Search the Community

One of the most heavily debated topics is whether or not Recruiting Rankings have a significant correlation to teams having elite level success. I have always felt that the rankings themselves were an indicator, but are a bit flawed for a variety of reasons. I tend to look more at Average Stars for a class and who else offers a prospect. Since I am on vacation, drinking heavily, watching tons of CFB, and reading lots of random statements about how well Bo recruits, etc., I decided to waste some of my wasted time on doing more stats research. I pulled out the recruiting rankings from Scout and Rivals for as far back as I could find, even digging up SuperPrep, now Scout, rankings back to 1986. Both services standardized their team rankings into the current format starting in 2002 so I really focused on the data from that year forward in this analysis. My standard of elite success was making a BCS bowl since the vast majority of the participants are Champs of the top tier conferences or are top finishers in those conferences. As teams each year are a product of the last 5 years worth of recruiting, I focused on the 5 year averages of BCS participants from 2006 to 2011, 60 in total. Note that the year reflects the season, not the actual year the bowls were played. I know that this type of analysis is flawed because it fails to take into account the weighted impact of each of the 5 recruiting classes on each team, however since that would involve hours upon hours of tedious research in participation reports, 2 deeps, etc., I have left that wonderful chore to someone else as I have to focus on CFB and drinking before returning to work next week. That being said, I think this analysis still tells a story worth considering. With the disclaimer over, onto the stats........ BCS Bowls 5 Year Team Recruiting Ranking Average Year Rivals Scout 2011 22 21 2010 34 33 2009 37 35 2008 35 24 2007 28 28 2006 28 24 5 Year Cumulative Average Stars Year Rivals Scout 2011 3.25 3.21 2010 3.03 2.94 2009 3.03 3.01 2008 3.03 3.21 2007 3.12 3.09 2006 3.18 3.12 The data shows that teams need to be in the Top 30 of the recruiting rankings on average and have an average star rating of 3 or higher each year. Looking at the recruiting history of NU under Bo, and he is well within these parameters. He has historically done well enough to be at this "elite" level. I will point out however, that the bar is raised when you just look at the BCS Title Game. The sample size is significantly reduced as well though, but here is how it shakes out. BCS Title Game 5 Year Team Recruiting Ranking Average Year Rivals Scout 2011 4.5 5.7 2010 19.1 18.9 2009 5.7 7.9 2008 7.7 11.2 2007 9.8 9.1 2006 11.6 9.8 5 Year Cumulative Average Stars Year Rivals Scout 2011 3.68 3.59 2010 3.22 3.15 2009 3.58 3.54 2008 3.66 3.61 2007 3.60 3.57 2006 3.50 3.51 It is clear that besides 2010, an average star value of 3.50 or more is the norm. 5 year average recruiting rankings are more varied, but in general you need to be in the Top 20 each year and preferably in the Top 10-15. Looking at how NU has fared under Bo compared to these standards, I think the jury is still out. Last year's class was within these parameters and this year is also looking good from an average star perspective, which I tend to put more weight on personally. Bo's first 3 classes were pretty good when you look at the BCS participants sample, but those classes were just a bit below the standard set by the Title Game participants. Overall I am pretty happy with Bo's recruiting at this point in his tenure. His recruiting has improved steadily each year and assuming the staff is able to close on the current class in good order, he seems to be on the verge of consistently bringing in classes with an average Star Rating around 3.5. Bo has and is recruiting at an "elite" level, and seems to be moving NU up to the National Title level of recruiting. He still has to show he can maintain the current level of recruiting as well as continue to improve, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point based on his track record thus far.