Recruiting Rank vs. Wins in the BIG

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Too good. In the same thread I used 2-years / 12-games of data (the only games that met the criteria) you picked 5-games, from 1-team (MN), over 1-year (2018), chose a different measure (Talent Rankings), then sarcastically stated, “I supposed that is just a coincidence” (chuckle, fist pump, etc.). Hypocrite (Capital H intended).

Vindicated - Yep. You bet. For years I have said to throw out the 4/5 star teams at the top and the 2 star teams at the bottom and your rankings mean nothing. For years, without proving otherwise, you just kept claiming you did. Well, now I know why you didn’t. If I made any mistake it was that I was a bit aggressive with the chosen range - 20-50 was somewhat random and maybe I should have said 25-50, maybe 20-45, who knows exactly, but other than you and JG everyone else sees what this data is pointing toward.

TBH, I didn’t expect an apology - I expected denial, a pivot, and some random diversion response which is what I got. It is almost better that way as we both know the score here. <b>Spoofin: 1, GWG: 0. </b>

Also, in that other thread I used data to prove why Talent Rankings can’t be used in a debate about higher/lower Recruiting Ranked teams. Another thing you were wrong about. <b>Spoofin: 2, GWG: 0. </b>


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In that same thread I linked my 180 game analysis, the one you don't want to believe and continue to be wrong about. I already explained why I only used MN in that thread as well.

Then you even went on to admit there is very little difference between talent rankings and composite recruiting rankings, which I have been saying all along.

Then GBFan did this analysis, using your metric of composite recruiting rankings, and got a nearly identical number overall - 71%, of what I did using talent rankings. So again you've been proven wrong.

It's amazing to watch you continue to dig yourself a hole on this topic, not admit you're wrong, when you continue to be proven wrong over and over again. Your lack of understanding of probabilities and statistics continues to give me a laugh. I actually feel bad for you at this point. Keep on with the crusade though!

 

[Spoofin]

In that same thread I linked my 180 game analysis, the one you don't want to believe and continue to be wrong about. I already explained why I only used MN in that thread as well.

Then you even went on to admit there is very little difference between talent rankings and composite recruiting rankings, which I have been saying all along.

Then GBFan did this analysis, using your metric of composite recruiting rankings, and got a nearly identical number overall - 71%, of what I did using talent rankings. So again you've been proven wrong.

It's amazing to watch you continue to dig yourself a hole on this topic, not admit you're wrong, when you continue to be proven wrong over and over again. Your lack of understanding of probabilities and statistics continues to give me a laugh. I actually feel bad for you at this point. Keep on with the crusade though!

Such a GWG response. I have never come across anyone in my life more transparent than you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Such a GWG response. I have never come across anyone in my life more transparent than you.

Thanks, is transparency supposed to be a bad thing?

 

[march madness]

You also have to figure in how many top players that earn teams those high rankings are leaving after 3 years.

 

[Spoofin]

Thanks, is transparency supposed to be a bad thing?

When it is your motive, yes.

I never said your 180-game eval wasn’t accurate. I never dismissed it as a whole. No matter how many times you keep saying it. I said it didn’t address the debate at hand as it included the extremes I am trying to filter out (tOSU vs IL). It isn’t relevant to THIS discussion.

I never said Team Rankings were nearly identical. I said the numbers don’t change a lot in most cases, but they do in some and in all cases it changed the order of rank for the teams. Wouldn’t you agree the order of the teams is rather important to this discussion?

You dismiss my 12-game, 5-Team, 2-year Eval, but double done on your 5-game, 1-Team, 1-Year Eval.

When motives are misdirection and misinformation, then transparency is not something to be proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gophers_4life]

What's funny is that you think 58% is the same as 50%. That difference is one full win, on average, every single year.

Whoa there .... how do you calculate this??

Let me guess: 0.58 * 9 Big Ten games = 5.22, 0.5 * 9 Big Ten games = 4.5. Nope that's not even close enough. I bet you just did the whole schedule. 0.58 * 12 games = 6.96, 0.5 * 12 games = 6. Yep, that was it.

Lazy and dishonest.


You know full well that the thread was only about Big Ten games. And secondly, it was only talking about Big Ten teams who have average recruiting classes in the #20 - #50 national rank over a rolling five year period, then playing each other.

And if you shrink it to 25-40, which is an even more appropriate range for the discussion, would bet it does indeed go right to 50-50.

 

[Gophers_4life]

It's a cold, harsh reality ... even if Fleck gets the recruiting classes up to #25 national ranking, that isn't going to matter. He's still going to be an underdog against Big Ten teams that are top 20, and he's still only going to be 50-50 against other Big Ten teams in that range, which should be most of the teams we play.

The only way to gain a significant statistical advantage is to get recruiting classes in the top 20 maybe, and more realistically the top 15.


He's just going to have to find a way to win games the old fashioned way, rather than just out-recruiting and out-talenting other teams.

 

[John Galt]

I'm not sure why the extremes wouldn't be used in a recruiting analysis. It's part of the data.

 

[John Galt]

Whoa there .... how do you calculate this??

Let me guess: 0.58 * 9 Big Ten games = 5.22, 0.5 * 9 Big Ten games = 4.5. Nope that's not even close enough. I bet you just did the whole schedule. 0.58 * 12 games = 6.96, 0.5 * 12 games = 6. Yep, that was it.

Lazy and dishonest.


You know full well that the thread was only about Big Ten games. And secondly, it was only talking about Big Ten teams who have average recruiting classes in the #20 - #50 national rank over a rolling five year period, then playing each other.

And if you shrink it to 25-40, which is an even more appropriate range for the discussion, would bet it does indeed go right to 50-50.

Why don't we shrink it to teams ranked 33-34? Of course if you shrink it there's less variation.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Why don't we shrink it to teams ranked 33-34? Of course if you shrink it there's less variation.

25-40 is appropriate because that's our likely level and the likely level of teams we'll be competing against in the Big Ten West. Not at all arbitrary.


Using data of #4 Ohio St beating #40-#50 teams, is irrelevant. It does not prove that #30 has an advantage over #40.

 

[John Galt]

25-40 is appropriate because that's our likely level and the likely level of teams we'll be competing against in the Big Ten West. Not at all arbitrary.


Using data of #4 Ohio St beating #40-#50 teams, is irrelevant. It does not prove that #30 has an advantage over #40.

Is anyone arguing or making the case there is a huge difference between 30 and 40? Given the imperfection with rankings due to attrition and players transferring into programs that aren't taken into account, I would expect the difference to be marginal. I'm glad we have a coach like Fleck who has already outperformed his recruiting rankings.

 

[Dano564]

Is anyone arguing or making the case there is a huge difference between 30 and 40? Given the imperfection with rankings due to attrition and players transferring into programs that aren't taken into account, I would expect the difference to be marginal. I'm glad we have a coach like Fleck who has already outperformed his recruiting rankings.

Right. And the question is, do you include the chance for "attrition" into the rankings or not?
Perhaps if someone did attrition work, they would discover attrition is higher in top 20 classes (because of recruits seeking better places to play) and more around 70-100 (because of inability to make rosters). Maybe the sweet spot to minimize attrition is to be around the 30-50 range?

Recruiting rankings appear to be such an inexact science right now.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Right. And the question is, do you include the chance for "attrition" into the rankings or not?
Perhaps if someone did attrition work, they would discover attrition is higher in top 20 classes (because of recruits seeking better places to play) and more around 70-100 (because of inability to make rosters). Maybe the sweet spot to minimize attrition is to be around the 30-50 range?

Recruiting rankings appear to be such an inexact science right now.

247's team talent rankings do factor in attrition. It's the recruiting rankings of the players on each roster. There is little variance between that an the composite recruiting rankings, and the correlation to wins is still the same.

 

[Dano564]

247's team talent rankings do factor in attrition. It's the recruiting rankings of the players on each roster. There is little variance between that an the composite recruiting rankings, and the correlation to wins is still the same.

But my point is, at the point you assemble the class, you don't know if your class is likely to experience 75% attrition or 10% attrition.
Looking back you can tell, but at the point you sign, you don't know if a top 10 class is more likely to have 75% attrition or if a 40th ranked class will.

If you have a top 10 class but half your players never hit the field as juniors or seniors, your rankings are pretty much worthless.

So in the end, you want to find out how many and what the reason is why players you recruited don't hit the field.

It could be lack of talent, lack of grades, seeking better place to play, home-sickness, etc.

 

[hungan1]

The spotlight is on coaching and player development. Hopefully, the Gophers will be lucky to get a string of wins enough to persuade legitimate high three stars & four stars who give the GOphers a miss.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Is anyone arguing or making the case there is a huge difference between 30 and 40? Given the imperfection with rankings due to attrition and players transferring into programs that aren't taken into account, I would expect the difference to be marginal. I'm glad we have a coach like Fleck who has already outperformed his recruiting rankings.

Oh OK. So then we all, all of Gopherhole, can sit down at the table and shake hands in agreement: Let it be known, getting our recruiting even up to #30 nationally, is not going to give us a significant statistical win advantage over the teams we play, on its own.


Glad that is settled then. And yes I 100% agree with you that we need Fleck to outperform what the rankings might peg us at, if we want any hope of getting past that top 30 threshold, which has very high barriers to entry.

 

[John Galt]

Oh OK. So then we all, all of Gopherhole, can sit down at the table and shake hands in agreement: Let it be known, getting our recruiting even up to #30 nationally, is not going to give us a significant statistical win advantage over the teams we play, on its own.


Glad that is settled then. And yes I 100% agree with you that we need Fleck to outperform what the rankings might peg us at, if we want any hope of getting past that top 30 threshold, which has very high barriers to entry.

You didn’t hear what I said. On average, I would expect #30 to beat #40 more than 50% of the time if nothing changed after signing day and this represented all of the players in the program.

The rankings don’t take into account attrition, players transferring in and walk-ons. So if team #40 has a stronger walk-on program, ends up with several high-profile players transferring in and team #30 loses several top recruits after a year or two, it wouldn’t be that shocking for team #40 to be better than team #30 given that their recruiting rankings were relatively close to begin with.

 

[Gophers_4life]

On average, I would expect #30 to beat #40 more than 50% of the time if nothing changed after signing day and this represented all of the players in the program.

You're talking 55-45, at best. That ain't gonna get it done.

The rankings don’t take into account attrition, players transferring in and walk-ons. So if team #40 has a stronger walk-on program, ends up with several high-profile players transferring in and team #30 loses several top recruits after a year or two, it wouldn’t be that shocking for team #40 to be better than team #30 given that their recruiting rankings were relatively close to begin with.

This is 100% correct, and of course is a great point.

But this is never the way recruiting rankings are argued. Never. People never talk about it like this. Rather, they say we need to be ranked such-and-such every year if we want to win this or that.

 

[60's Guy]

Coaching ability is the biggest variable imo
I’d like to think PJ has his best coaching staff right now.
Between walkons, transfers and the recruits he selected we are in position to win more than 7 games in 2019.
It’s a process and establishing a new culture...it’s on pace. I’m optimistic we are the right path if we just continue to change our best each day.
Life is good even at 35 below zero. Go Gophers!

 

[Gophers_4life]

Between walkons, transfers and the recruits he selected we are in position to win more than 7 games in 2019.

Including the bowl game, yes.

I'll take 7-5, with no bad loses, in the 2019 regular season as a significant sign of progress, towards even better things in 2020.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Including the bowl game, yes.

I'll take 7-5, with no bad loses, in the 2019 regular season as a significant sign of progress, towards even better things in 2020.

with all due respect - going from 6-6 in the regular season to 7-5 is not, IMHO, a "significant" sign of progress. I think the Gophers would have to go at least 8-4 for it to be significant.

 

[Gophers_4life]

with all due respect - going from 6-6 in the regular season to 7-5 is not, IMHO, a "significant" sign of progress. I think the Gophers would have to go at least 8-4 for it to be significant.

6-6 with three horrible losses, to 7-5 with no bad losses .... sorry we will have to agree to disagree. This is a tough conference, and each win you ratchet up is that much tougher than the last.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Is anyone arguing or making the case there is a huge difference between 30 and 40? Given the imperfection with rankings due to attrition and players transferring into programs that aren't taken into account, I would expect the difference to be marginal. I'm glad we have a coach like Fleck who has already outperformed his recruiting rankings.

We’re all optimistic going into 2019 but the bolded is a curious statement. The five year recruit ranking average is 10th in the Big Ten - we finished 11th in the Big Ten and 6th in the west division.

 

[John Galt]

We’re all optimistic going into 2019 but the bolded is a curious statement. The five year recruit ranking average is 10th in the Big Ten - we finished 11th in the Big Ten and 6th in the west division.

I think we finished 9th in the B1G using overall record as a tiebreaker. Illinois iirc was the only team we lost to that has had worse recruiting.

 

[Dano564]

We’re all optimistic going into 2019 but the bolded is a curious statement. The five year recruit ranking average is 10th in the Big Ten - we finished 11th in the Big Ten and 6th in the west division.

Your statement is also curious in that we were one of 9 Bowl eligible teams, but you consider it 11th. At worst, just looking at conference games we were "tied" for fifth in the West and "tied" for 9th overall.
But believe what you want I guess. I'm not going to argue over what direction you want to spin things.

I assume what the previous poster was stating in out-performing rankings is that of the last 4-5 years, our "average" ranking would probably be in the 50 range?
and by Sagarin rankings we finished 42nd. Perhaps you see that as outlandish however.

 

[Dano564]

I think we finished 9th in the B1G using overall record as a tiebreaker. Illinois iirc was the only team we lost to that has had worse recruiting.

PE evidently decided to go with all all important head-to-head tie-breaker which is almost never used for 4-14th place teams (or for bowl eligibility). But it helps him make his point in this case.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Your statement is also curious in that we were one of 9 Bowl eligible teams, but you consider it 11th. At worst, just looking at conference games we were "tied" for fifth in the West and "tied" for 9th overall.
But believe what you want I guess. I'm not going to argue over what direction you want to spin things.

I assume what the previous poster was stating in out-performing rankings is that of the last 4-5 years, our "average" ranking would probably be in the 50 range?
and by Sagarin rankings we finished 42nd. Perhaps you see that as outlandish however.

In B1G tie-breaker rules, rules 1-4 are all based on conference play, and head to head is 1st rule.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

We lost to Maryland and Nebraska. A better comparison is Big Ten tank vs Big Ten recruit rankings rather than very non-uniform non con slates.

 

[John Galt]

On “As GH Spins Today” we all learned that 3-6, 5-7 is better than 3-6, 7-6. And this coming from the same folks demanding 8 wins...

 

[Word]

On “As GH Spins Today” we all learned that 3-6, 5-7 is better than 3-6, 7-6. And this coming from the same folks demanding 8 wins...

This whole thread makes my head spin.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk