On-Field Success vs. Recruiting

[Mavric]

Haven't read through all the numbers but I'm a little surprised we're that high in recruiting. Anyways, thought it was interesting.

 

]

 

We compared how teams recruited to where they ended up in computer polls at the end of each of the last five seasons. To measure on-field success, we used Kenneth Massey's ranking composite. Massey is a statistician whose work contributed to the BCS computer rankings; his composite index averages dozens of rankings including the six computers used in the BCS, the AP Poll, and the USA Today Coaches Poll.

Rivals rankings were used to measure recruiting. For each season, we used an average of the five previous recruiting classes. Even though upperclassmen generally contribute more than underclassmen, we avoided weighted averages because upperclassmen also transfer schools, declare for the NFL draft early, and have career-ending injuries.

To give an example of how we rated teams, 2009 teams are made up of recruiting classes from 2005-09. In 2009, USC had a 3.2 average, since the five recruiting classes that made up that team were, on average, ranked 3.2.

We then averaged results from 2009-2013 and compared the metrics. Doing this tells you from 2009-2013, USC finished 22nd in Massey's poll on average with teams that had recruiting classes ranked 4.2 on average, meaning they "underperformed" their recruiting rankings by 17.8 spots on average. Perhaps consequently, Lane Kiffin got fired.

The further teams are from the chart's dotted red line, the more discrepancy there is between their recruiting and on-field rankings. Teams in the blue region did better on the field while teams in the red region were better at recruiting.

 

Link

[StPaulHusker]

#9Wins

[Danny Bateman]

HAHAHA ALMOST THE ENTIRE SEC IS ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT HALF ALONG WITH TEJAS, MICHIGAN, AND THUG U.

[NUance]

Awesome idea for a graph. +1. Not sure of the data behind it. If I read the graph correctly our recruiting is about the same as aTM, Clemson and UCLA, but we're doing better on the field. Uh, I don't think so. lol

[ATLHusker]

Awesome idea for a graph. +1. Not sure of the data behind it. If I read the graph correctly our recruiting is about the same as aTM, Clemson and UCLA, but we're doing better on the field. Uh, I don't think so. lol

i know aTm and ucla aren't very far removed from bad seasons, which we haven't had since clownahan left. not sure how far back this is doing averages for, but that could have something to do with it.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

So basically our output is what is expected given our input.

Thats not bad.

[Moiraine]

If I read the graph correctly our recruiting is about the same as aTM, Clemson and UCLA, but we're doing better on the field. Uh, I don't think so. lol

 

Edit: I actually read the whole post now. It's 2009-2013. Don't remember aTM and UCLA's records but I know they only started getting good again in the past 2-3 years.

[NUpolo8]

So.....

 

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

[Moiraine]

So.....

 

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

 

They perform exactly as expected.

[Sparker]

So.....

 

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

I interpret as coaches getting the most out of the players they get, if you are in red you are underachieving, in blue you are overachieving. Basically, our coaches have been getting players to play at their advertised skill level.

[NUpolo8]

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

[NUpolo8]

 

So.....

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

 

I interpret as coaches getting the most out of the players they get, if you are in red you are underachieving, in blue you are overachieving. Basically, our coaches have been getting players to play at their advertised skill level.

This lends creedence to a belief that the majority of Bo's best players were either juco guys with fundamentals and some basic understanding or inherited talents.

[Moiraine]

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

 

Petersen and the NIU coach. and whatever that N team is on the left middle. They are the furthest above the diagonal line. Briles isn't even a full square above the line.

[The Dude]

IT LOOKS AS IF RALPHIE IS ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING UNSPEAKABLE TO BIG JAY..! WOULD SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ?!

[Moiraine]

 

 

So.....

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

I interpret as coaches getting the most out of the players they get, if you are in red you are underachieving, in blue you are overachieving. Basically, our coaches have been getting players to play at their advertised skill level.

This lends creedence to a belief that the majority of Bo's best players were either juco guys with fundamentals and some basic understanding or inherited talents.

 

 

Not necessarily. It could just as easily be said, using this graph, that Bo's players improve at the same rate as they're expected to. Just like Saban's, OU's, South Carolina's, Wyoming's.