A couple of looks at what recruiting rankings have panned out to.

Donate To GopherHole

Thanks for posting. I especially found the Athlon data interesting. It appears that only Northwestern and Wisconsin have truly "outplayed" their recruiting.
 

So frustrating that with higher rated rosters, we haven't beaten Wisco since antebellum. I am really hoping we get that win next year. I want the damn axe!

Additionally, really disappointing that, during the time covered by the study, we don't have a better record than any team that recruits better than us, but we have a worse record than three teams below us (both in total percentage and conference percentage). Brewster really was an idiot.
 

Something is messed up with that data. Wisconsin's supposedly 87th ranked class had an avr star of 2.88, they signed 24 players, 21 of which were 3 star guys. Yet New Mexico St is ranked 86th with 21 players, 8 stars, and an average star of 2.38. Obviously something screwy happened with that.
 

The only other thought I had (that came to me after my first post on this thread) is I wonder what the red-shirt percentage at each of the schools and percentage of guys who play through all of their eligibility.
 


I suspect some raters exaggerate rankings for some players based on biases. Some lower-ranked prospects do better than the biases suggest while others don't do as well for the same reason.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
So frustrating that with higher rated rosters, we haven't beaten Wisco since antebellum. I am really hoping we get that win next year. I want the damn axe!
Click to expand...

It won't happen until the Gophers can find a way to stop the run, not likely anytime soon
 

They also "re-star" players years later if they turn out better or worse than expected. It's sometimes hard to look at older rankings, as they have been modified.
 




OUCH, that is a painful chart to look at from all angles.
 

i think its kind of an interesting spin on recruiting. on one hand, we've had some highly rated classes and haven't performed. some teams with lower rated classes have. then the group of highly starred rbs is a mixed bag. makes you wonder how much stock to put directly into rankings.
 

Does it take into account that Brewster had different coaches every year he was here? All stats are not apples to apples.
 




highwayman said:
They also "re-star" players years later if they turn out better or worse than expected. It's sometimes hard to look at older rankings, as they have been modified.
Click to expand...

You have made that point in other threads as well and I find it hard to believe that they go back after the fact and re-rank players. I know rankings change during the year a guy is being recruited but I have never noticed rivals going back and changing rankings after guys are playing college ball, not sure why they would waste their time doing that not to mention the fact that people would be up in arms about it and it could change class rankings. Maybe you are talking about one of the other services but I would think it is tough enough to stay on top of the current recruits much less go back and alter guys that are already in school.
 

MNVCGUY said:
You have made that point in other threads as well and I find it hard to believe that they go back after the fact and re-rank players. I know rankings change during the year a guy is being recruited but I have never noticed rivals going back and changing rankings after guys are playing college ball, not sure why they would waste their time doing that not to mention the fact that people would be up in arms about it and it could change class rankings. Maybe you are talking about one of the other services but I would think it is tough enough to stay on top of the current recruits much less go back and alter guys that are already in school.
Click to expand...

It can't be true because guys like David Pittman and Hayo Carpenter are still rated 4 stars.
 

GophersInIowa said:
It can't be true because guys like David Pittman and Hayo Carpenter are still rated 4 stars.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If they were doing that the list of 5 star RB's would look different because they would have downgraded the busts and upgraded some of the 4 star guys that turned out to be great players. I don't buy that they change them years later and I won't until someone can produce a legit example of this happening. As far as I can tell once a guy signs on signing day his ranking as a recruit does not get altered.
 

People do realize that recruiting is not a separate sport, right? If you win, you recruit well. If you don't win, you lose your job. That pretty much sums it up.
 

GVBadger said:
People do realize that recruiting is not a separate sport, right? If you win, you recruit well. If you don't win, you lose your job. That pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

Brilliant.
 

GVBadger said:
People do realize that recruiting is not a separate sport, right? If you win, you recruit well. If you don't win, you lose your job. That pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

You must be the smartest guy in your village.
 

I'm now watching skip bayless (who is obviously one of the biggest idiots and sensationalists in the sports world) try to make claims that the scouting services are very accurate in their analysis of the good athletes. yeah i dunno about that one skip...
 

I'm tired of everyone ripping on the recruiting services and suggesting that somehow they're not reliable! Now leave me alone so I can read my U.S. News college rankings.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom