Recruit Rankings vs Wins

[cb1954]

Article compares recruiting class rankings from 2004-2008 vs wins on field

Article Link

 

[kchusker_chris]

Article compares recruiting class rankings from 2004-2008 vs wins on field

Article Link

That's about the farthest thing from being scientific or realistic I've read in a while.

Did he consider that the wins/losses in 2004 & 2005 didn't include the classes from 2004 & 2005 that he was comparing against? How about the fact that Ole Miss plays in the SEC? Their classes where in the bottom quarter of the conference from 2002-2005 which is the classes that were winning & losing games 2004-2008. That and the fact that they had to play 8 games a year against competition better than 90% of the teams Cincinatti played isn't really considered.

Funny how the ordained USC comes out perfect though.

 

[pjbighuskerman]

I think the correct way to do this is...

[*]Get the final Rivals rankings for all 119 D1 schools since 2000

[*]Get Sagarin's final rankings (takes into account strength of schedule) since 2002/2003.

[*]Stagger the rankings 2 years (maybe 3) and use a 3 year rolling average.

Then you will be able to see who "coaches up" players and those that under achieve.

GBRFE :woo

 

[NUance]

I think the correct way to do this is...

[*]Get the final Rivals rankings for all 119 D1 schools since 2000

[*]Get Sagarin's final rankings (takes into account strength of schedule) since 2002/2003.

[*]Stagger the rankings 2 years (maybe 3) and use a 3 year rolling average.

Then you will be able to see who "coaches up" players and those that under achieve.

Yup. Strength of schedule. Lag time. Without these the Sporting News analysis is weak. Then again it would have taken the writer more than a couple of hours to put together a decent analysis. Instead of what he actually produced, which is pretty much worthless.

 

[Ohio Pete]

I think the correct way to do this is...

[*]Get the final Rivals rankings for all 119 D1 schools since 2000

[*]Get Sagarin's final rankings (takes into account strength of schedule) since 2002/2003.

[*]Stagger the rankings 2 years (maybe 3) and use a 3 year rolling average.

Then you will be able to see who "coaches up" players and those that under achieve.

Yup. Strength of schedule. Lag time. Without these the Sporting News analysis is weak. Then again it would have taken the writer more than a couple of hours to put together a decent analysis. Instead of what he actually produced, which is pretty much worthless.

Or he could have looked at the spreadsheet I posted here 2 years ago with the same information. Why Rivals and Scout don't just have something like that easily available I have no idea.