On-Field Success vs. Recruiting

I'm pretty sure that means they have the best recruiting and underachieve a little.

So basically, either you're a great coach, who milks everything out of their players, or you're a good coach, who recruits like a demon and gets by on elite talent. And you can catch lightning in a bottle and combine the two.

We have neither, yay!

 
NUpolo8 said:
I'm pretty sure that means they have the best recruiting and underachieve a little.

So basically, either you're a great coach, who milks everything out of their players, or you're a good coach, who recruits like a demon and gets by on elite talent. And you can catch lightning in a bottle and combine the two.

We have neither, yay!
Click to expand...
By that logic, Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, South Carolina also have neither.

 
NUpolo8 said:
I'm pretty sure that means they have the best recruiting and underachieve a little.

So basically, either you're a great coach, who milks everything out of their players, or you're a good coach, who recruits like a demon and gets by on elite talent. And you can catch lightning in a bottle and combine the two.

We have neither, yay!
Click to expand...
Actually, according to the graph we're good at recruiting and good at coaching, and you're still bad at comprehending the graph because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

RedDenver said:
NUpolo8 said:
I'm pretty sure that means they have the best recruiting and underachieve a little.

So basically, either you're a great coach, who milks everything out of their players, or you're a good coach, who recruits like a demon and gets by on elite talent. And you can catch lightning in a bottle and combine the two.

We have neither, yay!
Click to expand...
By that logic, Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, South Carolina also have neither.
Click to expand...
this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
NUpolo8 said:
If the line divides who performs better on the field, or who's better at recruiting, and it's a break even at the line, it's not a median.......

Either way it's an interesting graph.
Click to expand...
The line does not provide who is better at recruiting or on the field. Think of this possibility: the coaches above/left of the line are the better recruiters because they identify underrated talent. Did those teams/coaches do better because of the coach getting the most out of the players, the players being undervalued as recruits, both, some other explanation? Or did the teams on the right have overvalued recruits, less player development, etc.?

I see that the only SEC teams on the left are Vandy and Mizzou (which only was in the SEC a year), and even those two are barely to the left. The rest of the SEC is on the right. Does the best conference then have overvalued recruits or poor coaching or what?

It is an interesting graph, but I'm not sure what can be gleaned from it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. Snyder at K-State is notorious for finding players that may have been overlooked. I think Petersen at Boise State did the same thing. In fact, looking over the graph again, it seems like most of the more well-known football "brands" are located to the right of the line, and some of the lesser-regarded programs are to the left. If I had to make one judgment from this graph it would be that the bigger "brands" have an easier time signing players with better star-ratings, but that it's not necessarily correlated with program success.

 
Kernal said:
RedDenver said:
NUpolo8 said:
If the line divides who performs better on the field, or who's better at recruiting, and it's a break even at the line, it's not a median.......

Either way it's an interesting graph.
Click to expand...
The line does not provide who is better at recruiting or on the field. Think of this possibility: the coaches above/left of the line are the better recruiters because they identify underrated talent. Did those teams/coaches do better because of the coach getting the most out of the players, the players being undervalued as recruits, both, some other explanation? Or did the teams on the right have overvalued recruits, less player development, etc.?

I see that the only SEC teams on the left are Vandy and Mizzou (which only was in the SEC a year), and even those two are barely to the left. The rest of the SEC is on the right. Does the best conference then have overvalued recruits or poor coaching or what?

It is an interesting graph, but I'm not sure what can be gleaned from it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. Snyder at K-State is notorious for finding players that may have been overlooked. I think Petersen at Boise State did the same thing. In fact, looking over the graph again, it seems like most of the more well-known football "brands" are located to the right of the line, and some of the lesser-regarded programs are to the left. If I had to make one judgment from this graph it would be that the bigger "brands" have an easier time signing players with better star-ratings, but that it's not necessarily correlated with program success.
Click to expand...
I'd say there's decent correlation. The trend follows the line, no teams in the upper left or lower right, there's just large variance.

 
All this graph says is that we recruit, according to the pundits, at about a 20-25 ranking and we mirror that identically with our poll ranking at the end of the season. In theory, if we recruited at a higher pundit ranking we would then finish higher in the polls if all other variables stayed the same.

I wonder how much of this has to do with recruiting rankings influencing votes in the pre-season polls and then holding place throughout the season. The one thing I am sure of is this:

It sure was a lot of work to come up with this graph comparing two different groups opinions of where teams should fall in rankings.

 
Moiraine said:
In the Deed the Glory said:
Moiraine said:
In the Deed the Glory said:
It sure was a lot of work to come up with this graph comparing two different groups opinions of where teams should fall in rankings.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Ok, I said it wrong. It was a waste of time is what it should have read.
Click to expand...
How is it a waste of time? 142,000 people have visited the page. That's $ for them.
Click to expand...
Great, but I wasn't talking about $. I was referring to the results, which really say nothing we didn't already know.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top