How good is our coaching staff at developing players?

[Count 'Bility]

Here is a link to the article:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522/+benes?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

The article is dated October of this year, and includes data from the 2013 season, so It's pretty recent. Their methods are described in the article, and seem reasonable. The only thing I would change would be to adjust it for schedule strength, so the Navy's and Boise State's wouldn't seem so incredibly dominant, and the Power Conference schools would get a little more credit. Anyway, It's as good as any way to measure success.

This is a cool chart but should be taken with a grain of salt.

I find it funny that KU and CU appear to be great at recruiting, but it's a bit misleading. The chart only shows recruiting relative to winning, and vice versa. They only appear to be so much better at recruiting because they've sucked such epic donkey balls on the field. In reality they suck at recruiting too.

Likewise, teams like Boise and NIU appear to be great on the field (and have been, in recent history) but that ranking is inflated because they're so poor (relative to major college football powers) at recruiting.

Just an FYI type of thing.

Winning and recruiting are relative to each other in no way. It is what it is. Nebraska's averaged about 22 recruiting rank and 21 performance rank. It's charted there. Colorado and Kansas? Recruiting around 45-50, but performance around 90. Unless I'm missing something, I fail to see how this chart is misleading in any way. It charts recruiting rankings and performance rankings as they are. One does not inflate or deflate the other.

 

[Hayseed]

I'm guessing that the backups don't get as much help as they need if they have to constantly work on fixing the starters........then when the backups are called into action because of injury or whatever, you notice the difference right away at the positions that require more thinking than energy.