Quote:http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/?p=15008

Player Development By Dave Bartoo | April 16, 2014 0 Comments
A consistent topic in college football circles is player development. Who is good, who is bad and it’s impact on the game. In my world of the CFBMatrix, talent is king and therefore, if a team is great at recruiting or developing NFL level talent, they are going to be getting an edge in winning football games.

I feel that a guy getting a draft grade is an amazing athlete. To actually get drafted as well? Wow! That happens for only the best of the best of the best. Remember, approximately 10% of five stars get to the NFL and less than 1% of three stars. Before you start spouting off about how bad recruiting rankings project keep in mind it, like recruiting classes, is a numbers game.

When I look at this chart and see that nine of the top 10 recruits hold nine of the top 10 spots for most draft picks, I would say that recruiting ranking and profiling is doing a pretty good job. There is a bunch of draft information in this chart for you to process and find what makes you happy. I have used the draft period of 2005-2013 and, because of the three year delay to early entry into the NFL draft, the corresponding recruiting cycles of 2002-2010. If you want pure numbers of draftees that is columns four and five. (ex. Wisconsin has had 37 picks which ranks them #12). The second column ranks teams by their ratio of draft rank to recruiting rank. This one work well for the teams that recruit outside the top 10. Those inside the top 10 get wacky ratios (ex. it makes Texas #77 in player development).

My favorite is simply the difference in draftee rank and recruiting rank. It still gives some weird rankings (ex. UConn at #2 and single draftee Duke at #66). For most programs, there is not much that separates the teams, but in my opinion there are a few clear good and bad exceptions. In either case it is not perfect, but a starting point in a conversation about player development through the eyes of the CFBMatrix. Player Development NFL Recruiting Ranks 2014 copy

This is awesome. Very cool stuff.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

That is some good pub. Get it out there. Tell the 5 stars, we get 2 star guys into the NFL. Imagine what we could do with someone with your talent.

And this from the best NCAA football team for the money!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...the-money/

What this also shows is that top recruited talent doesn't always pan out. Just demonstrates the quality of coaches at UC.

Post. This. EVERYWHERE!

Very cool!

How has the school managed to do so much with so little? What about UC is different? Ive always wondered...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(04-16-2014 12:55 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  And this from the best NCAA football team for the money!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...the-money/

What this also shows is that top recruited talent doesn't always pan out. Just demonstrates the quality of coaches at UC.

It doesn't show that really at all. Just shows that we've been able to do more with less. The metric they use to gauge all of this is a Recruit/Draft Rank Ratio. Basically it's implying that schools with great recruiting classes are expected to get more players drafted.

(04-16-2014 01:27 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 12:55 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  And this from the best NCAA football team for the money!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...the-money/

What this also shows is that top recruited talent doesn't always pan out. Just demonstrates the quality of coaches at UC.

It doesn't show that really at all. Just shows that we've been able to do more with less. The metric they use to gauge all of this is a Recruit/Draft Rank Ratio. Basically it's implying that schools with great recruiting classes are expected to get more players drafted.

I like that it shows our ability to recruit through adversity, and that our coaches are great at helping guys reach their full potential.

Two upwardly mobile coaches (BK and LJ) who had good eye for talent, putting kids where they could succeed, and a sufficient amount of snake oil.

This usually shows up in the wall street journal every year. They focus on development, but with the turnover of coaches and assistant coaches, I am not as convinced. I think a lot of it has to do with the flawed ranking system of high school athletes. Ohio has a lot of talent. We get a lot of those "two star and three star" guys that may have looked like "4 star guys" if surrounded by less talent. A lot of these guys also have a chip on their shoulder because they got the cold shoulder from that school up north. When tO$U finally figured out Derek Wolfe it was too late. Wolfe scout 3 star. Celek scout 2 star. Nakamura scout 2 star. It is ridiculous when you go back and look. Barwin a scout 2 star? (I know, not Ohio but from the Detroit area) The list goes on and on.

Dantonio did a tremendous job recruiting here....BK took that talent to a different level

(04-16-2014 08:52 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Dantonio did a tremendous job recruiting here....BK took that talent to a different level

This.

Dantonio and BK are UC's best recruiters of the new era of Bearcat football. I'm increasingly bearish on CBJ. Very intrigued to see what becomes of our program under the tutelage of Tubbs.

One note, it would seem to mean that this list is inherently skewed against the OSUs/ UFs/ UTs of the world as they already get 5* players. Should those guys not pan out all that they can do is drop in the eyes of this list.

Granted, this is a straight off the cuff observation w/no analysis of the study's methodology....so, there's that.



mc