Why recruiting matters, and the importance of signing day

[Husker Psycho]

Nick Saban and Urban Meyer get the best recruits because they are the best coaches that field the best teams. My guess is that if you had Saban and Meyer trade recruiting classes with any of the other Power 5 teams, it wouldn't change much for them or the other teams. However, since people see all of those star bellied sneetch recruits going into Alabama and Ohio State and then see subsequent success, they tend to credit the recruiting and not the coaching.

Recruits who have the luxury of picking whatever team they want are going to go where there has already been past success and a good chance of future success.

That is about all the credence and weight I give to recruiting.

No one ever said coaching is not important. Both are equally important.

Each year around 10 teams achieve the elite player metric. But only one of those teams wins. Among those 10 teams with elite talent Alabama and Ohio State probably have the best coaches and among he elite player teams they are doing all the winning.

They have become the elite within the elite.

 

[Red Five]

Yes, it's fairy tale thinking to do anything but extrapolate. We have X number of data points, so the trend will continue in that direction FOREVER. As of 1993 no team had ever won a national championship with a power run game featuring a triple option and fullback trap. It would have been foolish to try such a thing! Fairy tale thinking foolish!

================================

Aside from the mocking above, I agree with the premise that it's important to get good recruits. I mean, what's not to agree with? That's like saying, in order to become wealthy you need to get lots of money. Well, duh.

There was no bigger fan of the triple option than me.

Who ran the triple option?

 

[cm husker]

Who is the genius that decided to declare to the world that recruiting matters?

Yeah, I declare to you all that grades matter when applying for college!

That would be ESPN in response to those claiming recruiting results don't matter... and there's a whole lot of people making that claim.

Namely?

 

[Husker Psycho]

Currently this year Ohio State has recruited 16 (4 and 5 star) elite players in this years class. In 2013 they landed 18 elite (4 and 5 star) players.

In the past few years Alabama has recruited as many as 22 elite players (4 and 5 star)... in one class.

 

[RedDenver]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.

More fairy tale thinking.

Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.

You can't "prove" something by looking at a limited set of results. And calling everyone else's posts "fairy tale thinking" is pretty funny since you're the one who has the fairy tale that only top ten recruiting class teams (or whatever the metric is) can win the title.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Yes, it's fairy tale thinking to do anything but extrapolate. We have X number of data points, so the trend will continue in that direction FOREVER. As of 1993 no team had ever won a national championship with a power run game featuring a triple option and fullback trap. It would have been foolish to try such a thing! Fairy tale thinking foolish!

================================

Aside from the mocking above, I agree with the premise that it's important to get good recruits. I mean, what's not to agree with? That's like saying, in order to become wealthy you need to get lots of money. Well, duh.

There was no bigger fan of the triple option than me.

Who ran the triple option?

Start another thread and I'll educate you on the option offenses as run by Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Maybe the greatest rivalry in college football history. That was really great football to watch.

Too bad you don't know anything about it.

 

[Husker Psycho]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.

More fairy tale thinking.

Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.

You can't "prove" something by looking at a limited set of results. And calling everyone else's posts "fairy tale thinking" is pretty funny since you're the one who has the fairy tale that only top ten recruiting class teams (or whatever the metric is) can win the title.

11 years in a row that has occurred. That's not a limited set of results.

 

[RedDenver]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.

More fairy tale thinking.

Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.

You can't "prove" something by looking at a limited set of results. And calling everyone else's posts "fairy tale thinking" is pretty funny since you're the one who has the fairy tale that only top ten recruiting class teams (or whatever the metric is) can win the title.

11 years in a row that has occurred. That's not a limited set of results.

What I mean, is that in order to "prove" something, it has to be true in all POSSIBLE outcomes, not just those that have occurred thus far, which makes it impossible to prove anything based on past results. You're trying to say that something is proven, but it cannot be proven; therefore, your conclusion is wrong.

You either don't understand basic logic, or you're willfully ignoring logic. Either way, it's a waste of my time to continue.

 

[Red Five]

[No message]

 

[cm husker]

The media has a vested interesting in touting the rankings. That's why they try to conflate the importance of recruiting with the importance of a national signing day.

For all the jabber about national title stats, what's the stats conference championships?

Also, what is our AD and others who are similarly situated doing to break down the recruiting barriers that have aided southern teams in keeping talent close to home?

 

[HuskerExpat]

My two cents:

I believe there is a bit of circular logic that goes into recruiting rankings. While I have not collected and analyzed the data to prove it, I believe that if a kid is offered by a highly successful team (say Alabama or Ohio State) then there is a good chance his ranking will be adjusted higher. There is a certain logic to this, in that it is probably fair to say that Urban Meyer's or Nick Saban's staff are better evaluators of talent than a recruiting analyst at 247 or Rivals. But, this also means that Ohio State or Alabama have a higher ranked class because they're Ohio State or Alabama.

Similarly, some schools haven't had the respect of Ohio State and Alabama but have recently had a lot of success. Michigan State has performed at a very high level the last several years with classes that have generally fallen outside of the top 25. Maybe the explanation is not that they have outperformed their recruiting classes, but that their recruits didn't get that Urban Meyer or Nick Saban bump when Mark Dantonio offered them a scholarship. This year Michigan State will end up with a class that is ranked around 12th in the country. Did they really sign a class that is far superior to their 2011 and 2012 classes that led their team to a playoff appearance this year? Or maybe players like Connor Cook and Shilique Calhoun were better than low three star players (or Jack Conklin an unranked player), but didn't get an bump in their ratings when Dantonio came calling but would have if Saban or Meyer had?

 

[cornographic]

The people who say recruiting doesn't matter, well, they're the same ones who say size doesn't matter.

They're also the ones that say speed doesn't matter and that we can win the NC with walk ons.

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[cm husker]

This is seriously an example of why football fans, and especially media members, generally aren't scientists.

I get their point, but it's hardly a new one. Recruiting has ALWAYS mattered, and generally, going back probably to the 70s, every NC team has been among the top 10 in recruiting more often than not.

But, that doesn't mean it's impossible for a team that doesn't land in a Rivals Top 10 list to win a championship. It's already been explained by DenverRed, but here's a picture to summarize:

The issue here is that they are taking the past record over 20 years, during which time, 3 teams varied from their assertion, by the way ('94 and '95 NU and '00 Oklahoma), and acting as those it's a necessary component to winning an NC. It's not, necessarily, and it's obviously not a sufficient component either (see ND with it's 4 straight top 10 classes or whatever).

 

[cornographic]

This is seriously an example of why football fans, and especially media members, generally aren't scientists.

I get their point, but it's hardly a new one. Recruiting has ALWAYS mattered, and generally, going back probably to the 70s, every NC team has been among the top 10 in recruiting more often than not.

But, that doesn't mean it's impossible for a team that doesn't land in a Rivals Top 10 list to win a championship. It's already been explained by DenverRed, but here's a picture to summarize:

The issue here is that they are taking the past record over 20 years, during which time, 3 teams varied from their assertion, by the way ('94 and '95 NU and '00 Oklahoma), and acting as those it's a necessary component to winning an NC. It's not, necessarily, and it's obviously not a sufficient component either (see ND with it's 4 straight top 10 classes or whatever).

I suppose if you have Cam Newton @ QB you could win an NC with a buncha 3* guys and a crappy HC. Oh, wait, it's already been done.