huskerpower22
Well-known member
Okay, here's your recruiting rankings. I did last two years for each as several don't have more than 2 classes.
It's a bit of an inexact science because it's hard to know which classes were solely that coach's responsibility. When they were hired, for example, there was already a recruiting class in place that they inherited and had to try to maintain or improve in short order, etc. Anyway, I estimated the best I could on those and tried to use that coach's last two full recruiting classes.
Also, you've mentioned you're not a big "take it with a grain of salt" guy, but some of these have to be taken with a grain of salt based on where they're at. Lance Leipold, for example is averaging 65, which isn't good enough for Nebraska, but it might be great for a place like Kansas. Obviously Deion is the same. Aranda at 41 is concerning when Rhule was at 33 at the same school and Rhule took over a s#!t show while Aranda took over a program in really good shape. Things like that have to be considered.
Anywhoooo...what did we learn? Aside from the fact that there's an hour of my life I'll never get back, we learned that these stats would tell us it's Urban, then everyone else, by a mile
View attachment 20078
So the metric we should use instead of win/ loss then is how did Coach A and his recruiting rating do against Coach B who has a worse recruiting rating. By your rating Dave Clawson and Wake Forest defeating Georgia Southern and Clay Helton would be an upset. You cant use Clay Heltons recruiting rating from USC, you have to use what he inherited at Georgia Southern. What was the recruiting class Matt Rhule inherited at Temple and Baylor? Did you expect him to land top 10 classes given what he inherited at those places? What he did with less was amazing. He won games he had no business winning. Then look at Dave Aranda and what he inherited after his stay at Baylor? Way too many variables. You cant generalize wins and losses.
