Comparing Recruiting Classes

[dressedcheeseside]

I've maintained for a while that GT is going to make it's hay on finding and being right more than wrong on under the radar types. We still need a few "on the radar" types to push us over the top, but the majority of our team is gonna be the former. It stands to reason the majority of these types of players will not have a BCS offer sheet the length of your arm.

Think about it, if you're a Bammer or a Uga, you have the pick of the litter and don't have to scour the backwoods and back alleys to find your class. Your guys are front and center, you spend your time and energy battling the other factories for the top guys. That's not to say there aren't plenty of very good players in the shadows or guys with untapped potential that will bloom later in college. Unfortunately, that's where we hunt. If we're good at it, we can still have a very good class despite their lack of notoriety, stars and offers.

 

[Boomergump]

Ranking recruiting classes is a devilishly difficult task. This method is by far the best I have seen in trying to do that. I like it because it incorporates who is actually offering. It is interesting to see, on an individual basis, how often even the bigger programs are wrong. Despite several big program offers, some kids are just a bust. If we didn't bust with them, one of the other offering programs would have. Nobody is right all the time. I like looking 2 years down the road at results and think it has merits, but you can't forget that all of the eligible classes have an impact on that number as well, not just the class from 2 years ago. Well done.

 

[Ish]

I combed through the 2007 class again and tallied the number of "1-8" guys (imo). That number is 5: Nesbitt, Morgan, Burnett, Dwyer, Roddy Jones.

That just shows you that we don't really need 10 4-star players per class to be successful. We need to hit hard on 5 guys per class. 5 out of about 20 (usually), which is 25%. If we get 5 of the "1-8" guys, then suddenly after 3 or 4 years we'd have 15-20 of the "1-8" guys.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Great job. I really appreciated it since it is something different.

Question: Why to determine the class overall ranking, is 19 used in the formula "(CLASSrank*19)/(#players_still_with_team)"? It would seem better to use the actual number committed.

Also, did you make up the #BCS offers equation? It is basically just the ranking of the the school that year which assumes that the higher ranked schools know recruiting better and recruit better. That is the same assumption which leads Scout and others to bump up someone's stars when they get an offer from a highly ranked school. {I think that makes sense, but it does cause the star rankings to be a positive feedback for team recruiting class rankings which everyone likes to b*tch about. It isn't perfect, but I don't know a better way to approach the star ranking methodology.}

Again thanks!!

 

[alaguy]

BJ,great job
Among other things that jumped out to me---why didn't our OL do better this yr when guys got hurt(Bailey,Jackson,Joe) -we have several with NO D1 offers-Braun,Roberts,Chamberlain and even Shaq--maybe they just weren't that good even though the koolaide brigade had been hawking the OL depth for '13

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Any ranking of a player or class that doesn't account for actual college production means little to me. Shaq Mason grades out very poorly in this analysis as he had no other BCS offers yet he's a first team All ACC player in college. On the other hand, Shaq's 2011 classmate Nick Menocal rates through the roof by this methodology and hasn't done squat on the field.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Great job. I really appreciated it since it is something different.

Question: Why to determine the class overall ranking, is 19 used in the formula "(CLASSrank*19)/(#players_still_with_team)"? It would seem better to use the actual number committed.

Also, did you make up the #BCS offers equation? It is basically just the ranking of the the school that year which assumes that the higher ranked schools know recruiting better and recruit better. That is the same assumption which leads Scout and others to bump up someone's stars when they get an offer from a highly ranked school. {I think that makes sense, but it does cause the star rankings to be a positive feedback for team recruiting class rankings which everyone likes to b*tch about. It isn't perfect, but I don't know a better way to approach the star ranking methodology.}

Again thanks!!

The number of players with team is based on the number of players in that recruiting class two years later which this analysis determines to be their "contribution year". It's basically a measure of player retention. You can have a good class, but if 7 leave before their junior year it's going to negatively impact performance on the field.

The number of bcs offers is straight from who they listed as offering them. I think you're mentioning the other equation which uses that and the sagarin rank of their best rated offer that is not Georgia tech. Yes, I did make that equation. Ideally, I would incorporate a four year running average sagarin rank of all of the kids' offers, but I got time limited and it's close enough. It does use the inherent assumption that good teams identify good talent.

DCS, agreed it is in no way meant to be anything more than a two to three year lookahead. Of course there's going to be underranked and overranked players which for the most part even each other out. I do believe mason in particular is one who I tampered with his ranking. Those I denoted with an asterisk. I do that when I think the guy just didn't play the recruiting service game and their info is misleading since the player committed early and shut it down. Tre Jackson in this year class is another example.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

The number of players with team is based on the number of players in that recruiting class two years later which this analysis determines to be their "contribution year". It's basically a measure of player retention. You can have a good class, but if 7 leave before their junior year it's going to negatively impact performance on the field.
............

Again, I liked this approach as a comparative approach, thanks. There probably is no approach for initial class ranking which can be used to really compensate for the players who commit early and don't get any more attention / offers / bumps.

For fun I went back and looked at Scout class ranking (total star vice average star). Your approach says that our 2012 and 2014 class are much better than Scout. Both approaches say 2007 was the best (duh). I hope you are right.

Year // Ranking 1-8 Other Offers // Ranking 1-8 Scout class
2007 // 1 // 1
2008 // 8 // 3
2009 // 6 // 2
2010 // 5 // 4
2011 // 4 // 2
2012 // 2 // 7
2013 // 7 // 8
2014 // 3 // 6

 

[wingsrlevel]

Any ranking of a player or class that doesn't account for actual college production means little to me. Shaq Mason grades out very poorly in this analysis as he had no other BCS offers yet he's a first team All ACC player in college. On the other hand, Shaq's 2011 classmate Nick Menocal rates through the roof by this methodology and hasn't done squat on the field.

throw Cheeks in the same category as Menocal. Is Cheeks still at GT?

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

I combed through the 2007 class again and tallied the number of "1-8" guys (imo). That number is 5: Nesbitt, Morgan, Burnett, Dwyer, Roddy Jones.

That just shows you that we don't really need 10 4-star players per class to be successful. We need to hit hard on 5 guys per class. 5 out of about 20 (usually), which is 25%. If we get 5 of the "1-8" guys, then suddenly after 3 or 4 years we'd have 15-20 of the "1-8" guys.

I kind of ran with this a little bit and got some interesting numbers. Shows how much we miss, but also shows a trend which explains people's perceptions of class quality. Top 5 players in each class.

2007: Average of 1.49
Jason Peters 1.04
Clyde Yandell 1.07
Jonathan Dwyer 1.07
DJ Donley 1.07
Nick Claytor 3.2

2008: Average of 7.17
BJ Machen 3.06
Embry Peeples 3.27
Omoregie Uzzi 7.15
Steven Sylvester 9.39
Malcolm Munroe 13

2009: Average of 6.29
Brandon Watts 1.09
Izaan Cross 3.06
Jeremy Moore 5.71
Will Jackson 10.67
Jay Finch 10.91

2010: 6.01
Ryan Ayers 1.02
Denzel McCoy 1.02
Louis Young 6.86
Jake Skole 7.3
Anthony Williams 13.87

2011: 5.22
Vad Lee 0.98
Anthony Harrell 2.04
Nick Menocal 2.09
Tremayne McNair 9
Domonique Noble 12

2012: 4.66
Justin Thomas 0.94
Marcus Allen 5.14
Francis Kallon 5.14
Dennis Andrews 5.88
Roderick Chungong 6.22

2013: 8.94
Shamire Devine 3.84
Chris Griffin 5.76
Ricky Jeune 8.35
Darius Commissiong 12.44
Travis Custis 14.3

2014: 4.36
Myles Autry 0.74
KeShun Freeman 4.71
Step Durham 4.97
Kenderius Whitehead 5.24
Qua Searcy 6.13


Maybe this was the best class since '07...

 

[GTJason]

Here's another interesting comment from KS on the AJC "One other measure of evaluation – last year, Tech had two out of Rivals’ top 80 players in the state, guard Shamire Devine and running back Travis Custis. This year, it has seven of the top 75."

http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/02/05/6-signing-day-notes/

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Here's another interesting comment from KS on the AJC "One other measure of evaluation – last year, Tech had two out of Rivals’ top 80 players in the state, guard Shamire Devine and running back Travis Custis. This year, it has seven of the top 75."

http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/02/05/6-signing-day-notes/

We are up to 10%? We are decimating the Georgia scene now (literally!}

 

[swampsting]

All right, not necessarily a class ranking, but the star level (per Rivals) of the 2013 AP All Americans the year they signed their LOIs. Because I couldn't think of anywhere else to post this at 12:30 at night.

Offense
Jameis Winston - 5 stars
Ka’Deem Carey – 4 stars
Andre Williams – 3 stars
Mike Evans – 3 stars
Brandin Cooks – 4 stars
*Eric Ebron – 3 stars
Jake Matthews – 4 stars
*Jack Mewhort – 4 stars
Cyril Richardson – 3 stars
David Yankey – 3 stars (Centennial)
Bryan Stork – 3 stars
Cyrus Kouandjio – 5 stars
Jace Amaro – 4 stars
Jordan Lynch – 2 stars

Defense
Michael Sam – 2 stars
*Leonard Williams – 4 stars
Aaron Donald – 3 stars
Timmy Jernigan – 4 stars
Will Sutton – 3 stars
Jackson Jeffcoat – 5 stars
Anthony Barr – 4 stars
C.J. Mosley – 4 stars
Ryan Shazier – 4 stars
*Trent Murphy – 3 stars
Darqueze Dennard – 2 stars (Twiggs County)
*Ifo Ekpre-Olomu – 4 stars
*Ha-Ha Clinton Dix – 5 stars
Lamarcus Joyner – 5 stars
Cody Prewitt – 4 stars
Deone Bucannon – 3 stars
*=on ESPN all-America but not AP

 

[Boomergump]

All right, not necessarily a class ranking, but the star level (per Rivals) of the 2013 AP All Americans the year they signed their LOIs. Because I couldn't think of anywhere else to post this at 12:30 at night.

Offense
Jameis Winston - 5 stars
Ka’Deem Carey – 4 stars
Andre Williams – 3 stars
Mike Evans – 3 stars
Brandin Cooks – 4 stars
*Eric Ebron – 3 stars
Jake Matthews – 4 stars
*Jack Mewhort – 4 stars
Cyril Richardson – 3 stars
David Yankey – 3 stars (Centennial)
Bryan Stork – 3 stars
Cyrus Kouandjio – 5 stars
Jace Amaro – 4 stars
Jordan Lynch – 2 stars

Defense
Michael Sam – 2 stars
*Leonard Williams – 4 stars
Aaron Donald – 3 stars
Timmy Jernigan – 4 stars
Will Sutton – 3 stars
Jackson Jeffcoat – 5 stars
Anthony Barr – 4 stars
C.J. Mosley – 4 stars
Ryan Shazier – 4 stars
*Trent Murphy – 3 stars
Darqueze Dennard – 2 stars (Twiggs County)
*Ifo Ekpre-Olomu – 4 stars
*Ha-Ha Clinton Dix – 5 stars
Lamarcus Joyner – 5 stars
Cody Prewitt – 4 stars
Deone Bucannon – 3 stars
*=on ESPN all-America but not AP

Interesting. That is an average of 3.6 stars by my math(could easily be a mistake, I just blazed thru with a calculator). Out of the 30 players on the list there are five 5 stars. One sixth of the population, which is noteworthy because I think the common perception on the board is that it is easy to rate the 5 stars because they really stand out. I think this list illustrates why I personally pay little attention to rankings. However, I also concede they are not total trash because the rankings of the ALL EVERYTHING team is on average better than GT's. A 0.6 difference is pretty big in my mind.

 

[33jacket]

good look, for curiousity can you do this for the 03, 04, 05, 06 classes too? That would be a really good 10 year look and i think we will see a pure correlation to recruiting class quality and onfield success....which means coaching is the difference between good and great years (ie if you have a good class or two, the difference between 9 and 11 wins is coaching if the recruiting is above average for us). Of course stars are now inflated in these classes vs back in the 04 timerange so i am not sure how you can normalize for that???

This also shows what most of us have felt, the lack of talent in pauls first few classes are hurt us this and last year.