B1G Recruiting Ranking

Donate To GopherHole
B

BrewsterBooster

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Points
16
May not mean much at this stage, but I found this interesting.

2012 B1G Football Recruiting

School - Rivals Average Stars

#1 Michigan 3.52
#2 Nebraska 3.50
#3 Ohio St 3.44
#4 Wisconsin 3.33
#5 Michigan St 3.14
#6 Penn State 3.08
#7 Iowa 3.00
#8 Illinois 2.92
#9 Purdue 2.91
#10 NU 2.78
#11 Indiana 2.75
#12 Minnesota 2.62
 

BrewsterBooster said:
May not mean much at this stage, but I found this interesting.

2012 B1G Football Recruiting

School - Rivals Average Stars

#1 Michigan 3.52
#2 Nebraska 3.50
#3 Ohio St 3.44
#4 Wisconsin 3.33
#5 Michigan St 3.14
#6 Penn State 3.08
#7 Iowa 3.00
#8 Illinois 2.92
#9 Purdue 2.91
#10 NU 2.78
#11 Indiana 2.75
#12 Minnesota 2.62
Click to expand...

this rating by rivals is an absolute joke. not even close to accurate. get real rivals.....get real.
 

I don't know who to trust, rivals or supadupafly or espn or scout or whoever.


Maybe I will just wait till the football season and form my opinion based on what I see on the field.
 

Numbers

Not sure what you mean by "not even close to accurate." I did a quick calculation of recruiting rankings versus B1G standings.

There's different ways to think about it, like taking the last 5 years of recruiting and comparing to this year (all the classes that might comprise this year's team). Wisconsin comes out on top finishing +5.8 spots ahead of their 5 year avg recruiting ranking. Gophers finished -2.6, and OSU was last at -5.4 (anomaly year for them).

Or you could take a bigger average of recruiting rankings from the last 10 years versus B1G standings from the last 5 years. In this comparison Northwestern is on top finishing +3.6 over recruiting rankings, Gophers at -1.5 and Michigan last at -3.9.

I should add that in the comparison of avg recruting rank (2003-11) to average B1G finish (07-11) most teams were within +/- 1.5 except NU (+3.6), UW (+3.4) and Mich (-3.9). So there is some correlation.
 

So is it positively or negatively correlated? From the numbers you present, it seems all over the board. I would think it is so close to zero as to be meaningless.
 


I guess the big question is if the Gophers were close to the top in regards to ranking, would it still be meaningless?;)
 

Anyone who has access to the program SPSS could quickly do a correlation test over the last 10 years. I think that would be an interesting analysis.
 

Give me the data that you used, and I could run a correlation matrix in Zephyr StyleAdvisor.

It would look like monthly or quarterly investment returns, but the math is the same.
 

Catechol said:
Not sure what you mean by "not even close to accurate." I did a quick calculation of recruiting rankings versus B1G standings.

There's different ways to think about it, like taking the last 5 years of recruiting and comparing to this year (all the classes that might comprise this year's team). Wisconsin comes out on top finishing +5.8 spots ahead of their 5 year avg recruiting ranking. Gophers finished -2.6, and OSU was last at -5.4 (anomaly year for them).

Or you could take a bigger average of recruiting rankings from the last 10 years versus B1G standings from the last 5 years. In this comparison Northwestern is on top finishing +3.6 over recruiting rankings, Gophers at -1.5 and Michigan last at -3.9.

I should add that in the comparison of avg recruting rank (2003-11) to average B1G finish (07-11) most teams were within +/- 1.5 except NU (+3.6), UW (+3.4) and Mich (-3.9). So there is some correlation.
Click to expand...

Did you build in a four or five year lag? I think we all know that comparing the same years is pointless unless you're talking about Michigan basketball circa 1991.
 



Just be resigned to the fact that the rating services are going to rank the Gophers 50-60 in the country and probably a neck and neck fight with Indiana on who gets the bottom rating in the BIG. If you're caught up in the "star" system over the long term "wins" equate to the jumping up in this format. I would bet the house that in the next 7 years if Coach Kill remains at the helm you won't see one class in the top 20 for the simple reason he doesn't recruit an astrik. He recruits players that fit his system. If the wins( 8-9) come I can see us getting the 5th best class in the BIG. Most years it will run like this in the BIG.
In no particular order.
Ohio State
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan State
 

badgergopher said:
Did you build in a four or five year lag? I think we all know that comparing the same years is pointless unless you're talking about Michigan basketball circa 1991.
Click to expand...

Yes, I used a lag, i.e. took recruiting rankings from 2003-11 and B1G standings from 2007-11. Frosh from 2003 would be 5th year Srs. in 2007 so that's where I started.
 

ruppertflywheel said:
...you won't see one class in the top 20 for the simple reason he doesn't recruit an astrik. He recruits players that fit his system.
Click to expand...

And heaven knows that those 4 and 5 star recruits don't fit Kill's system.
 

Ok here are the results of a half hour of my life I will never get back because I was curious as to the result. I took the rivals ranking from 2002-2008 and compared them against the big ten standings from 2005-2011 (leaving out Nebraska). The way I see it by year 4 if a guy is going to make an impact he will so the guys that were signed in 2002 would have been in year 4 in 2005. I added up the finishes in recruiting to get an average and added up the finishes in the standings to get an average. Here are the results.

Average Ranking in Rivals 2002-2008
1 - Michigan - 1.6
2 - Ohio State - 2.4
3 - Penn State - 4.6
4 - Illinois - 5
5 - Iowa - 6
6t - Wisconsin - 6.1
6t - Michigan State - 6.1
8 - Purdue - 6.4
9 - Minnesota - 7.6
10 - Northwestern - 9.7
11 - Indiana - 10.4

Average Finish in the Big Ten 2005-2011
1 - Ohio State - 2.1
2t - Wisconsin - 3.4
2t - Penn State - 3.4
4 - Iowa - 5.1
5 - Michigan 5.6
6 - Michigan State - 5.9
7 - Northwestern - 7
8 - Purdue - 7.3
9 - Illinois - 8.3
10 - Minnesota - 8.4
11 - Indiana - 9.9

The following all finished within 1 point of where the recruiting rankings said they should (PSU was 1.2 dif)
Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue, Penn State

Teams that significantly improved on their recruiting rankings (both +2.7 spots)
Wisconsin, Northwestern

Teams that did significantly worse then their recruiting rankings
Illinois (-3.3)
Michigan (-5 otherwise know as the Rich Rod years)

So again while the rankings don't tell the whole story, the more I dig into it the more accurate they seem to come across. I mean it was pretty shocking to see how close the numbers came out for 7 of the 11 schools over a 7 year period. I have no clue how the rankings from sites like scout or espn would shake out and my curiosity has been satisfied for the time being.
 



This is not totally accurate, because I rounded a little bit and some teams still have bowl games to play.

The correlation coefficient (r) is .5780511132 when comparing the averaged amount of average stars from the classes of 2007 to 2011 to the total number of wins from 2008 to 2011.

My calculations do NOT show how one or two recruiting classes affect wins and losses, but rather how the classes of 2007 to 2011 affect the wins and losses from 2007 to 2011. If I wanted to show how the recruiting classes affected wins and losses by showing how their teams did when they were seniors, I would have compared the (x) average stars of year X to (y) the wins in year X+4



B1G Rankings.jpg
 

RoyalGopher said:
This is not totally accurate, because I rounded a little bit and some teams still have bowl games to play.

The correlation coefficient (r) is .5780511132 when comparing the averaged amount of average stars from the classes of 2007 to 2011 to the total number of wins from 2008 to 2011.
Click to expand...

A moderate correlation. Nothing awe-inspiring like an r of .85-1.0 that says with certainty that recruiting reflects results.
 

RoyalGopher said:
This is not totally accurate, because I rounded a little bit and some teams still have bowl games to play.

The correlation coefficient (r) is .5780511132 when comparing the averaged amount of average stars from the classes of 2007 to 2011 to the total number of wins from 2008 to 2011.

My calculations do NOT show how one or two recruiting classes affect wins and losses, but rather how the classes of 2007 to 2011 affect the wins and losses from 2007 to 2011. If I wanted to show how the recruiting classes affected wins and losses by showing how their teams did when they were seniors, I would have compared the (x) average stars of year X to (y) the wins in year X+4



View attachment 1319
Click to expand...

TONS of reverse causation here as well, especially when you don't lag the results. In general, a better season on the field is more attractive to recruits
 

I just fell into an even deeper love with this website.
 

RoyalGopher said:
This is not totally accurate, because I rounded a little bit and some teams still have bowl games to play.

The correlation coefficient (r) is .5780511132 when comparing the averaged amount of average stars from the classes of 2007 to 2011 to the total number of wins from 2008 to 2011.

My calculations do NOT show how one or two recruiting classes affect wins and losses, but rather how the classes of 2007 to 2011 affect the wins and losses from 2007 to 2011. If I wanted to show how the recruiting classes affected wins and losses by showing how their teams did when they were seniors, I would have compared the (x) average stars of year X to (y) the wins in year X+4



View attachment 1319
Click to expand...

Love it. Thank you. Positive correlation, but nothing absolute (as expected).
 

Ah cain't do no fancy cipherin' lak y'all folks do - but I watched me some football over the years, and I ain't never seen no star rating make a tackle or score a touchdown.

Seriously - let's stop obsessing over the ratings. As far as I'm concerned, it's a rigged game. The helmet schools get all the national publicity, play in all the marquee games, and they get most of the ballyhooed 4-star and 5-star recruits. That's never going to change.

What counts is the results on the field. Other schools have shown you can win games and go to bowl games without having a roster full of 4-star and 5-star players. It's up to the coaching staff to identify and recruit players who fit the Gophers' system, and then coach them effectively.

I think that just as important as the star ratings is retention. I'd like to see one of you number crunchers come up with a metric to show the % of recuits at each school who graduate (or at least use up all their eligibility without leaving school.) That's an area where the Gophs have to improve.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom