McKewon skewers recruiting study

[RedDenver]

Sam McKewon remains the best local writer by a landslide. Great analysis of a poorly considered recruiting piece by SB nation:

http://sports.omaha.com/2014/02/20/recruiting-study-finds-nebraskas-efforts-waning-is-it-accurate/

[ADS]

Texas, under Mack Brown, was not. UT’s signed 88 players in the last four classes. Folks, Texas has not been a good program since 2009. The Longhorns have signed two five-star running backs since 2011. Neither Malcolm Brown nor Jonathan Gray is as good as Abdullah or Rex Burkhead, for that matter. Gray and Brown combined to run for 1,684 yards this year on 373 carries. Abdullah ran for 1690 on 281. Uh, bam.

 

[StPaulHusker]

McKewon killed it on this article.

[C N Red]

Great article!!

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I believe, overall, that four and five star recruits perform better at the collegiate level than two and three star recruits. So schools that have landed four and five star athletes should win more games than schools who have not. But, as Sam pointed out, that doesn't hold true for everyone--four and five star ratings mislead. I have no idea what variables recruiting services use when creating ratings for college recruits. I assume they just look at all "athletic variables" crucial to their position as well as high school tape (including their level of competition). But I don't know if they look at any mental/psychological variables such as drive, handling success/adversity, game intelligence, etc... If those aren't incorporated, they really should be.

[Danny Bateman]

The problem is objectively quantifying those intangibles you just listed, BBB12.

 

I agree they play a huge part in determining who becomes a star and who flops, but how, with the resources available to them, do recruiting analysts assess those?

[Hoosker]

I listened to him on Gaskins and Stevens this afternoon talk about it. He's so spot on, as usual.

 

Sam's the man.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The problem is objectively quantifying those intangibles you just listed, BBB12.

 

I agree they play a huge part in determining who becomes a star and who flops, but how, with the resources available to them, do recruiting analysts assess those?

 

There are ways to do it...if you can measure stuff such as organizational commitment, you should be able to measure drive/determination.

[Redmusky]

Recruits should all be guaranteed four years of school. A head coach making 3 plus million per year should live with their mistakes.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Great article!

 

[3-N-OUT]

I always thought that 5* and high 4* recruits were more "college ready"...they had the physique and ability to come in and be an immediate contributor...where the low 4* and 3* were more along the lines of having high potential to come in and get to a "college ready" state within a couple of years of the program? So my logic was such that the schools that are getting the high 4's and 5's every year have better depth, but not necessarily the best 2 deep? I feel like NU is very good at getting these types of players and turning them into something special with a couple years thru the program. Just my two cents...

[Danny Bateman]

I always thought that 5* and high 4* recruits were more "college ready"...they had the physique and ability to come in and be an immediate contributor...where the low 4* and 3* were more along the lines of having high potential to come in and get to a "college ready" state within a couple of years of the program? So my logic was such that the schools that are getting the high 4's and 5's every year have better depth, but not necessarily the best 2 deep? I feel like NU is very good at getting these types of players and turning them into something special with a couple years thru the program. Just my two cents...

That's a great point. +1.

 

There is some positional variability to that rule, though. For example... nearly every lineman we've gotten in recent years, outside of Gregory (obviously a JUCO), Moore, and spots from ARod, has redshirted their first year on campus, regardless of ranking.

 

Even if you're physically ready to go there, you could likely use a year of seasoning, weight training, and just extra reps to get your familiar with our schemes. Unless you're just a physical freak, throwing a high kid out there before they're ready would do more harm than good IMO.

 

I think it may be a bit easier for a skill position player to fill a specific role (breathers for starter at RB, run only a limited route tree at WR) and get playing time that first year. It's easier for them to skate by on athleticism for a while as a role player. Lineman are really forced to be well rounded on our team.

[NU5XChamps]

Some of you missed what I see as the key point in the article. It's not the stars that matter its the number of stars. Bama over signs every recruiting period. Thus, they never miss on a guy. If Bo, signs 25 guys and misses on 25%, that can be devastating. However, if Bama signs 45 and misses on 25% nobody cares because they still has 25 top recruits. That is what is wrong with recruiting these days. SEC allows over signing and other power conferences do not.

[True2tRA]

The problem is objectively quantifying those intangibles you just listed, BBB12.

 

I agree they play a huge part in determining who becomes a star and who flops, but how, with the resources available to them, do recruiting analysts assess those?

 

There are ways to do it...if you can measure stuff such as organizational commitment, you should be able to measure drive/determination.

 

DERP.

[SouthLincoln Husker]

4 & 5 stars have the physical ability to play sooner, but do they have the IQ portion of the game? The film is against High School teams, which may only have a handful of D1 talent. When then get to college, most of the players on the team is D1 talent. Then there is the coaching aspect. Can you take the raw talent and make them better. Bo seems to have changed his recruiting philosophy. He appears to be recruiting more speed and talent that fits his system. Time will only tell if he can coach them up.