Star Power - the relation of stars to winning

[knapplc]

I'm well-established on the record of not caring much about recruiting stars. But I ran across this article and in the spirit of being "fair and balanced" about things, I thought this was interesting information. I'm not espousing it, just presenting it as the other side of the argument.

 

 

Star Power: Be they ever so humble, recruiting rankings still do the job

 

The holy hour of the vast, seedy recruiting underworld, national signing day, is a little over a week away, which is also the signal for legions of recruiting skeptics to sound their annual, anecdotal chants of "Ryan Perrilloux!" and "Notre Dame!" and snake oil!" A lot of coaches who live and die on the recruiting trail will tell you the recruiting rankings are a lot of bunk. Occasionally, they make a persuasive case.

 

Which is why, once a year, I make it a point to get back to the basic premise: Beyond the vagaries, the hype and the busts, the recruiting rankings still represent the most reliable system at our disposal for making initial assumptions about teams and players alike. The most important assumption being, as always, that recruiting is still the No. 1 predictor of success.

 

 

He goes on to break down recruiting classes retroactively to correlate good recruiting classes with wins.

[zoogs]

It is really hard to win. I believe that if you want to win, you need stars. very few exceptions exist - I won't say it's impossible, just extremely rare and unlikely.

 

However, tons of teams have stars, and lots of them.

 

From there, what separates the champions from the rest - isn't what they get out of their stars so much as what they get out of the rest of their roster.

[HuskerFowler]

Well said zoogs

[RedDenver]

It's interesting that he ignores Boise St. which is the best counter example to his conclusions.

 

I'd also like to point out that the best recruiting teams win an average of 68.4% of their games. NU under Pelini has won 70.4% of their games.

[kchusker_chris]

It's interesting that he ignores Boise St. which is the best counter example to his conclusions.

 

I'd also like to point out that the best recruiting teams win an average of 68.4% of their games. NU under Pelini has won 70.4% of their games.

Where'd this come from?

 

EDIT: Thought I'd look instead of asking...here's my A-Team

 

Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, USC

 

2011: 104-40 (72.2%) - take out Florida/Ohio State and it's 77%.

[kchusker_chris]

2010 season ended at 67.3%. That might have been where you were getting number.

 

One thing I noticed when I was going through these that is important to note...Look at the rebound some of these teams made between 2010 and 2011. Texas from 5-7 to 8-5. Georgia from 6-7 to 10-4. USC from 8-5 to 10-2. Michigan from 7-6 to 11-2.

 

That's one of the most obvious things these recruiting rankings will get you. People bash on Texas...but they won't be down long. Nebraska is consistent, but it might take Pelini 5-6 years to reach 11 wins. Michigan with a single year under a new coach accomplishes the same thing. Georgia is able to completely turn their season around in one the toughtest conference. USC has a down year and rebounds to 10-2.

 

Any team can go through coaching changes and get hit hard. Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State. But these teams at the top of the recruiting are able to rebound from that infinately faster than a team like Nebraska. Wait until next year...Ohio State from 6-7 to 10-4 or 11-3 isn't a stretch. That's as much because of the tallent at Urban's feet, as it is his coaching ability.

[HuskerFowler]

2010 season ended at 67.3%. That might have been where you were getting number.

 

One thing I noticed when I was going through these that is important to note...Look at the rebound some of these teams made between 2010 and 2011. Texas from 5-7 to 8-5. Georgia from 6-7 to 10-4. USC from 8-5 to 10-2. Michigan from 7-6 to 11-2.

 

That's one of the most obvious things these recruiting rankings will get you. People bash on Texas...but they won't be down long. Nebraska is consistent, but it might take Pelini 5-6 years to reach 11 wins. Michigan with a single year under a new coach accomplishes the same thing. Georgia is able to completely turn their season around in one the toughtest conference. USC has a down year and rebounds to 10-2.

 

Any team can go through coaching changes and get hit hard. Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State. But these teams at the top of the recruiting are able to rebound from that infinately faster than a team like Nebraska. Wait until next year...Ohio State from 6-7 to 10-4 or 11-3 isn't a stretch. That's as much because of the tallent at Urban's feet, as it is his coaching ability.

 

Cant argue with that. I dont think we will ever be able to recruit consistently like Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, mostly because of our location. We win the Big 10 a few times and recruiting will become alot easier....Top 10-15 classes will become the norm, with a few years from 5-10 sprinkled in.

[Count 'Bility]

It is really hard to win. I believe that if you want to win, you need stars. very few exceptions exist - I won't say it's impossible, just extremely rare and unlikely.

 

However, tons of teams have stars, and lots of them.

 

From there, what separates the champions from the rest - isn't what they get out of their stars so much as what they get out of the rest of their roster.

 

So basically a team full of 3 stars is better than a team of 2 stars and a couple 4 or 5 stars.

[Treand3]

2010 season ended at 67.3%. That might have been where you were getting number.

 

One thing I noticed when I was going through these that is important to note...Look at the rebound some of these teams made between 2010 and 2011. Texas from 5-7 to 8-5. Georgia from 6-7 to 10-4. USC from 8-5 to 10-2. Michigan from 7-6 to 11-2.

 

That's one of the most obvious things these recruiting rankings will get you. People bash on Texas...but they won't be down long. Nebraska is consistent, but it might take Pelini 5-6 years to reach 11 wins. Michigan with a single year under a new coach accomplishes the same thing. Georgia is able to completely turn their season around in one the toughtest conference. USC has a down year and rebounds to 10-2.

 

Any team can go through coaching changes and get hit hard. Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State. But these teams at the top of the recruiting are able to rebound from that infinately faster than a team like Nebraska. Wait until next year...Ohio State from 6-7 to 10-4 or 11-3 isn't a stretch. That's as much because of the tallent at Urban's feet, as it is his coaching ability.

 

Good points.

 

That's why staff continuity at NU is vital. All of those teams that you mentioned have adequate to abundant local talent. These programs can survive coaching turnover and still field decent teams. For example, no one should be surprised that Mich had a good season in the 1st year of Hoke's tenure. Rich Rod left talent in Ann Arbor.

[RedDenver]

It's interesting that he ignores Boise St. which is the best counter example to his conclusions.

 

I'd also like to point out that the best recruiting teams win an average of 68.4% of their games. NU under Pelini has won 70.4% of their games.

Where'd this come from?

 

EDIT: Thought I'd look instead of asking...here's my A-Team

 

Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, USC

 

2011: 104-40 (72.2%) - take out Florida/Ohio State and it's 77%.

My numbers come from the linked article at the beginning of this thread. Your A-Team is almost the same as the one in the article.