Team Talent vs. Wins Per Talent

[knapplc]

I know we've been recruiting better than we've produced on the field, but this graphic shows that in pretty stark detail.

 

 

Conversely, teams like Northwestern & Iowa have been outperforming their recruiting.

 

 

 

That's entirely coaching, and with that, attitude. That's where the Iowa's & Northwestern's of the world have been beating us. 

 

SOURCE

[Moiraine]

@knapplc Wisconsin is another pretty good example. We should be trying to emulate Iowa and Wisconsin. Not in play style but in how they develop players, especially the linemen.

 

Or rather, we should do what Nebraska used to do, except Nebraska can get better recruits and do it better.

[Mavric]

I'm not sure their formula is really the best way to look at it.  It's much easier for the lower teams to move up than the higher teams to hold their spot.  Ohio State's 2017 team lost two games - to a Top 10 team on the road by 3 points and in the playoff to #1 Clemson.  Yet they scored 7th in the B1G.  

 

It's interesting and I do think something like this is pretty good to look at.  But their formula needs re-done.

[lo country]

Great graphics.  It's been glaringly obvious to anyone even remotely following recruiting, that we are not close to performing at the level of our "talent".  Nor have we been able to develop said talent.  I've said before, some of our guys over the years looked the best year one and appeared to regress as the years went on.  

 

I think we will see improvements for several reasons:

The staff appears to be able to develop kids ie Frost at Oregon and UCF

Frost and Co have a system and recruit for it

The fact this staff (hopefully) will remain intact for years will help tremendously.  Some guys have had 3-4 position coaches/coordinators in as many years during the Bo/Riley years.

 

Iowa/NW/Wisky have an identity  They coach to it. Recruit to it.  The staff and players form top to bottom know it and the culture.  Frost has had to completely flip the crap show that has been NU for years....  I expect to see kids improve and Frost and Co get the most out of all of them.  

[Toe]

54 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I'm not sure their formula is really the best way to look at it.  It's much easier for the lower teams to move up than the higher teams to hold their spot.  Ohio State's 2017 team lost two games - to a Top 10 team on the road by 3 points and in the playoff to #1 Clemson.  Yet they scored 7th in the B1G.  

 

It's interesting and I do think something like this is pretty good to look at.  But their formula needs re-done.

 

The formula itself is OK, though an adjustment for strength of schedule would definitely help. But the real problem here is the presentation. It shows a linear rank, rather than a score - it doesn't show ties/near-ties, or exactly how far one team is ahead of another. A scatter plot would be a much better way to present the data - one axis for recruiting level and another for performance level. Then you could see how far above or below a 1:1 'expectation based on talent' line a team is.

[Mavric]

13 minutes ago, Toe said:

The formula itself is fine, the real problem here is the presentation. It shows a linear rank, rather than a score - it doesn't show ties/near-ties, or exactly how far one team is ahead of another. A scatter plot would be a much better way to present the data - one axis for recruiting level and another for performance level.

 

Eh .... that's part of it.  

 

I still don't think Iowa going 8-5 with their talent should be seen as doing better than Ohio State winning the B1G and making the playoff with theirs.

[I am I]

Yeah, we been underperforming with our talent. That goes without saying, even tho I just said it lol. 

 

What  I like to see is that the top 4-5 recruiters also have the top teams, pretty consistently. Now that we have Frost it’ll be nice to see that translate into performance and into actual freakin wins. Also, once we get that walk on system right, it’ll be even better!! 

 

If if we can be in the top 3-4 recruiting B1G and show results, we’ll be on the up and up!! Can’t wait! 

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, Mavric said:

I'm not sure their formula is really the best way to look at it.  It's much easier for the lower teams to move up than the higher teams to hold their spot.  Ohio State's 2017 team lost two games - to a Top 10 team on the road by 3 points and in the playoff to #1 Clemson.  Yet they scored 7th in the B1G.  

 

It's interesting and I do think something like this is pretty good to look at.  But their formula needs re-done.

 

 

I think the recruiting ranking vs final ranking is a pretty good one even though it's simple. And it shows what we know to be true, which is we've had top 25-30 talent for years but we aren't playing like it.

[Mavric]

15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I think the recruiting ranking vs final ranking is a pretty good one even though it's simple. And it shows what we know to be true, which is we've had top 25-30 talent for years but we aren't playing like it.

 

But it's not recruiting ranking vs final ranking.  Otherwise Ohio State would have been #1 in both in 2017.  That's the flaw.

 

I'm fine with simple.  But this is skewed.

[JJ Husker]

It’s interesting and I think it fairly represents the impact of coaching, development and a system. But that graph format is also misleading.  In the extreme cases it exacerbates the whole story. Cases in point tOSU, Iowa, Northwestern. Sure, relative to talent, it shows that NW and Iowa do more with less but it also makes it appear that they are outperforming tOSU and that just isn’t the case.  I think it’s important to keep in mind what that format actually depicts and what it obviously doesn’t.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

But it's not recruiting ranking vs final ranking.  Otherwise Ohio State would have been #1 in both in 2017.  That's the flaw.

 

I'm fine with simple.  But this is skewed.

 

 

Ya, I’m saying the chart that’s been posted a few times here that has that is good. That’s not what this is.

[4skers89]

2017 UCF looks good if you select "All" for "Conference Grouping" but not if you select "group of 5."

 

 

 

[Moiraine]

56 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

2017 UCF looks good if you select "All" for "Conference Grouping" but not if you select "group of 5."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya, this is pretty flawed. Check out the entire American conference. Every team did "poorly" except 2 teams in 2016. I assume the reason for that is because the American conference has the best recruiting in the G5 but they still usually lose to their P5 opponents. Or, even if they go undefeated, the other G5 teams that don't recruit as well can go 11-2 and look like they did better with less talent - except they played weaker teams than those in the American.

[dvdcrr]

Bear Bryant mathematical formula:  Team Talent- Team Wins = Number of Daily Sprints

 

Its true cause its on the internet.

[Danimal]

 Riley's classes were overrated, disproportionate amount of busts, even for a team with a coaching change. 

 

Wiscy and especially Iowa do  go for more "lower hanging fruit" but they have a good eye for it. They do develop obviously but there is also more potential in their classes than the rankings show.