Some interesting recruiting numbers....

SkerMin8r

SkerMin8r

Special Teams Player
So I've been thinking about how this move to the Big 10 will effect

our Texas recruiting, as have many others...I think?! Anyway, being a

numbers kinda' guy, I decided to just go take a look a the numbers to

see just how "good" a recruiting source Texas is as it compares to the

other potential recruiting sources good ol' NU might take advantage of

now. Rivals recruiting database gives us the ability to search base on

a number of different criteria. So I selected the three different

"hot-bed" states (California, Florida and Texas) and the Midwest region,

and then I searched for all of the listed recruits with a rival's rating

greater than 5.4 (all 3 stars and above). I've listed the results below

and they are "eye opening"...at least to me. I gotta' say...I'm not so

worried about recruiting anymore.

Yeah, yeah...I know...stars don't mean sh*t...but how else you gonna'

analyze it?

Anyway...thought y'all might be interested in what I found...

Code: 
-----------------------------------------------
|                   Florida                   |
-----------------------------------------------
| Rival  |       |       |  Star  | RR Points |
| Rating | Stars | Count | Totals |  Totals   |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.1 |     5 |     2 |     10 |      12.2 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.0 |     4 |     4 |     16 |      24.0 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.9 |     4 |     9 |     36 |      53.1 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.8 |     4 |    34 |    136 |     197.2 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.7 |     3 |    22 |     66 |     125.4 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.6 |     3 |    31 |     93 |     173.6 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.5 |     3 |    11 |     33 |      60.5 |
-----------------------------------------------
| totals         |   113 |    390 |     646.0 |
-----------------------------------------------
| avg                    |   3.45 |      5.72 |
-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------
|                    Texas                    |
-----------------------------------------------
| Rival  |       |       |  Star  | RR Points |
| Rating | Stars | Count | Totals |  Totals   |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.1 |     5 |     1 |      5 |       6.1 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.0 |     4 |     3 |     12 |      18.0 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.9 |     4 |     6 |     24 |      35.4 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.8 |     4 |    28 |    112 |     162.4 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.7 |     3 |    34 |    102 |     193.8 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.6 |     3 |    31 |     93 |     173.6 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.5 |     3 |    15 |     45 |      82.5 |
-----------------------------------------------
| totals         |   118 |    393 |     671.8 |
-----------------------------------------------
| avg                    |   3.33 |      5.69 |
-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------
|                   Midwest                   |
-----------------------------------------------
| Rival  |       |       |  Star  | RR Points |
| Rating | Stars | Count | Totals |  Totals   |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.1 |     5 |     1 |      5 |       6.1 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.0 |     4 |     2 |      8 |      12.0 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.9 |     4 |     5 |     20 |      29.5 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.8 |     4 |    23 |     92 |     133.4 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.7 |     3 |    34 |    102 |     193.8 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.6 |     3 |    40 |    120 |     224.0 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.5 |     3 |    25 |     75 |     137.5 |
-----------------------------------------------
| totals         |   130 |    422 |     736.3 |
-----------------------------------------------
| avg                    |   3.25 |      5.66 |
-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------
|                 California                  |
-----------------------------------------------
| Rival  |       |       |  Star  | RR Points |
| Rating | Stars | Count | Totals |  Totals   |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.1 |     5 |     2 |     10 |      12.2 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    6.0 |     4 |     1 |      4 |       6.0 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.9 |     4 |     5 |     20 |      29.5 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.8 |     4 |    19 |     76 |     110.2 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.7 |     3 |    24 |     72 |     136.8 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.6 |     3 |    51 |    153 |     285.6 |
-----------------------------------------------
|    5.5 |     3 |    33 |     99 |     181.5 |
-----------------------------------------------
| totals         |   135 |    434 |     761.8 |
-----------------------------------------------
| avg                    |   3.21 |      5.64 |
-----------------------------------------------
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottom-line? There is talent everywhere.

I'm a bit of a numbers guy myself. So this is very much appreciated. +1

UT appears to only recruit from Texas - they have three players from outside of Texas. Same for A&M. TT has a few more non-Texans.

So let's say an average of 20 recruits/year for each team.

Looks like there are plenty of three star recruits in Texas to be had.

And if the Big XII weakens and/or NU plays for an NC - seems like we could make a run the 4's and 5's.

 
The problem is that you are comparing one state in a conference to an entire conference region. The numbers don't look skewed in your comparisons, but add in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the mix and things don't look as comparable.

 
These numbers are nice and everything but it goes way beyond if a state or region has kids to recruit. In the end, it comes down to where our coaches have good relationships. Our coaches have worked very hard at building quality relationships in Texas for sometime now, and to say, starting in 2012 we don't need to recruit Texas anymore is silly. It will take time for Bo and Company to build up Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, etc. Obviously we are getting a couple kids from those areas now but not enough to fill an entire class with the highest quality kids.

You could use this same argument with the more 3 stars get drafted debate....

Good numbers though, thanks for putting it together. +1

 
AndyDufresne said:
The problem is that you are comparing one state in a conference to an entire conference region. The numbers don't look skewed in your comparisons, but add in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the mix and things don't look as comparable.
Click to expand...
My intent was to compare the 3 "hot-bed" states to the traditional Big 10 region. I would assume we will continue to recruit the "hot-bed" states and also begin to recruit the traditional Big 10 region slowly transitioning to more heavily recruit the midwest. I don't for a second believe we will ever stop recruiting in Texas...that would be...well...stupid...

 
SkerChicago said:
In the end, it comes down to where our coaches have good relationships.
Click to expand...
How does Lane Kiffin go into Tennessee his first year and put together a top 10 class almost entirely from a region he had never lived near then? He had zero local relationships. (and don't say because he was paying recruits/handlers because we already know that) Relationships are important I agree, just IMO a little overrated. I would bet that only 2 or 3 of our recruits each year come from a school we've had a prior relationship with (ie: Ft. Scott). Most of the time those "relationships" are built over the course of a single recruiting cycle after a specific recruit is targeted. Now, our relationships certainly probably help identifying the target, but it's not very often we pull kids out of the same HS over and over again...and even when we do, it's often because of the player we recruited (Andrew/Aaron Green) not the relationship with the coach.

 
kchusker_chris said:
SkerChicago said:
In the end, it comes down to where our coaches have good relationships.
Click to expand...
How does Lane Kiffin go into Tennessee his first year and put together a top 10 class almost entirely from a region he had never lived near then? He had zero local relationships. (and don't say because he was paying recruits/handlers because we already know that) Relationships are important I agree, just IMO a little overrated. I would bet that only 2 or 3 of our recruits each year come from a school we've had a prior relationship with (ie: Ft. Scott). Most of the time those "relationships" are built over the course of a single recruiting cycle after a specific recruit is targeted. Now, our relationships certainly probably help identifying the target, but it's not very often we pull kids out of the same HS over and over again...and even when we do, it's often because of the player we recruited (Andrew/Aaron Green) not the relationship with the coach.
Click to expand...
First bold point: Because the school didn't pick up and move. Tennessee is in a much better recruiting spot than Nebraska and Lane Kiffin is one of the best recruiters in all of college football. Kiffin came from USC where he consistently put together great classes and the relationships he established there didn't fade into oblivion. They are also in the SEC, the best conference in football.

Second bold point: That is just flat out wrong. The relationships your describing are what the coaches develop with a player.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SkerChicago said:
But that player initial interaction with a school is usually because a HS coach sends a tape and discuss said player with a college coach.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the 80's or 90's - but todays' kids are making their own highlight films (or hiring someone else to do it) and are sending in their own "tape". There's entire consulting firms built around that business model.

 
kchusker_chris said:
SkerChicago said:
But that player initial interaction with a school is usually because a HS coach sends a tape and discuss said player with a college coach.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the 80's or 90's - but todays' kids are making their own highlight films (or hiring someone else to do it) and are sending in their own "tape". There's entire consulting firms built around that business model.
Click to expand...
OK...I'll give you that. I'll delete that line but still stand by the rest.

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