Investigating The Accuracy of College Football Recruiting Rankings

[Em_Jae20]

Very interesting watch that I figured I'd share and get you all's take aways from it. The stat at about the 15:35 mark is something I never realized.

 

[roadkill]

This analysis supports what I've thought about recruiting rankings for a long time - that on an individual or specific position basis, they aren't that accurate, but in the aggregate (talent composite), they are a useful barometer of how a team can be expected to perform over the course of a season. Probably more true in the top 25 than in the lower ranked teams.

 

[FightWinDrink]

Very interesting watch that I figured I'd share and get you all's take aways from it. The stat at about the 15:35 mark is something I never realized.

That’s sort of why some people were making a big deal about Washington in the final. If they had won they would have been the “least talented” champion in the recruiting ranking era and the first to be below the blue chip ratio

 

[WreckinGT]

My biggest problem with the champion analysis is that nearly every year there are only 5-6 schools who are even competing for a championship. Yes those schools recruit well. They also spend more money than other schools, bring in more money than other schools, have the best coaches available, have an entourage of analysts, have the best facilities, have the best trainers, etc. It takes a full machine to win a championship. Talent is only a cog in that machine. Give Duke a top 10 recruiting class (or 4 of them) and they still aren't going to win a championship.

 

[MacDaddy2]

The team with the better four year average recruiting ranking wins 74.9% of the contests. 74.9% (Let that marinate for awhile)

 

[WraleighWreck]

But how often do they cover the spread. That’s the important question!

 

[FightWinDrink]

My biggest problem with the champion analysis is that nearly every year there are only 5-6 schools who are even competing for a championship. Yes those schools recruit well. They also spend more money than other schools, bring in more money than other schools, have the best coaches available, have an entourage of analysts, have the best facilities, have the best trainers, etc. It takes a full machine to win a championship. Talent is only a cog in that machine. Give Duke a top 10 recruiting class (or 4 of them) and they still aren't going to win a championship.

Why say Duke when Miami is already the active case study

 

[LongforDodd]

Do these well-off schools truly have "all the best coaches"? Look at Bobo and Muschamp over at the c-pool? Surely these schools can afford better coaches but for the entire staff, top to bottom, to be considered the best (or even close to the best) seems to be a stretch.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I heard a College coach say that it’s easy to spot the best player on a High School field. But, his potential against players of near equal quality is the tough part.