Recruiting class rankings

Donate To GopherHole
Tlsbhansen

Tlsbhansen

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
845
Reaction score
182
Points
43
I know negativity is part of the fabric of forums such as GopherHole, but I often see "the sky is falling" posts regarding the "stars" of our recruits and our national class rank. We who have not personally watched a recruit play in a game, seen him at a camp, or met with him and his family are quick to slam the coaching staff for failure to recruit the level of players we think we need. My perception is that we have continued to raise the talent level at Minnesota (evidence: true Freshmen starting) and develop talent the last few years. I hope that the staff continue to find and develop gems that propel us forward regardless of whether they are a 3, 4 or 5 stars.

All you have to do is look at this year's 2-5 Notre Dame team to realize that getting the perceived "star" commits does not necessarily make a good team. Here is their classes' national ranking according to ESPN the last five years:


2012 9

2013 4

2014 11

2015 13

2016 14

 


I'm not into the sky is falling stuff but recruiting is a big part of makes good teams..... it gets a lot more variable from say ranking 30 to 50 but recruiting is crucial.
 

Everyone realizes that there isn't a 1:1 correlation between recruiting rankings and winning. If it were, they wouldn't need to play the games. Pointing out the occasional outliers of teams who recruit poorly and win or teams who recruit well and lose proves nothing.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Everyone realizes that there isn't a 1:1 correlation between recruiting rankings and winning. If it were, they wouldn't need to play the games. Pointing out the occasional outliers of teams who recruit poorly and win or teams who recruit well and lose proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It doesn't "prove nothing." It proves that there isn't a 1:1 correlation between recruiting rankings and winning, which is what you said in the first part of your post.
 


Urbandale said:
Incorrect. It doesn't "prove nothing." It proves that there isn't a 1:1 correlation between recruiting rankings and winning, which is what you said in the first part of your post.
Click to expand...

I think he's pointing out that outliers like ND's struggles really don't make much of a point at all.

You can argue that recruiting rankings aren't 1:1 with winning all the time but ... dude nobody says that.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think he's pointing out that outliers like ND's struggles really don't make much of a point at all.

You can argue that recruiting rankings aren't 1:1 with winning all the time but ... dude nobody says that.
Click to expand...

Trying to explain this not-so subtlety to the anti-recruiting rankings people is like trying to teach your dog poker.
 

Tlsbhansen said:
I know negativity is part of the fabric of forums such as GopherHole, but I often see "the sky is falling" posts regarding the "stars" of our recruits and our national class rank. We who have not personally watched a recruit play in a game, seen him at a camp, or met with him and his family are quick to slam the coaching staff for failure to recruit the level of players we think we need. My perception is that we have continued to raise the talent level at Minnesota (evidence: true Freshmen starting) and develop talent the last few years. I hope that the staff continue to find and develop gems that propel us forward regardless of whether they are a 3, 4 or 5 stars.

All you have to do is look at this year's 2-5 Notre Dame team to realize that getting the perceived "star" commits does not necessarily make a good team. Here is their classes' national ranking according to ESPN the last five years:


2012 9

2013 4

2014 11

2015 13

2016 14

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand statistics very well.
 






Anyone looking at stars is crazy. It's all about the dots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Something tells me that IF the Gophers went out and signed a half-dozen 4* players, and a couple of 5* players - that recruiting rankings would suddenly become a lot more accurate and relevant.
 



Tlsbhansen said:
Here is their classes' national ranking according to ESPN the last five years:
Click to expand...

Ohio St:
2016 - 5
2015 - 6
2014 - 7
2013 - 3
2012 - 6

Alabama
2016 - 2
2015 - 1
2014 - 1
2013 - 1
2012 - 1


FSU:
2016 - 1
2015 - 2
2014 - 3
2013 - 9
2012 - 2
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think he's pointing out that outliers like ND's struggles really don't make much of a point at all.

You can argue that recruiting rankings aren't 1:1 with winning all the time but ... dude nobody says that.
Click to expand...

That is the standard comeback argument...outliers. In a different thread maybe a month ago I pointed out at least a half-dozen examples both ways. That many examples shows it's not just an outlier anomaly. Coaching, development, and getting the right players (regardless of stars/dots) for the system is extremely important.
 

PMWinSTP said:
That is the standard comeback argument...outliers. In a different thread maybe a month ago I pointed out at least a half-dozen examples both ways. That many examples shows it's not just an outlier anomaly. Coaching, development, and getting the right players (regardless of stars/dots) for the system is extremely important.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone doubts that last line either.....
 

PMWinSTP said:
That is the standard comeback argument...outliers. In a different thread maybe a month ago I pointed out at least a half-dozen examples both ways. That many examples shows it's not just an outlier anomaly. Coaching, development, and getting the right players (regardless of stars/dots) for the system is extremely important.
Click to expand...

Picking out a few positive/negative examples from thousands of data points is the very definition of an outlier.
 

Gophers national Rivals recruiting ranking:

2010: 54
2011: 55
2012: 78
2013: 61
2014: 54
2015: 53
2016: 51
Average: 58

Sagarin ranking:
2011: 88
2012: 68
2013: 58
2014: 38
2015: 64
2016: 49
Average: 61

Looks like a pretty accurate predictor of success to me.
 

There are recent examples of very good recruiting and poor coaches.
Mi and PSU are the ones that come to mind.
In the case of ND, Kelly has lost the team.
His years of publicly humiliating his payers on national TV has finally caught up with him.
Good recruiting and good coaching make for persistently dominant teams; e.g. AL and OSU and now a resurgent MI.
Playing freshmen does not necessarily mean the 2015 class was so good but that prior classes were worse.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Something tells me that IF the Gophers went out and signed a half-dozen 4* players, and a couple of 5* players - that recruiting rankings would suddenly become a lot more accurate and relevant.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding....we have a winner.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Picking out a few positive/negative examples from thousands of data points is the very definition of an outlier.
Click to expand...

Thousands? Really? Try 10% using just the examples I provided.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Thousands? Really? Try 10% using just the examples I provided.
Click to expand...

100+ teams and their annual records for 14 years since Rivals has been in existence, and then compared to the recruiting rankings for those 100+ teams over the 4-5 years preceding each of those annual records, and then correlating the two. Like I said, thousands.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Thousands? Really? Try 10% using just the examples I provided.
Click to expand...

You named about 2 each way in the previous thread.

I don't know why people keep fighting this. The math backs it up. Yes there are a few outliers, but there are with every data set.
 

The difference in recruiting show's in depth. A 4* recruit gets injured for Ohio State, they replace him with another 4* recruit. Look at our only 4 * recruit CC #45. He doesn't get hurt in fall practice and he's probably a starter from game 1. Normally, the 4. & 5 star recruits are ready to play right away. That is a huge difference in regarding depth.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
You named about 2 each way in the previous thread.

I don't know why people keep fighting this. The math backs it up. Yes there are a few outliers, but there are with every data set.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it was more than that.
 

dpodoll68 said:
100+ teams and their annual records for 14 years since Rivals has been in existence, and then compared to the recruiting rankings for those 100+ teams over the 4-5 years preceding each of those annual records, and then correlating the two. Like I said, thousands.
Click to expand...

Assuming I went back 14 years? Didn't have to in making my point that they aren't just outliers. The math holds for maybe the top 25, with some big outliers there, but not the farther down you go.
 


I'm too lazy to read the whole thread. Can someone please summarize for me whether or not recruiting rankings matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom