Recruiting (Michigan) vs. Coaching (Minnesota) - A Case Study

[PeanutButterGopherTime]

2010-2014 Recruiting By The Numbers (Michigan vs. Minnesota):

2010:
5-Star Recruits: 0 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 6 vs. 2
National Rankings: 20 vs. 51

2011:
5-Star Recruits: 0 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 6 vs. 0
National Rankings: 21 vs. 52

2012:
5-Star Recruits: 2 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 10 vs. 0
National Rankings: 7 vs. 73

2013:
5-Star Recruits: 1 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 16 vs. 0
National Rankings: 5 vs. 61

2014:
5-Star Recruits: 1 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 6 vs. 1
National Rankings: 31 vs. 52

Summary:
5-Star Recruits: 4 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 50 vs. 3
National Rankings: 16.8 vs. 57.8

Everyone knows that recruiting is an inexact predictor of future success, but when you see numbers like the 4-star recruits in the last 5 years of 50 vs. 3 it begins to show you just what an achievement beating Michigan is. Is Michigan suffering from lots of problems this year? Of course. But let's give credit where it is due, the coaching staff and the players went into Ann Arbor and stepped on Michigan's throats and absolutely dominated them with, on paper, a huge talent disparity relative to Michigan. So let's not apologize for creaming Bitchigan this year. What we have at Minnesota is a proven coaching staff with an unheard of amount of experience between them and you don't have the best recruits, but you've got a group of kids buying into that system. We are now seeing the dividends of that paying off.

There are two parts to being a good team. One is being able to rise to the occasion and beat favored teams. The other, and maybe more important part, is being able to take care of business and win the games you are "supposed" to win. These next 4 weeks will tell a tremendous deal about where our program is at and could set us up for an incredible last 4 games.

 

[Stan]

Really interesting read. Thanks for putting this together.

 

[Ole]

Also reality check for those who use rivals/scout/247 as examples of why Kill recruits so poorly. He and this staff don't, they simply find guys they can develop that fit their systems. Recruiting rankings are not indicative of success for developmental programs like Kill's/Snyder's/Patterson's/Iowa/wisky.

Here's something:
Starters for us that were 2 stars at some point :
Cockran
Thompson
Wells
Lauer
Leidner
Freuecte
Keith
Murray
Santoso
Wilson
Richardson

Half our team that whooped Michigan were 2 star recruits
Some perspective at least

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

I think the premise that this was about Hoke's recruiting vs. Kill's coaching is flawed. At the end of the day, recruiting can't be measured by star ratings. A coach doesn't (or at least shouldn't) just blindly try to pack the highest rated recruits he can find. That is what a 10 year old with a college football video game does. Recruiting has to do with identifying the type of guys who can successfully fit into your system. At the end of the day, I would argue that Brady Hoke's recruiting has been terrible, because despite having his pick of the litter, he doesn't seem to have the personnel he needs to successfully run his system.

 

[Maverick]

Agree 100% I'd like to add that keep winning and the 4's and 5's will start falling MN way. I' love to see what Kill and crew could do with a roster loaded with talent. If I was a top recruit I'd go where I believe my talents will be hewn and strengthened the most possible for showcasing to the NFL. Kill and company would be top of that list for that reason alone.

 

[OddStack]

Also reality check for those who use rivals/scout/247 as examples of why Kill recruits so poorly. He and this staff don't, they simply find guys they can develop that fit their systems. Recruiting rankings are not indicative of success for developmental programs like Kill's/Snyder's/Patterson's/Iowa/wisky.

Here's something:
Starters for us that were 2 stars at some point :
Cockran
Thompson
Wells
Lauer
Leidner
Freuecte
Keith
Murray
Santoso
Wilson
Richardson

Half our team that whooped Michigan were 2 star recruits
Some perspective at least

He was unbelievable at times Saturday. The color guy kept talking about Botecelli making plays, which he was; however, Richardson caused the ball carrier to stutter step, run into his own lineman, or jump cut about 4-5 plays on Saturday. He was a wrecking machine with his quickness and bullrush. He isn't being mentioned much for the type of game he had.

By far my favorite Gopher DT since Schlect!!!!!!

 

[skauma]

Well, what is the Michigan vs Minnesota record since Hoke and Kill took over? One win doesnt make a rule. There is a reason why you usually see teams that recruit top classes on the top end of the top 25. There is a reason why the SEC is so much better than the Big Ten...recruiting.

 

[Ole]

He was unbelievable at times Saturday. The color guy kept talking about Botecelli making plays, which he was; however, Richardson caused the ball carrier to stutter step, run into his own lineman, or jump cut about 4-5 plays on Saturday. He was a wrecking machine with his quickness and bullrush. He isn't being mentioned much for the type of game he had.

By far my favorite Gopher DT since Schlect!!!!!!

Yep, he and Elmore are going to be special on the same line.
I'll say also that my list doesn't include guys Kill and Co didn't recruit so a guy like Bottecelli who was a 2 star walk on isn't included.
Our Dline is also missing another 2 star starter in Ekpe, things are really bright in the coming years up front.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Well, what is the Michigan vs Minnesota record since Hoke and Kill took over? One win doesnt make a rule. There is a reason why you usually see teams that recruit top classes on the top end of the top 25. There is a reason why the SEC is so much better than the Big Ten...recruiting.

Interesting that Hoke's recruiting by the services is getting better and the team is getting worse. Hoke and Kill may be guys that get more out of less and have difficulty dealing with the 4&5 star guys. I hope we get some of them and see how they do.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

What's amazing to me is that 2012 class. That's the lowest rated class and Kill's first full class. Almost all of those guys play(ed) a significant role on the team, and are the meat and potatoes of the current team.

 

[Buck_Buchanan]

I think the premise that this was about Hoke's recruiting vs. Kill's coaching is flawed. At the end of the day, recruiting can't be measured by star ratings. A coach doesn't (or at least shouldn't) just blindly try to pack the highest rated recruits he can find. That is what a 10 year old with a college football video game does. Recruiting has to do with identifying the type of guys who can successfully fit into your system. At the end of the day, I would argue that Brady Hoke's recruiting has been terrible, because despite having his pick of the litter, he doesn't seem to have the personnel he needs to successfully run his system.

As a head coach, it is a tremendous philosophy to bring to the table when given the opportunity to recruit. #Failed@It

Sincerely,
Coach Brew

 

[killme]

2010-2014 Recruiting By The Numbers (Michigan vs. Minnesota):


...but you've got a group of kids buying into that system.

I love the posts like this that require some effort and research, instead of just pulling thoughts out of places that should be reserved for defecation. Thank you. I also believe buying into the system is a byproduct of the nature and character of the staff and their ability at every stop along the way to identify players that possess the best skill set available to them, and the character and willingness to buy in.

 

[golden boy]

As far back as I'm willing to remember (somewhere during Tim Brewster's time here) I've favored good coaching vs highly ranked recruiting like all good Gopher fans. And I don't fault Jerry Kill at all for his recruiting here, he has found marvelous players who seem to fit his style of play, which is great. However, if he is able to raise the public profile of this program through on-field success, I can't be the only guy who looks forward to a Kill coached team with a handful of 4 star recruits who also fit the system. Right? That's why I hate the framing of the debate as "recruiting vs coaching". I want both. I have just learned that at this university coaching will have to lead to success which will have to lead to recruiting victories

 

[BarnBoy]

Well, what is the Michigan vs Minnesota record since Hoke and Kill took over? One win doesnt make a rule. There is a reason why you usually see teams that recruit top classes on the top end of the top 25. There is a reason why the SEC is so much better than the Big Ten...recruiting.

That's flawed as well - the playing field wasn't level when they both came in. Kill inherited a mess. Hoke inherited (at least) Michigan.
Someone has it in their signature. "At Michigan, you clean house. At Minnesota, you need to build a house".

EDIT: Great post PeanutButter.

 

[MNVCGUY]

2010-2014 Recruiting By The Numbers (Michigan vs. Minnesota):

2010:
5-Star Recruits: 0 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 6 vs. 2
National Rankings: 20 vs. 51

2011:
5-Star Recruits: 0 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 6 vs. 0
National Rankings: 21 vs. 52

2012:
5-Star Recruits: 2 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 10 vs. 0
National Rankings: 7 vs. 73

2013:
5-Star Recruits: 1 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 16 vs. 0
National Rankings: 5 vs. 61

2014:
5-Star Recruits: 1 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 6 vs. 1
National Rankings: 31 vs. 52

Summary:
5-Star Recruits: 4 vs. 0
4-Star Recruits: 50 vs. 3
National Rankings: 16.8 vs. 57.8

Everyone knows that recruiting is an inexact predictor of future success, but when you see numbers like the 4-star recruits in the last 5 years of 50 vs. 3 it begins to show you just what an achievement beating Michigan is. Is Michigan suffering from lots of problems this year? Of course. But let's give credit where it is due, the coaching staff and the players went into Ann Arbor and stepped on Michigan's throats and absolutely dominated them with, on paper, a huge talent disparity relative to Michigan. So let's not apologize for creaming Bitchigan this year. What we have at Minnesota is a proven coaching staff with an unheard of amount of experience between them and you don't have the best recruits, but you've got a group of kids buying into that system. We are now seeing the dividends of that paying off.

There are two parts to being a good team. One is being able to rise to the occasion and beat favored teams. The other, and maybe more important part, is being able to take care of business and win the games you are "supposed" to win. These next 4 weeks will tell a tremendous deal about where our program is at and could set us up for an incredible last 4 games.

First off that is a really interesting comparison, and it makes for an interesting discussion. One thing not in there though is the results on the field. Obviously we know what happened between Minnesota and Michigan this year but over that same time frame:

2011 - 58-0 Michigan
2012 - 35-13 Michigan
2013 - 42-13 Michigan
2014 - 14-30 Minnesota

So if we are going to make the argument that coaching is more valuable then recruiting (and I agree that coaching is more important, but you need a combo of both to be truly successful), then you have to look at how the teams have done head to head in more then just the most recent matchup. If we start to consistently beat Michigan with significantly lower rated classes then the argument changes.

 

[JBravo30]

First off that is a really interesting comparison, and it makes for an interesting discussion. One thing not in there though is the results on the field. Obviously we know what happened between Minnesota and Michigan this year but over that same time frame:

2011 - 58-0 Michigan
2012 - 35-13 Michigan
2013 - 42-13 Michigan
2014 - 14-30 Minnesota

So if we are going to make the argument that coaching is more valuable then recruiting (and I agree that coaching is more important, but you need a combo of both to be truly successful), then you have to look at how the teams have done head to head in more then just the most recent matchup. If we start to consistently beat Michigan with significantly lower rated classes then the argument changes.

Yes, but "results on the field" is about more than just the one week per year that the Gophers and Wolverines play each other:

2011 - Michigan 11-2 (6-2) Minnesota 3-9 (2-6)
2012 - Michigan 8-5 (6-2) Minnesota 6-7 (2-6)
2013 - Michigan 7-6 (3-5) Minnesota 8-5 (4-4)
2014 - Michigan 2-3 (0-1) Minnesota 4-1 (1-0)

Obviously we're not even halfway through 2014 at this point, but Michigan under Hoke and Minnesota under Kill both seem to be trending in pretty clear - and opposite - directions. I tend to agree with some of the comments above that "recruiting vs. coaching" is something of a false distinction. That said, what Kill has been able to do on the field given the (perceived or actual) disparity in talent available to him relative to traditional power programs is incredibly impressive, which I think was the OP's basic point.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Yes, but "results on the field" is about more than just the one week per year that the Gophers and Wolverines play each other:

2011 - Michigan 11-2 (6-2) Minnesota 3-9 (2-6)
2012 - Michigan 8-5 (6-2) Minnesota 6-7 (2-6)
2013 - Michigan 7-6 (3-5) Minnesota 8-5 (4-4)
2014 - Michigan 2-3 (0-1) Minnesota 4-1 (1-0)

Obviously we're not even halfway through 2014 at this point, but Michigan under Hoke and Minnesota under Kill both seem to be trending in pretty clear - and opposite - directions. I tend to agree with some of the comments above that "recruiting vs. coaching" is something of a false distinction. That said, what Kill has been able to do on the field given the (perceived or actual) disparity in talent available to him relative to traditional power programs is incredibly impressive, which I think was the OP's basic point.

Very clear that compared to Michigan we are on an upward trend and they are on a downward trend which would support the argument being put forth by the OP. I don't have any of these numbers at my disposal but I would bet that it doesn't go quite as well in our favor when stacked up against the other traditional power programs like those in the SEC or Ohio State if you run the same comparison and include on the field results.

Very clear that Kill has things moving in the right direction and out of the wasteland that was the Tim Brewster era. The question that still remains though is just how far Kill can take things and if he can truly be the coach that gets the team over the hump and actually into contention on a regular basis.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Barriero tweet


Gophs def coord Tracy Claeys to Gaardsie on FAN: This is no fluke. "We have better players than the University of Michigan has now."

Development, coaching, desire, chemistry. Over the years there have been many teams around the country that have far outplayed their star rankings. It happens, and it's not that rare.

Are we witnessing it happen here. Sure seems like it. It happened last year, and the future looks bright this year. The offense is developing. If it continues we will be a force to reckon with.

 

[John Galt]

Michigan has won 22 out of the last 24 meetings, and I would guess that recruiting rankings over that time period are similar to what was shown. Yet we're trying to make the argument that "rankings don't matter" based on one game? Against a Michigan team that is on a historic slide?

For anyone that thinks recruiting rankings don't matter, here's my bet: I'll take the top 10 teams based on Rivals recruiting rankings each year. You can have the bottom 10. My bet is that each year for the next 50 years, my 10 teams outperform your 10 teams. Who wants it?

Recruiting rankings are far from perfect, but there is no doubt they are correlated to winning football games.

 

[BarnBoy]

I think this thread is getting off topic. The OP did a fantastic job putting together this analysis, but I think the mistake was using the "Recruiting vs. Coaching" title. It's not an either or.

This really is a case story of two programs trending in opposite directions. "Squandering talent" vs. "Coaching 'em up"

Imagine the days when KillCo get sign more 4s and 5s - the difference (compared to Michigan) being that those 4s and 5s will fit the system and be developed.

 

[Fuzzy Rumpton]

Michigan has won 22 out of the last 24 meetings, and I would guess that recruiting rankings over that time period are similar to what was shown. Yet we're trying to make the argument that "rankings don't matter" based on one game? Against a Michigan team that is on a historic slide?

For anyone that thinks recruiting rankings don't matter, here's my bet: I'll take the top 10 teams based on Rivals recruiting rankings each year. You can have the bottom 10. My bet is that each year for the next 50 years, my 10 teams outperform your 10 teams. Who wants it?

Recruiting rankings are far from perfect, but there is no doubt they are correlated to winning football games.

That comparison is quite drastic. Based off average he is comparing 17th and 58th not 10 vs 120. It's not like we are drawing from the bottom of the talent pool but based on rankings are still at a slight disadvantage to Michigan.

 

[John Galt]

That comparison is quite drastic. Based off average he is comparing 17th and 58th not 10 vs 120. It's not like we are drawing from the bottom of the talent pool but based on rankings are still at a slight disadvantage to Michigan.

My comparison is drastic, but so is the statement that stars don't matter. They obviously do to some extent. Suppose over the next 10 years Michigan continues to get top 10 recruiting classes and we continue to rank between 50-60. If that plays out and we beat Michigan 8 out of 10 times, this thread becomes interesting...

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I don't think anybody is arguing that recruiting doesn't matter. On average a team that has a composite one star advantage (eg 3.5 avg star roster vs 2.5 avg star roster) will win 2/3 of the time. In practice it seems like it's even more frequent than that. I don't have a link to the study.

That being said, there are numerous teams that consistently outplay their star ratings. They may not be consistent top 25 teams but they have their moments and eras. All it takes is a handful of stars, good coaching, a little luck, and team chemistry and buy-in.

If you don't believe it can happen, WTF are you doing here?

 

[Dr.Don]

Michigan has won 22 out of the last 24 meetings, and I would guess that recruiting rankings over that time period are similar to what was shown. Yet we're trying to make the argument that "rankings don't matter" based on one game? Against a Michigan team that is on a historic slide?

For anyone that thinks recruiting rankings don't matter, here's my bet: I'll take the top 10 teams based on Rivals recruiting rankings each year. You can have the bottom 10. My bet is that each year for the next 50 years, my 10 teams outperform your 10 teams. Who wants it?

Recruiting rankings are far from perfect, but there is no doubt they are correlated to winning football games.

John, what has happened 22 of the last 24 years means jack schidt. It's today that matters.

 

[hungan1]

Agree 100% I'd like to add that keep winning and the 4's and 5's will start falling MN way. I' love to see what Kill and crew could do with a roster loaded with talent. If I was a top recruit I'd go where I believe my talents will be hewn and strengthened the most possible for showcasing to the NFL. Kill and company would be top of that list for that reason alone.

The moment JK consistently gets 4 & 5 stars in each recruiting class is the moment that the Gophers can compete for the B1G titles or even a national title.

Imagine what he'll do with coached up top tier talent.

 

[Killjoy]

My comparison is drastic, but so is the statement that stars don't matter. They obviously do to some extent. Suppose over the next 10 years Michigan continues to get top 10 recruiting classes and we continue to rank between 50-60. If that plays out and we beat Michigan 8 out of 10 times, this thread becomes interesting...

John - Does it bother you that the data shows that Kill know's what he is doing or do you just not get it? As you pointed out there is a corelation between class ranks and future success. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. The problem though is that this only begins to explain a portion of why some teams succeed and others don't. I have posted in the past what those other factors are and don't feel the need to do it again. Sure, we would like to have higher rated recruits if they are better than the recruits we are presently recruiting but the results do speak for themselve. So my questions to you is do you have a problem with Kill and how he recruiting? If so, what is it? If not, why are you making this such a big issue?

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

The moment JK consistently gets 4 & 5 stars in each recruiting class is the moment that the Gophers can compete for the B1G titles or even a national title.

Imagine what he'll do with coached up top tier talent.

I hope you are right, but is not a given that a successful coach will be able to duplicate his success in a different setting, even one that seems like it should be advantageous. I bet a lot of people were saying that after Brady Hoke took Ball State to a 12-1 season, and then took SDSU to a 9-4 season, that he would be unstoppable with 4 and 5 star talent and the kind of facilities he would have access to at Michigan. Instead, he is circling the drain like a turd that is too big to flush properly. Similarly, Herb Brooks defeated arguably the greatest hockey team of all-time with a group of college players, yet was never able to be too successful on a more level playing field in the NHL.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Let me throw this into the mix: Kill brings in less-heralded players - guy who have not been feted and catered to throughout their HS careers. Those types of kids may be more likely to sublimate their own goals for the good of the team. Mind you, I'm not opposed to the idea of the Gophers bringing in some 4 & 5* recruits - but they have to be the right kind of recruits- who will buy into Kill's system.