown to be 55-60 in favor of the higher ranked team, but probably are toss-ups.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about this system if used for betting, internet harassment, illegal gambling, legal gambling, etc. This is strictly for information purpose. Also note that some exceptions have already occurred such as Nebraska over UCLA. (Games completed have score and winner highlighted)
27 - UCLA 14.00
39 - Nebraska 29.50
49 - Baylor 28.75
38 - North Carolina 32.50
56 - LSU 6.75
27 - Texas Tech 37.50
31 - Auburn 9.00
10 - Memphis 83.75
51 - Miss State 25.00
28 - NC State 41.25
21 - Texas A&M 10.25
27 - Louisville 39.75
21 - USC 8.50
23 - Wisconsin 40.25
24 - State 5.25
38 - Houston 70.00
37 - Clemson 13.75
17 - Oklahoma 14.25
38 - Alabama 1.00
0 - Michigan State 28.75
45 - Tennessee 13.75
6 - Northwestern 52.00
7 - Florida 9.25
41 - Michigan 16.75
44 - Ohio State 4.25
28 - Notre Dame 12.00
Stanford 23.50
Iowa 54.00
Ole Miss 21.75
Oklahoma State 32.25
Georgia 8.50
Penn State 30.25
Arkansas 25.75
Kansas State 60.00
Oregon 17.25
TCU 37.50
Arizona State 29.25
West Virginia 35.00
Edit add: I originally had the raw data from each year including preliminary 2016 rankings (which were not used of course). I cannot seem to format this site so removed the individual year data.
For my personal review, I've broken down teams into position rankings and attempted to match those. However, thus far I've not found much improvement on comparing overall rank except in some cases of seriously faulty recruiting class that... say ... failed to recruit any DL or something.
Also, OL and DL are hard to individually assess because recruiting rankings are based on ability to immediately play and help, not based on future potential.
No attempt is made to adjust for development since recruitment, dropouts, transfers, suspensions, failure to recruit a balanced class, exceptional game-changing athlete, etc. Important to todays game, there is also no inclusion of the effect of JC players and graduate transfers.
Generally if a game has a greater than 10 point disparity, the higher ranked team (the team with the lowest average number) wins about 75 percent. Games with teams ranked within about 10 points have been shown to be 55-60 in favor of the higher ranked team, but probably are toss-ups.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about this system if used for betting, internet harassment, illegal gambling, legal gambling, etc. This is strictly for information purpose. Also note that some exceptions have already occurred such as Nebraska over UCLA. (Games completed have score and winner highlighted)
27 - UCLA 14.00
39 - Nebraska 29.50
49 - Baylor 28.75
38 - North Carolina 32.50
56 - LSU 6.75
27 - Texas Tech 37.50
31 - Auburn 9.00
10 - Memphis 83.75
51 - Miss State 25.00
28 - NC State 41.25
21 - Texas A&M 10.25
27 - Louisville 39.75
21 - USC 8.50
23 - Wisconsin 40.25
24 - State 5.25
38 - Houston 70.00
37 - Clemson 13.75
17 - Oklahoma 14.25
38 - Alabama 1.00
0 - Michigan State 28.75
45 - Tennessee 13.75
6 - Northwestern 52.00
7 - Florida 9.25
41 - Michigan 16.75
44 - Ohio State 4.25
28 - Notre Dame 12.00
Stanford 23.50
Iowa 54.00
Ole Miss 21.75
Oklahoma State 32.25
Georgia 8.50
Penn State 30.25
Arkansas 25.75
Kansas State 60.00
Oregon 17.25
TCU 37.50
Arizona State 29.25
West Virginia 35.00
Edit add: I originally had the raw data from each year including preliminary 2016 rankings (which were not used of course). I cannot seem to format this site so removed the individual year data.
For my personal review, I've broken down teams into position rankings and attempted to match those. However, thus far I've not found much improvement on comparing overall rank except in some cases of seriously faulty recruiting class that... say ... failed to recruit any DL or something.
Also, OL and DL are hard to individually assess because recruiting rankings are based on ability to immediately play and help, not based on future potential.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 12:26 pm
15
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:40 am to Jacknola
Good post. Upvote.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:44 am to Jacknola
quote:
Alabama 3 1 1 1 1 1.00
Michigan State 22 22 25 35 33 28.75
Pretty interesting read, was curious myself what the #s looked like for the teams in general.
Stanford's was all over the place
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:48 am to Jacknola
Each SEC team has outrecruited their bowl opponent. The average among all breaks down to:
SEC team: 13
Opponent: 41
SEC team: 13
Opponent: 41
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:49 am to Jacknola
Houston appears to be very consistent with their level of recruiting.
AU has the highest disparity, so they are the most guaranteed to win. Right?
AU has the highest disparity, so they are the most guaranteed to win. Right?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:50 am to Jacknola
quote:
Auburn 11 9 6 10 11 9.00
Memphis 77 78 89 91 83.75
Putting this in my pocket for potential use against "Trust Gus!" enthusiasts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:12 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
SEC team: 13
Opponent: 41
Yep, this shows the overwhelming superiority of SEC recruiting vs the rest of the country. Even a middle of pack SEC school would be among the elite in recruiting in most conferences. This is probably related to the strength of prep football in the South.
But keep in mind recruiting rankings of players, thus the composite team rank each year, is based on the ability of a player to help a team immediately.
The player rank says little about development potential. That is probably why some schools such as Iowa, who redshirt and keep players for 5-years are able to compete.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:17 am to Jacknola
The OP states that according to the averages, the higher recruit rates team with at least a 10 point disparity wins their games 75% of the time. The key is to find the outliers and roll with the 25%. I think Wisky beats USC, and makes Bama's early season win even better. I think Northwestern beats UT and Penn State beats UGA. That's just as far as the 10 point + disparity games go. Bama will beat Sparty but it should be close. Arky should cruise vs. K-State as should Ole Miss. Miss State could be a toss up because the Wolfpack have a very dangerous QB. Should be high scoring. LSU should win in a shootout like 41-37.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:20 am to Jacknola
quote:
Yep, this shows the overwhelming superiority of SEC recruiting vs the rest of the country. Even a middle of pack SEC school would be among the elite in recruiting in most conferences. This is probably related to the strength of prep football in the South.
Or does it show that kids in the south are more fully developed when they hit college and are often more close to a 'ceiling?' I have often thought this was an issue for Texas in the early to late 2000s. They got a ton of 4* and 5* guys who didn't develop
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:23 am to Jacknola
Michigan and Ohio State should win close games. Stanford should blow the doors off Iowa and Oregon should out score TCU. That will resemble a basketball game on turf. A&M should lose to Louisville because sloppy game plan and disdain in the management and what not.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:26 am to Buckeye06
The coaching staff has to develop these talented players coming out of HS. The S&C staff has unlimited access to these guys year round and they are IMO the most important component of the coaching staff.
Bama recruits nationally - it takes a top notch staff to develop the talent.
Bama recruits nationally - it takes a top notch staff to develop the talent.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 10:27 am
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:34 am to Jacknola
quote:
Bowl team recruiting rankings, last four years
Yep, and you could likely go with the highest recruiting ranked team and accurately pick most of the games.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:44 am to Buckeye06
quote:
Or does it show that kids in the south are more fully developed when they hit college and are often more close to a 'ceiling?' I have often thought this was an issue for Texas in the early to late 2000s. They got a ton of 4* and 5* guys who didn't develop
This is a very interesting question that deserves a deeper look than can be done today given political correctness.
In the NBA (for instance) why are there so many white European players, but not that many white-American players? It may have to do with pace and age of development. Youth sports favor early development and tends to wash out undeveloped potential. European players may not get washed out of the developmental systems in those countries at an early age. But that evaluation has an element of "racism" in it and cannot be scientifically explored today. And that observation may be all bull....
On another front, I think certain coaches have learned to have an advantage by judging potential. Saban, for instance, seems to have some method for judging future development potential. I think a DNA test could do it, but he probably doesn't do that... does he?
In lieu of some "future development" judging method, mass recruitment will usually make up for some errors. A team with a ... say ... average recruitment ranking of "50" could actually play at a high level. This is because 4-5 top recruits in each class could form a good solid team while the class as a whole may have been ranked lower.
But.. that "spot-recruiting" requires no mistakes in judgment. Therefore, the best method, absent a mysterious future development crystal ball, is a series of deep recruiting years with no obvious position holes. This will usually produce some top players at each position regardless of development progress.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:10 am to Jacknola
quote:
NBA
quote:
So many white Europeans but hardly any white Americans
You mentioned racism towards the end of your post. I believe that is partly to blame for the exclusion of American whites in the NBA. White Guy's have a perception of slow, poor defensive and non-athletic on the courts. This is ingrained to many players on the AAU circuits and in high schools all over the country. A white guy has to be either 6'10 or taller to get any attention or he has to be like Jason Williams from Sacramento years ago. White chocolate was his nickname. What does that tell you about how basketball is perceived in this country? Why mention chocolate in his nickname unless you are specifically bringing up race? Why mention white in his nickname unless it's race related? Coaches and GMs don't want to be labeled racist by picking too many white Guys on a football or basketball team. Because then the SJWs will claim those are roster spots that should have been given to a black guy. Ignoring the fact that 65 to 70% of the rosters are black anyways. I enjoy the games because of the entertainment but the media has made sure it's all about quotas and that will always keep a certain demographic out of fully enjoying the games. Hockey doesn't specifically alienate blacks like basketball alienates whites in America. But more power to those that overcome the odds. Like Eminem in hip hop. He beat the odds and topped charts in a black man's world. Talent rises to the top, but you have to show a desire before anyone even sees the talent.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 11:12 am
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:14 am to Jacknola
As far as the white Europeans in the NBA, many of those guys are tall and they can shoot from distance. Over here the big men never were taught to develop an outside shot because they wanted them to post down low. In Europe the big men are more free-ranging and less restricted and can create their own shots. They can hit mid-range and long jumpers. They have an added value to the game here.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:16 am to Jacknola
So Auburn's loss to Memphis is pretty astounding. Good luck Tigers.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:26 am to Jacknola
Bama's recruiting has been stupid the last several years.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:28 am to bigDgator
quote:
Bama's recruiting has been stupid the last several years.
several? It's been that way since 08.
I haven't researched but I would think it'd be virtually impossible for anyone to have put together a better 7/8 year recruiting run than they have. Like I don't see how it'd be possible.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:49 am to WG_Dawg
Vols will roll NW. I'll be shoced if it's still a game at the start of the second half.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:57 am to Jacknola
Have an upvote. Though Arkansas should have an asterisk next to our ranking, we are only finally getting over the horrible recruiting attrition we suffered under Petrino and JLS.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News