Recruting Ratings

[OldJacketFan]

Interesting article from FoxSports. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

http://msn.foxsports.com/wisconsin/...useful-tool-but-don-t-tell-whole-story-042914

 

[Techster]

I think if you do enough research on this it basically says what we all know: Recruiting rankings and stars arent' everything, but there is a correllation with teams that do well in recruiting rankings and do well on the field...and teams that don't do well in recruiting rankings and teams that don't do well on the field. I think that bar graph illustrates that.

Of course, there are exceptions (like Wisconsin and Boise State), but that's why it's called exceptions.

On the individual level there's more of an extreme variance. That's where things get dicey. As an example: Our best player the last two years on offense was a 2 star walk-on (Godhigh) who got more minutes than CPJ's most heralded RB recruit up until Custis (Perkins).

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Football is a team sport made up of Jimmys and Joes. In theory, the better your Jimmys and Joes, the better the team. BUT, you have to factor in too many variables for 22 - 30 players to just simply give a "star" ranking and let it stand alone.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Great Article. Loved this quote:

But Tom Lemming, who has been evaluating high school football prospects since 1978 and is considered among the godfathers of the genre, said to take recruiting stars with a grain of salt. Many online entities, he said, base the stars on the number of major college programs to have offered scholarships.

 

[4shotB]

Ahhh, the endless debate continues. At the end of the day, Ohio State has beaten Wiscy 6 out of the last 7 times. Uga has beaten Gt 11 out of 12. that about sums it up for me.

 

[IronJacket7]

I think if you do enough research on this it basically says what we all know: Recruiting rankings and stars arent' everything, but there is a correllation with teams that do well in recruiting rankings and do well on the field...and teams that don't do well in recruiting rankings and teams that don't do well on the field. I think that bar graph illustrates that.

This^

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This is one debate, as if any other is different, where guys are entrenched in their opinions and any discussion is fruitless.

 

[swampsting]

You would think for being the Northwestern coach, Fitzgerald should know to say "could not care less" rather than this quoted "could care less," because to say you could care less implies that he does in fact have some level of care about it.

 

[AE 87]

You would think for being the Northwestern coach, Fitzgerald should know to say "could not care less" rather than this quoted "could care less," because to say you could care less implies that he does in fact have some level of care about it.

Well, I could care less, but I don't know how.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Sigh, there is about a 1/3 correlation between recruiting rankings and performance on the field. Higher ranked players matter, but so does the program.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?res...uthkey=!AEsj42FuWXTbuuc&v=3&ithint=photo,.jpg

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=D5FB97B8D2916137!993

 

[AE 87]

I wish there was a service that tracked the recruiting ranking of the 85 player roster. Class rankings include # of commits. So teams that cycle more players through a system will have higher class ratings than a team that doesn't even when the talent level is comparable. In fact, the team with the smaller class will have older guys with time in the system. Oh well, I agree that there's a correlation, but I don't know how to measure it.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I know how to measure it, but correlation is not causation.

The BYU model of letting them age 4 years and then play them seems to work best .......