On Field Performance vs. Recruiting

saunders45 said:
If Riley can replicate that overachieving ability from Oregon State to here...
Click to expand...
the results would be what we're looking for!
default_bonesflag.gif


 
Blackshirt96 said:
It doesn't help that the Big 10 has 5 of the bottom 10 teams on the list. Purdue, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois & Indiana. Add in Rutgers, Nebraska & Iowa sitting on or near the line.
Click to expand...
True, but we have the #1 team, Wisconsin. And Northwestern and Michigan State are in respectable positions.

Really though, it's perfectly acceptable to be in the middle of the pack on this graph. That just means the success of the team is commensurate with the quality of the recruits coming in the doors.

 
Rollin'Rock said:
NUance said:
There's no way Texas should be in the middle of the pack. They get the pick of the litter every single year in the hotbed of Texas recruiting. Yet they were under .500 this year, with a 6-7 record. I'd say the Whorns should be down there at the bottom with CU for underachieving.

btw, This graph was in some thread yesterday too, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
If it was I didn't see it. Saw it on Twitter this morning and thought it might make those who worry of Riley's mediocre W/L record feel better!!
Click to expand...
Apparently it was in some other thread related to recruiting. (Or maybe even a status. Yeah, I think it was in a status.) Anyway, this is a great topic and deserves a thread of its own. +1

 
DaveH said:
saunders45 said:
If Riley can replicate that overachieving ability from Oregon State to here...
Click to expand...
I hear ya, but one thing I've been throwing around in my head is that it doesn't always work in that fashion.

Yes, no doubt there are more resources here for a guy like Riley to draw upon. It makes sense he should do pretty well, but every situation is different. There are a TON of variables that go into whether someone is ultimately successful in a place or not. Most of which, IMO, we as outsiders don't really have a good grasp of.

food for thought.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The issue I have is, looking at the first 10 universities on that list, Oregon State stands out as having the least to show as far as what it resulted in.

 
NUance said:
Blackshirt96 said:
It doesn't help that the Big 10 has 5 of the bottom 10 teams on the list. Purdue, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois & Indiana. Add in Rutgers, Nebraska & Iowa sitting on or near the line.
Click to expand...
True, but we have the #1 team, Wisconsin. And Northwestern and Michigan State are in respectable positions.

Really though, it's perfectly acceptable to be in the middle of the pack on this graph. That just means the success of the team is commensurate with the quality of the recruits coming in the doors.
Click to expand...
It is still subjective to how you were expected to finish the year. It also does not take into effect when a team is completely distroyed or when a team has a very close loss with a better team. Being in the middle would be ok if you were not taking some meltdown losses along the way.

 
NUance said:
Blackshirt96 said:
It doesn't help that the Big 10 has 5 of the bottom 10 teams on the list. Purdue, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois & Indiana. Add in Rutgers, Nebraska & Iowa sitting on or near the line.
Click to expand...
True, but we have the #1 team, Wisconsin. And Northwestern and Michigan State are in respectable positions.

Really though, it's perfectly acceptable to be in the middle of the pack on this graph. That just means the success of the team is commensurate with the quality of the recruits coming in the doors.
Click to expand...
Acceptable if you recruit top 5 classes every year. Nebraska doesn't do that, so they need a coach that can get the team towards the top of this subjective/hypothetical chart..... It certainly doesn't reflect poorly on Bo and his staff, but it doesn't get us where we want to go neither....

 
Georgia Tech,

I love Riley but I would have taken Johnson too, considering the style of football that fits nebraska would lean more toward the flexbone triple option than the west coast offense...

 
NUance said:
There's no way Texas should be in the middle of the pack. They get the pick of the litter every single year in the hotbed of Texas recruiting. Yet they were under .500 this year, with a 6-7 record. I'd say the Whorns should be down there at the bottom with CU for underachieving.

btw, This graph was in some thread yesterday too, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is the thread "After Signing Day"

Regarding Texas, outside of the last 3 years they were pretty good. If they are counting the MNC year, the graph would include 2 BCS title appearances for Texas plus a several top 10 finishes. The last few years make it hard to remember that they were actually really good during the 2000's...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Texas is a great example. It really is hard to imagine how completely they were viewed as kings of the world, along with USC -- a place where programs like Oregon, Ohio State, and Alabama now are.

Texas would hold one or two camps in the summer in their talent rich state and fill up almost their entire class -- and it would be a fantastic class. I remember being in awe of their recruiting. Now they don't even own their own state. And all that early recruiting had them missing out on prospects who rose late, and is regarded as something that ultimately hurt them.

 
One little hesitation we might have to consider is that the success of a recruiting class shows up two years later. If there is no two year lag in the statistics, the result may be misleading.

 
I see this and think, "why can't we have 10-11 wins next season?"

Not to bash Riley or set him up for failure, I really like the hire and am all on board with him, but that is what my expectations are. Especially given the statement made by SE to replace Bo. With their coaching abilities, 1-2 more wins is achievable with the talent that is already in place. Hope we can see the light bulbs go on watch the program turn the corner.

 
Other than statistical analysis and speculation on message boards, how does one identify the "magic elixir" that leads to a coaches team being to the right of the line rather than the left? AND, is there a similar analysis for the pro teams?

One lesson is that running an offense that is different than most others may be very wise given Georgia Tech's place in the graph.

The figures kinda put an exclamation point on the experience Kansas had gone through.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top