McKewon on Husker Recruiting

[BigRedBuster]

The bottom of that chart shows why B1G has sucked so bad recently. My goodness Purdue, Michgan, Indiana, and Illinois.

Seeing Michigan included with those three schools is baffling.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Those GODDAMN BADGERS!!!

 

Here is one way to look at the Badgers going forward.

Obviously they have had good coaching to make that happen. That all can change with replacing HCs. I know...I know...they have kept some of the staff and the current HC used to coach there. That is either a recipe for continued success or doesn't mean squat.

 

It will be interesting to watch.

[Sargon]

The top teams in this chart, they didn't decide to fire the HC. The bottom teams all fired one or more HC.

[Hoosker]

Oregon State in the Top 5 of that chart has to be a good sign, doesn't it?

[Sargon]

The bottom of that chart shows why B1G has sucked so bad recently. My goodness Purdue, Michgan, Indiana, and Illinois.

 

IMO the Big was pretty tolerant of underperformance for decades. There was quite a bit of such tolerance nationally, IMO (look at historical performance of schools with no excuse such as Texas and UCLA). That is changing now as the AD's and presidents are increasingly going after the huge money with multi-decade strategies.

[NUinID]

This doesn't look any thing like the graph and article jmfb posted a link to yesterday. Anyway this is why I don't get into these types of analysis. One type shows one thing and other shows something else.

[Landlord]

 

This doesn't look any thing like the graph and article jmfb posted a link to yesterday. Anyway this is why I don't get into these types of analysis. One type shows one thing and other shows something else.

 

 

 

 

 

Statistics aren't like physics. We create statistical equations out of nothing and hope that they have some sort of bearing on actual reality, but there's really nothing inherent to test them against. Some statistics are great at accurately reflecting greatness or lack thereof, some aren't, but usually there's at least a few methods of getting to the same destination.

[NUinID]

 

 

This doesn't look any thing like the graph and article jmfb posted a link to yesterday. Anyway this is why I don't get into these types of analysis. One type shows one thing and other shows something else.

 

 

 

 

 

Statistics aren't like physics. We create statistical equations out of nothing and hope that they have some sort of bearing on actual reality, but there's really nothing inherent to test them against. Some statistics are great at accurately reflecting greatness or lack thereof, some aren't, but usually there's at least a few methods of getting to the same destination.

 

+1

[jmfb]

The study I cited was the only one I found and was from a great source, I linked to the study and they laid out their methodology in great detail 2009-2013 Rivals rating vs Massey combined rankings

Oregon State had just a +5 which put them in the grouping with NU- as performing to recruiting

[JJkinz]

This chart uses a 10 year average. That means Nebraska would be considerably lower on this chart than, say, a five year average since we are including the Callahan years where recruiting was phenomenal yet the results were horrid. I would venture a guess that if a five year average were used instead, it would paint an entirely different picture for many teams, especially Nebraska and Oregon St.

[cornographic]

Ralphie last, haha.

[Sargon]

Diff: Year End Rank - Recruiting Rank, 5 year ('9-'13) and 10 year ('5-'14)

 

Positive numbers indicate the final season ranking was higher than the average recruiting rank.

 

 

..........5yr...10yr

 

Nebr -0.2 3

 

OrSt 5.6 18

 

Wisc 31.1 32

 

Iowa 6.3 5

 

MichSt 6.6 11

 

Mich -27.4 -17

 

Tex -19.4 -4

 

Okla -1 7

 

[Moiraine]

We create statistical equations out of nothing and hope that they have some sort of bearing on actual reality

I just vomited in my mouth a little.