Our Class Ranking?

So, if I'm reading that right, there is more correlation to recruiting in the same year than in previous years. Thus, would tend to show that success affects recruiting (more correlation in the same year, whose recruits have nothing to do with that year's on-field success) more than recruiting affects success (less correlation in previous years who's recruits are directly responsible for on-field success). Would that be correct (condeding your first two sentenses)?

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
RedDenver said:
Isn't r>0.6 usually considered strong correlation?
Click to expand...
Depends on your discipline. To me, anything > .30 is strong.
Click to expand...
Qualifier words like "strong" are always subjective. But most references I've seen would consider 0.3 weak to moderate positive correlation. I've never seen an 0<r<0.5 considered "strong".

 
dylan said:
Nebraska was not historically a top five recruiting team either, so that throws a pretty good size wrench in that argument.
Click to expand...
How recruiting was done and measured decades ago is no comparison for the modern era. There were no rankings really to speak of. Certainly not by groups with lots of employees looking at film of recruits. That was also the era where not every program had the strength, conditioning and nutrition programs NU had. Now its all commonplace. And also keep in mind for a long, long time there were no scholarship limits. And NU had a commitment to football that most other places did not.

 
KJ. said:
Recruiting3.jpg
Click to expand...
You lost me at this projection. That red line is more or less pulled out of thin air.

 
Mavric said:
So, if I'm reading that right, there is more correlation to recruiting in the same year than in previous years. Thus, would tend to show that success affects recruiting (more correlation in the same year, whose recruits have nothing to do with that year's on-field success) more than recruiting affects success (less correlation in previous years who's recruits are directly responsible for on-field success). Would that be correct (condeding your first two sentenses)?
Click to expand...
Missed this question.

I don't think success affects recruiting more than recruiting affects success, because the correlations for recruiting rank in 2009 and 2010 (with a majority of those players seeing the field) are still pretty strong [depending on your discipline], and the difference between those correlations aren't quite statistically significant. Rather, I think that it's a virtuous cycle: for the most part, if you recruit well, you play well. If you play well, you recruit well.

 
@FauxPelini: .@Staples Do you carry fax machines that receive faxes from 5-star high school football players

I don't think Nebraska accepts 5-star commits. Hahahaha.

 
NFL roster make up means so little for college teams. And do you really want to get into the odds of a given star player getting there? A handful of 5* and thousands of 2* and 3*

And right now, being pretty close to final rankings, we are 35th overall and 6th in the B1G. With a possibility of losing one of the best players to MLB, and another guy who is no lock to ever be cleared for contact.

 
that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.

 
sd said:
that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.
Click to expand...
This class is underrated, big time. Gates, Farmer, Keels, and Newell should all be at least 4star recruits. Harrison, if he stays, should be a 5 star. Several others could be ranked higher as well.

 
I've seen you ask that a couple times but I guess I don't see a lot of people who think this is a really great class. If you go back two months or so when Farmer and Harrison were our only four-stars - and Harrison a question mark - there were many who were wondering why this class was so down, even compared to the previous couple classes. I think people feel better about it because we seem to have found some immediate help at probably our most thin spot (JUCO DE Keels) and picked up a couple higer-profile guys - Gates and Wilbon - and were in on a couple other high profile guys but missed out at the last minute. Plus, we are off to the best start in a long time on next year's class.

Sure there are a few who are really excited but I think most are pleased at what we got considering a year that didn't got as well as hoped and seemingly off the brink of a coaching change. You hope we found some under-rated guys but I don't think anyone could argue with this class being higher than that 25-30 range that we are ranked on the high end.

 
MLB 51 said:
sd said:
that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.
Click to expand...
This class is underrated, big time. Gates, Farmer, Keels, and Newell should all be at least 4star recruits. Harrison, if he stays, should be a 5 star. Several others could be ranked higher as well.
Click to expand...
Similar things get said every year. So either all four recruiting services are biased against us, or we are just getting sold a bill of goods. Yeah, the recruiting guys go on the radio and say that, but they almost never say anything bad about anyone. Their business involves trying to keep everyone, coaches, kids and fans all happy at the same time.

 
Mavric said:
Sure there are a few who are really excited but I think most are pleased at what we got considering a year that didn't got as well as hoped and seemingly off the brink of a coaching change. You hope we found some under-rated guys but I don't think anyone could argue with this class being higher than that 25-30 range that we are ranked on the high end.
Click to expand...
i just felt like there was a lot of excitement in this class and was getting wrapped up in the buzz. maybe it was just excitement in the day in general.

i appreciate your response, i really do not follow recruiting hardly at all.

 
sd said:
that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.
Click to expand...
I think it's hard to see reality. We have no idea how the class is going to pan out, so I don't think we have any choice but to be eternally optimistic.

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