Why Talent/Recruiting Rankings Matter

Donate To GopherHole
Explain this to ISU and TCU. They seem to have forgotten the more talented team was supposed to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy;1460218[B said:
]No I don't[/B], but talent is still the number one factor.

Although they should have beaten Purdue, and had opportunities to beat Maryland and Iowa, I think Fleck and staff have done a good job of staying competitive with a depleted secondary, thin/young OL, and almost no talent at QB and WR.
Click to expand...

Then what are we arguing about? I think everyone here including me thinks raw talent is probably the #1 factor. Glad we cleared it all up.
 

Us and Indiana were the only less talented teams to not get it done this weekend.
 

If you watched that game and don't think recruiting rankings matter you're a moron.
 

Hollinsanity said:
If you watched that game and don't think recruiting rankings matter you're a moron.
Click to expand...

And yes everyone concedes that talent matters, but some days you aren't going to have the best talent, you still have to pick up a few of those games as 5 of the lesser talented 7 teams did today.
 



WoodburyTim said:
And yes everyone concedes that talent matters, but some days you aren't going to have the best talent, you still have to pick up a few of those games as 5 of the lesser talented 7 teams did today.
Click to expand...

Outliers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WoodburyTim said:
Us and Indiana were the only less talented teams to not get it done this weekend.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was one of those upside down weeks that happen every year. More talented teams are still 30-12 - winning 71% of the time this season.
 

More talented teams were 6-1 yesterday with the lone victory being our favorite team.

This season's record in the B1G is now 36-13 in favor of more talented teams.
 



Since recruiting rankings keep coming up, I've now finished this out though the end of this season.

Gophers:
2015
vs more talented teams: 2-7
vs less talented teams: 4-0

2016
vs more talented teams: 3-4
vs less talented teams: 6-0

2017
vs more talented teams: 2-6
vs less talented teams: 3-1

Total record vs more talented: 7-17
Total record vs less talented: 13-1

Overall, the Gophers have a winning percentage of 29% vs teams with more talent, and 93% against teams with less talent.

Then I looked at only the B1G head to head including the B1G championship game. I didn't do non-conference and bowl games due to time, but I don't believe it would change the outcome much.

2015
Record was 39-18 in favor of more talented teams

2016
Record was 47-17 in favor of more talented teams

2017
Record is 45-19 in favor of more talented teams

Overall the record is 131-54 in favor of more talented teams, for a winning percentage of 71%.

So on average the team with more talent won't win every time, but they'll win nearly 3/4 of the time.

PE brought up rankings for the conference championship games last week. More talented teams were 9-0.
 

Did you see that dog chasing its tail?
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Since there are still several people on this site that don't believe in recruiting rankings, or that talent matters, I'll try to make it even more simple to understand.

247 has a yearly team talent composite dating back to 2015. https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite?Conference=Big-Ten

This gives a great idea of talent actually on the roster, rather than just looking at the last 4 years of recruiting class rankings. This only includes the rating of the players on the team for that year. It does not include players that left the program, were kicked off, etc, that may have bumped up the rankings for previous recruiting classes.

For the Gophers I factored in all games including non-conference and bowl games:

2015
vs more talented teams: 2-7
vs less talented teams: 4-0

2016
vs more talented teams: 3-4
vs less talented teams: 6-0

2017
vs more talented teams: 2-4
vs less talented teams: 3-1

Total record vs more talented: 7-15
Total record vs less talented: 13-1

Overall, the Gophers have a winning percentage of 32% vs teams with more talent, and 93% against teams with less talent.

Then I looked at only the B1G head to head including the B1G championship game. I didn't do non-conference and bowl games due to time, but I don't believe it would change the outcome much.

2015
Record was 39-18 in favor of more talented teams

2016
Record was 47-17 in favor of more talented teams

2017
Record is 36-13 in favor of more talented teams

Overall the record is 122-48 in favor of more talented teams, for a winning percentage of 72%.

So on average the team with more talent won't win every time, but they'll win 3/4 of the time. This is why recruiting/talent matters.
Click to expand...


I totally get the point you are making.

My question back to you.

Are we on the right path to improvement in recruiting? Essentially, using the subjective metric you've chosen, we're relatively back to the 2016 recruiting level. I get having more talent makes you better. I don't see that we're improving significantly in Fleck's first year of recruiting, while the data above shows and Fleck talks about how out recruiting the MAC was how he got it done at Western Michigan, when do we expect to see him out-recruit the Big Ten? Or even the Big Ten west? Or even move into the top tier of the Big Ten?

Average player ranking we're 10th in the Big Ten and 5 in the Big Ten West. Exactly where we were in 2016. And people who believe that Fleck is the one and only answer to Gopher Footballs ills are celebrating like we just moved up into the upper echelon of talent in the Big Ten.

The scores that have been assigned to our players are higher than they've been.......but so are almost everyone elses. And this years scores have no valid comparison to last years scores or the year before that. Or the year before that. This is not an objective metric, it is wildly subjective when considering the available data on the total pool. The only validity is that the analysis you've provided shows more talent wins AND that the definition of talent is relative to the total pool of players. Most importantly for us, that means the Big Ten. within that, the Big Ten west. We're bringing in players that average 5th best in talent in our division, and 10th best in the conference (at least today). At Western Michigan, he went from 7th in the conference overall (5th in average player ranking) to 1st overall and 1st in average player ranking. A jump of 6 and 4 places in the conference. At Minnesota, a similar final result would get us to 8th in total ranking and 8th in average player ranking. We're currently 6th and 10th. It's not looking like he'll deliver a similar increase given the oveall ranking has been driven by the volume of recruits relative to the competition vs. the average level (currently 10th).

Which gets back to the data driven question. Where is the reason for the hype that Fleck will significantly improve things and make a drive to be win the conference in this data?
 

Nothing quite beats comparing averages with teams with 8 players committed. I love it.
 




Johnnyboy18 said:
Nothing quite beats comparing averages with teams with 8 players committed. I love it.
Click to expand...

But you do that when you cite their overall nation and B1G ranking as proof of recruiting gains. They're ranked ahead of a number of teams because of volume alone.
 

Johnnyboy18 said:
Nothing quite beats comparing averages with teams with 8 players committed. I love it.
Click to expand...

Would be kinda like judging the Gophers 2017 class 2-months before NSD, huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Johnnyboy18 said:
Nothing quite beats comparing averages with teams with 8 players committed. I love it.
Click to expand...

Incomplete data is all we have to work with at this point, and yeah. Nebraska only has 8 commits right now, but historically, they've been signficantly ahead of the Gophers in ranking. So if you want to further subjectively alter the data to support your claim, fine. We'll throw out Nebraska (it's not like it was Purdue or Illinois). So now we're fourth in the Big Ten West vs. 5th. Still a long way from having the best talent even in one class. It's probably elite. I must be the one that doesn't understand what that term means.

And, as the data is incomplete and will be unti February, added a couple today that help the Gophers class, but not the rankings in any substantial way. Still 6th overall, but now 9th in terms of average ranking (or 8th if you please). Almost to the top half of the conference......, but we have moved into the top 3 (since we're pretening Nebraska doesn't exist and all) in the west. So that's a positive. I just hope Scott Frost knows his recruits aren't real when we play them.
 


caliGopher said:
Incomplete data is all we have to work with at this point, and yeah. Nebraska only has 8 commits right now, but historically, they've been signficantly ahead of the Gophers in ranking. So if you want to further subjectively alter the data to support your claim, fine. We'll throw out Nebraska (it's not like it was Purdue or Illinois). So now we're fourth in the Big Ten West vs. 5th. Still a long way from having the best talent even in one class. It's probably elite. I must be the one that doesn't understand what that term means.

And, as the data is incomplete and will be unti February, added a couple today that help the Gophers class, but not the rankings in any substantial way. Still 6th overall, but now 9th in terms of average ranking (or 8th if you please). Almost to the top half of the conference......, but we have moved into the top 3 (since we're pretening Nebraska doesn't exist and all) in the west. So that's a positive. I just hope Scott Frost knows his recruits aren't real when we play them.
Click to expand...

No one said Nebraska's players don't count, just comparing them to a team with 20 more players is stupid. If you want to compare the Gophers top commits to other teams top commits that is fair but comparing their averages is more misleading than the team ranking. For example, Minnesota's top 14 players are rated higher than Iowa's 14 players total committed but Iowa has a higher average due to Minnesota having 11 more players. How can anyone say Iowa's class is better than Minnesota's based off that? Unless you have an agenda, of couse.
 




caliGopher said:
I totally get the point you are making.

My question back to you.

Are we on the right path to improvement in recruiting? Essentially, using the subjective metric you've chosen, we're relatively back to the 2016 recruiting level. I get having more talent makes you better. I don't see that we're improving significantly in Fleck's first year of recruiting, while the data above shows and Fleck talks about how out recruiting the MAC was how he got it done at Western Michigan, when do we expect to see him out-recruit the Big Ten? Or even the Big Ten west? Or even move into the top tier of the Big Ten?

Average player ranking we're 10th in the Big Ten and 5 in the Big Ten West. Exactly where we were in 2016. And people who believe that Fleck is the one and only answer to Gopher Footballs ills are celebrating like we just moved up into the upper echelon of talent in the Big Ten.

The scores that have been assigned to our players are higher than they've been.......but so are almost everyone elses. And this years scores have no valid comparison to last years scores or the year before that. Or the year before that. This is not an objective metric, it is wildly subjective when considering the available data on the total pool. The only validity is that the analysis you've provided shows more talent wins AND that the definition of talent is relative to the total pool of players. Most importantly for us, that means the Big Ten. within that, the Big Ten west. We're bringing in players that average 5th best in talent in our division, and 10th best in the conference (at least today). At Western Michigan, he went from 7th in the conference overall (5th in average player ranking) to 1st overall and 1st in average player ranking. A jump of 6 and 4 places in the conference. At Minnesota, a similar final result would get us to 8th in total ranking and 8th in average player ranking. We're currently 6th and 10th. It's not looking like he'll deliver a similar increase given the oveall ranking has been driven by the volume of recruits relative to the competition vs. the average level (currently 10th).

Which gets back to the data driven question. Where is the reason for the hype that Fleck will significantly improve things and make a drive to be win the conference in this data?
Click to expand...

Any way you want to slice it this class is a big jump up from previous classes. It's very likely that everyone currently committed to the Gophers will sign on December 20th. This class is unlikely to drop below 35th nationally and 1st in the West. The only real threat is Nebraska, but it's late in the game and they have a long ways to go.

If you want to compare it to 2016, that class was helped by highly ranked in-state players. 8 of the top 10 highest ranked players were from MN or just recently left MN (Green). This year 9 of the top 10 are not from MN. They are from talent rich areas, GA - 3, FL - 2, OH - 2, CA - 1, IL - 1.

That's the biggest difference to me, Fleck has gone into these areas and won recruiting battles against programs that have been better than the Gophers. This class is a nice start, but he'll have to do this several years in a row before it makes a big difference on the field.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
This class is a nice start, but he'll have to do this several years in a row before it makes a big difference on the field.
Click to expand...

I think the more important point is that he won't be able to do it several years in a row unless he keeps his promises to the first couple classes.

What do I mean?

I mean that, to my thinking, the only real way you can get kids to come up here from southern hotbeds is basically to promise them the world. "You're going to help us win a national championship. You're going to play four years and start at least three years. You're going to be a draft pick." Etc.

Those are lofty promises, just to get kids in the door. And if you start being unable to fulfill those promises ... the house of cards comes tumbling down.


Not at all admonishing him for doing it. You gotta do what you gotta do to at least give it a chance. If you can start winning, playing these higher level recruits early ... you can start ratcheting down the promises to the next classes, into something more reasonable, while still getting them to come to Minneapolis.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I think the more important point is that he won't be able to do it several years in a row unless he keeps his promises to the first couple classes.

What do I mean?

I mean that, to my thinking, the only real way you can get kids to come up here from southern hotbeds is basically to promise them the world. "You're going to help us win a national championship. You're going to play four years and start at least three years. You're going to be a draft pick." Etc.

Those are lofty promises, just to get kids in the door. And if you start being unable to fulfill those promises ... the house of cards comes tumbling down.


Not at all admonishing him for doing it. You gotta do what you gotta do to at least give it a chance. If you can start winning, playing these higher level recruits early ... you can start ratcheting down the promises to the next classes, into something more reasonable, while still getting them to come to Minneapolis.
Click to expand...

Those are massive assumptions that I don't think are even remotely true. Even Viramontes said Fleck told him he can come in and compete for the starting QB job, while everyone else looks at him as the likely starter. Fleck isn't handing anything to anyone until they work for it.
 

Sure, sounds great for the papers.

You're telling me that a high school kid, who knows and has been told by his family and entourage that he's a blue-chipper, and can have a scholarship to Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn ........ is going to choose to come to Minnesota on a whim??


No. Doesn't work like that. It wasn't because of fancy catered food, steaks, and cookies on pillowcases, either.

Not at all implying that under the table stuff was going on. I don't believe that for a second. But I do absolutely believe that Fleck will say and tell them whatever needs to be said to get them in the door. And again, I'm not admonishing him for doing that. He has a very limited amount of time, a very short window in the grand scheme of things, to try to start making this work. He needs these kids, if he's going to have a chance.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Sure, sounds great for the papers.

You're telling me that a high school kid, who knows and has been told by his family and entourage that he's a blue-chipper, and can have a scholarship to Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn ........ is going to choose to come to Minnesota on a whim??


No. Doesn't work like that. It wasn't because of fancy catered food, steaks, and cookies on pillowcases, either.
Click to expand...

Or maybe because he likes the coaching staff, the school, the top notch facilities, his future teammates, you know the main reasons why all recruits choose to go to a certain school.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Sure, sounds great for the papers.

You're telling me that a high school kid, who knows and has been told by his family and entourage that he's a blue-chipper, and can have a scholarship to Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn ........ is going to choose to come to Minnesota on a whim??


No. Doesn't work like that. It wasn't because of fancy catered food, steaks, and cookies on pillowcases, either.

Not at all implying that under the table stuff was going on. I don't believe that for a second. But I do absolutely believe that Fleck will say and tell them whatever needs to be said to get them in the door. And again, I'm not admonishing him for doing that. He has a very limited amount of time, a very short window in the grand scheme of things, to try to start making this work. He needs these kids, if he's going to have a chance.
Click to expand...

You type a lot of words on this site.

You should rethink that strategy.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Or maybe because he likes the coaching staff, the school, the top notch facilities, his future teammates, you know the main reasons why all recruits choose to go to a certain school.
Click to expand...

Good point -- Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn .... none of those have great coaching staffs, top notch facilities, or good teammates.

School, yeah the U is better (except for Florida, those are on fairly equal playing fields), but for most recruits that's not the reason. Unless they're hoping to participate in cutting-edge biomedical research as undergrads, then I doubt that was a major factor.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom