CSNbbs

Full Version: Does recruiting matter? 247 says maybe....
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Nice article in which a 4 year recruiting average is weighed against actual finishes.

Lots interesting numbers in here and a pretty clear establishment that g5 teams are at a disadvantage in recruit rankings that most likely has nothing to do with talent. By far the biggest falls are in the A5 and the biggest gains in the G5.

AAC teams: #Rank for improvement (+/-)Improvement
UCF #8 +58
Memphis #10 +48
Cincinnati #17 +32
Temple #18 +31
Houston #39 +14

No one else is top 50

Tulane -2
Tulsa -4
Navy -7
USF -8
SMU -19
UConn -29
ECU -30

Avg 4 year class rank

Cincy 63
UCF 66
Houston 68
USF 70
Memphis 72
SMU 77
Temple 78
ECU 80
Tulane 84
Navy 94
Tulsa 96
UConn 101

Others of Note:
62 Boise St
64 BYU

Context:
60 Oregon St
61 Wake Forrest
65 Kansas St
67 Purdue
69 Boston College
71 Kansas
73 Marshall
74 SDSU
75 Western Michigan
76 Toledo
79 Florida Atlantic

Recruiting in top 80 4 year average non-A5:
AAC 8
MWC 2
CUSA 2
MAC 2
Sunbelt 0
I'd say they mean something. Look at the AAC 4 year class rank. Navy doesn't matter so much because they bring in about 50 recruits each year. An important thing to note: how many in those classes ranked actually arrived on campus and stayed qualified?
(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say they mean something. Look at the AAC 4 year class rank. Navy doesn't matter so much because they bring in about 50 recruits each year. An important thing to note: how many in those classes ranked actually arrived on campus and stayed qualified?

I think they're probably reasonable when comparing G5 to G5. But as I mentioned in the Boise thread, these services know where their bread is buttered, which is why they're so subject to confirmation bias. If an unknown kid gets an offer from a P5 program, they instantly move to a 2 star. If a kid goes from being recruited by a few G5 schools to suddenly getting an FSU offer, that moves to at least a 3 star. Which is why Oregon State, for example, ends up with a higher ranked recruiting class than anybody in the G5.

USFFan
(01-15-2019 07:26 PM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say they mean something. Look at the AAC 4 year class rank. Navy doesn't matter so much because they bring in about 50 recruits each year. An important thing to note: how many in those classes ranked actually arrived on campus and stayed qualified?

I think they're probably reasonable when comparing G5 to G5. But as I mentioned in the Boise thread, these services know where their bread is buttered, which is why they're so subject to confirmation bias. If an unknown kid gets an offer from a P5 program, they instantly move to a 2 star. If a kid goes from being recruited by a few G5 schools to suddenly getting an FSU offer, that moves to at least a 3 star. Which is why Oregon State, for example, ends up with a higher ranked recruiting class than anybody in the G5.

USFFan
Point #1: As usffan notes, recruiting rankings are a for-profit racket, and one with a self-serving positive feedback loop. Upgrade recruits with offers from top performing teams, and then be amazed when the top recruiting schools are ranked high.
Point #2: A four or five year recruiting ranking for one year's performance ranking is still a one-year snapshot. How about 3-5 years of that +/- ? Navy's recruiting ranking hasnt varied much, but Navy's on field performance with the same recruiting profile was a heckuva lot better in 2015 or 2016. Maybe not +58, but probably close. Conversely, UCF wasn't +58 in 2015 from their HS class of '10-'14 recruiting.
Point #3: As Texan Mark alludes to, another thread is talking about Wimbush to UCF. Greg McRae tore it up for UCF this year, and while he didn't change Navy's recruiting ranking much, he was a Navy commit and NAPSter, but doesnt compute in either Navy's or UCF's '14-'18 recruiting ranking vs '18 on field performance.
(01-15-2019 10:29 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2019 07:26 PM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say they mean something. Look at the AAC 4 year class rank. Navy doesn't matter so much because they bring in about 50 recruits each year. An important thing to note: how many in those classes ranked actually arrived on campus and stayed qualified?

I think they're probably reasonable when comparing G5 to G5. But as I mentioned in the Boise thread, these services know where their bread is buttered, which is why they're so subject to confirmation bias. If an unknown kid gets an offer from a P5 program, they instantly move to a 2 star. If a kid goes from being recruited by a few G5 schools to suddenly getting an FSU offer, that moves to at least a 3 star. Which is why Oregon State, for example, ends up with a higher ranked recruiting class than anybody in the G5.

USFFan
Point #1: As usffan notes, recruiting rankings are a for-profit racket, and one with a self-serving positive feedback loop. Upgrade recruits with offers from top performing teams, and then be amazed when the top recruiting schools are ranked high.
Point #2: A four or five year recruiting ranking for one year's performance ranking is still a one-year snapshot. How about 3-5 years of that +/- ? Navy's recruiting ranking hasnt varied much, but Navy's on field performance with the same recruiting profile was a heckuva lot better in 2015 or 2016. Maybe not +58, but probably close. Conversely, UCF wasn't +58 in 2015 from their HS class of '10-'14 recruiting.
Point #3: As Texan Mark alludes to, another thread is talking about Wimbush to UCF. Greg McRae tore it up for UCF this year, and while he didn't change Navy's recruiting ranking much, he was a Navy commit and NAPSter, but doesnt compute in either Navy's or UCF's '14-'18 recruiting ranking vs '18 on field performance.

Good points and a solid break down.

The main thing I pulled from this was recruiting and in particular recruiting rankings often have no correlation to a schools actual performance outcome.
I think recruiting matters a lot more in college basketball than in football. Just too many people to evaluate, and tough to measure outside the skill positions, offensive linemen in particular.
(01-15-2019 11:37 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I think recruiting matters a lot more in college basketball than in football. Just too many people to evaluate, and tough to measure outside the skill positions, offensive linemen in particular.

You do realize there are more schools who play basketball than football at both the high school and college level?

That while football participation is double basketballs in raw numbers the sport carries four to five times as many players per team. Meaning in basketball recruiting you may see 20-25 kids play at a game. In football you get 60-75 kids between starters for offense, defense, and special teams as well as the extra recievers, linemen, and backs to give different looks (4 receivers, double tight ends, nickel, goal line, etc)

Football camps and 7 on 7 seasons, camps, drills easily match the "summer ball" kids play for basketball. I just watched the number 1 recruit in basketball get worked by the #1 in the class below him and a top #20 kid in the same year.

Recruiting and recruiting rankings in any sport are garbage and that's before you get into injuries, academics, team dynamics, or attitude issues that can all make or break a kid, or lead to him transferring.
(01-15-2019 11:37 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I think recruiting matters a lot more in college basketball than in football. Just too many people to evaluate, and tough to measure outside the skill positions, offensive linemen in particular.

OL is the best place to feel okay with 2 star kids. In a proper development based program those 2 star kids probably won't see the field until their RS-SO year. A team has 24-30 months to sculpt the kid's body to get ready for the DL. There are only so many OL ready to play kids coming out of HS or as RS-FR.
(01-15-2019 11:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2019 11:37 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I think recruiting matters a lot more in college basketball than in football. Just too many people to evaluate, and tough to measure outside the skill positions, offensive linemen in particular.

You do realize there are more schools who play basketball than football at both the high school and college level?

That while football participation is double basketballs in raw numbers the sport carries four to five times as many players per team. Meaning in basketball recruiting you may see 20-25 kids play at a game. In football you get 60-75 kids between starters for offense, defense, and special teams as well as the extra recievers, linemen, and backs to give different looks (4 receivers, double tight ends, nickel, goal line, etc)

Football camps and 7 on 7 seasons, camps, drills easily match the "summer ball" kids play for basketball. I just watched the number 1 recruit in basketball get worked by the #1 in the class below him and a top #20 kid in the same year.

Recruiting and recruiting rankings in any sport are garbage and that's before you get into injuries, academics, team dynamics, or attitude issues that can all make or break a kid, or lead to him transferring.

I was talking about evaluating the top recruits who really are difference makers. You can do that in basketball. It's maybe 10 guys.

In football, it's much more difficult. Has nothing to do with how many schools play. It has to do with roster size, to some extent, as you so kindly pointed out to me the difference in the rosters. 03-lmfao

And I agree that rankings are mostly useless anyway.
The data seem to indicate that recruiting matters and the various services do a decent job of evaluation. It's hard to find a source citing data that really disagrees with that. There are outliers, and I'm routing for the underdog, but in general better rated recruits beat lower rated recruits.

And yes, any given star ranking is anecdotal. The ranking can be derivative, biased, might mess up the evaluation, the recruit might not develop as expected, might fly under the radar, might work exceptionally hard and/or have great coaching and be better than expected, or rankings might just be wrong. We are dealing with individuals, teams, and time. Tons of things matter.

But statistically, the recruit rankings can be used to both pick how well a team performs against another and the odds of a player getting to the NFL --- or even playing in the pro-bowl. Wins and losses as well as playing in the NFL are solid indicators of success for a football player.

NFL Talent on the Roster:

57.6% of 5* recruits were drafted in 2018 (19 players)
23.6% of 4*(70 players)
6.9% of 3* (106 players)
1.1% of 2* (19 players)
?% of NR (42 players)
https://247sports.com/Article/NFL-Draft-...117819292/

By sheer numbers, 3* and below fill the ranks of the NFL. But the odds of any one of those players making it to the NFL are not nearly as high. The more stars a college team is able to recruit, the better the odds they have NFL talent on the roster.


Top level NFL Talent

The 2017 NFL Pro Bowl roster consisted of:

11 college recruits with 5*
24 with 4*
25 with 3*
2 with 2*
13 that were NR
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...l-success/

When you run the numbers on how many overall players there are in each category, its amazing how well high-school recruiting rankings predict pro bowl appearances years later. It's great that there are many 3* and below making it too, it helps show that rankings aren't everything, but that's a numbers game (~30 recruits at 5*, thousands at 3* and below, who knows how many thousand if we include NR).
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...l-success/


Top Recruiting Classes Play for Top 10 Finishes and Championships

If you look at the top 10 end of season rankings and look back at recent recruiting classes, you'll see a trend, I can't say it any better than the article:

Quote:...of the 32 rosters to compete in the last 16 national title games, 30 of them were formed with at least one top-10 class within the last four seasons. Only Oregon, again, was an exception. But even the Ducks were formed around fringe top-10 classes. 2010 to 2012 Oregon finished 13th, 12th and 13th respectively in the 247Sports Composite Team Recruiting Rankings.
. . .
Of the 70 Top 10 finishers we examined, just 21 percent of teams managed to crack the end-of-year Top 10 without having recruited a five-star prospect within the last four classes. But even those teams had talent. Outside of Boise State in 2011 and UCF in 2013, all of those programs had multiple four-star prospects on their roster as rated by the 247Sports Composite.
https://247sports.com/Article/Why-colleg...114611388/

It's awesome that Boise and UCF crashed the party, but the correlation between recruiting class rankings and top 10 finishes is strong.


Predictive Value: higher ranked recruiting classes usually win

If you didn't know anything else about the teams, the best way to predict the outcome of a game is probably to look at recruiting. You may pick the winning team ~67% of the time. Head to head, or even if you group the teams into classes based on recruiting and average all the results.

Take the P6 teams and make 5 groups, based on the teams' overall recruiting. Then order those groups by the overall wins. For the 4 seasons studied, the results were an amazing correlation of recruit rankings to wins from 5 - 2 (2* and 1* did not appear predictive, I think most would agree that NR - 2* are much harder to predict for a variety of reasons). Those results hold across the tables (not just the overall results).
[Image: 05-Recruiting_Rankings_Head-to-Head.png]
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2...ings-right

Like the other metrics, they do not indicate that recruiting is the end-all be-all. There are people that make a hobby of seeing who under or over performs (I always like Bill Snyder). But recruiting ranks seem to have a strong correlation.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/108...igning-day
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whi...ice-versa/
https://deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-fo...1640831522

There are even academic papers exploring the recruiting-to-win question. This one seems to indicate that 45% of the variances in end-of-season total wins could be predicted by recruiting alone:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6442/7f...35dfdf.pdf



Other variables come into play, which is what keeps me interested and ever-hopeful (stupid Tulsa). But the data suggests that recruiting matters, a lot, and that the rankings do a pretty good job overall. Even if it pains me to say so.
(01-17-2019 11:05 AM)JesseTU Wrote: [ -> ]The data seem to indicate that recruiting matters and the various services do a decent job of evaluation. It's hard to find a source citing data that really disagrees with that. There are outliers, and I'm routing for the underdog, but in general better rated recruits beat lower rated recruits.

And yes, any given star ranking is anecdotal. The ranking can be derivative, biased, might mess up the evaluation, the recruit might not develop as expected, might fly under the radar, might work exceptionally hard and/or have great coaching and be better than expected, or rankings might just be wrong. We are dealing with individuals, teams, and time. Tons of things matter.

But statistically, the recruit rankings can be used to both pick how well a team performs against another and the odds of a player getting to the NFL --- or even playing in the pro-bowl. Wins and losses as well as playing in the NFL are solid indicators of success for a football player.

NFL Talent on the Roster:

57.6% of 5* recruits were drafted in 2018 (19 players)
23.6% of 4*(70 players)
6.9% of 3* (106 players)
1.1% of 2* (19 players)
?% of NR (42 players)
https://247sports.com/Article/NFL-Draft-...117819292/

By sheer numbers, 3* and below fill the ranks of the NFL. But the odds of any one of those players making it to the NFL are not nearly as high. The more stars a college team is able to recruit, the better the odds they have NFL talent on the roster.


Top level NFL Talent

The 2017 NFL Pro Bowl roster consisted of:

11 college recruits with 5*
24 with 4*
25 with 3*
2 with 2*
13 that were NR
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...l-success/

When you run the numbers on how many overall players there are in each category, its amazing how well high-school recruiting rankings predict pro bowl appearances years later. It's great that there are many 3* and below making it too, it helps show that rankings aren't everything, but that's a numbers game (~30 recruits at 5*, thousands at 3* and below, who knows how many thousand if we include NR).
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...l-success/


Top Recruiting Classes Play for Top 10 Finishes and Championships

If you look at the top 10 end of season rankings and look back at recent recruiting classes, you'll see a trend, I can't say it any better than the article:

Quote:...of the 32 rosters to compete in the last 16 national title games, 30 of them were formed with at least one top-10 class within the last four seasons. Only Oregon, again, was an exception. But even the Ducks were formed around fringe top-10 classes. 2010 to 2012 Oregon finished 13th, 12th and 13th respectively in the 247Sports Composite Team Recruiting Rankings.
. . .
Of the 70 Top 10 finishers we examined, just 21 percent of teams managed to crack the end-of-year Top 10 without having recruited a five-star prospect within the last four classes. But even those teams had talent. Outside of Boise State in 2011 and UCF in 2013, all of those programs had multiple four-star prospects on their roster as rated by the 247Sports Composite.
https://247sports.com/Article/Why-colleg...114611388/

It's awesome that Boise and UCF crashed the party, but the correlation between recruiting class rankings and top 10 finishes is strong.


Predictive Value: higher ranked recruiting classes usually win

If you didn't know anything else about the teams, the best way to predict the outcome of a game is probably to look at recruiting. You may pick the winning team ~67% of the time. Head to head, or even if you group the teams into classes based on recruiting and average all the results.

Take the P6 teams and make 5 groups, based on the teams' overall recruiting. Then order those groups by the overall wins. For the 4 seasons studied, the results were an amazing correlation of recruit rankings to wins from 5 - 2 (2* and 1* did not appear predictive, I think most would agree that NR - 2* are much harder to predict for a variety of reasons). Those results hold across the tables (not just the overall results).
[Image: 05-Recruiting_Rankings_Head-to-Head.png]
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2...ings-right

Like the other metrics, they do not indicate that recruiting is the end-all be-all. There are people that make a hobby of seeing who under or over performs (I always like Bill Snyder). But recruiting ranks seem to have a strong correlation.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/108...igning-day
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whi...ice-versa/
https://deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-fo...1640831522

There are even academic papers exploring the recruiting-to-win question. This one seems to indicate that 45% of the variances in end-of-season total wins could be predicted by recruiting alone:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6442/7f...35dfdf.pdf



Other variables come into play, which is what keeps me interested and ever-hopeful (stupid Tulsa). But the data suggests that recruiting matters, a lot, and that the rankings do a pretty good job overall. Even if it pains me to say so.


When I have time I will come back and dig into this, but a couple of things popped out at me. The NFL rarely has pro days at smaller universities and rarely invite players not from the p5 to the combine. Using the NFL to rubber stamp recruiting rankings is a non starter for me, it's a draft based almost entirely on metrics, which only apply to the people tested, which just happen to be players from Alabama, Georgia., etc. What you really have is pro teams doing the same thing college teams do to high schools, creating ratings and from a limited pool that proves they are the best of that pool. Nor do I think using teams who played for a national championship is a good measure since much like recruiting rankings it's a popularity contest. A feed back loop has been created. The best players, only go to the best schools, the NFL only takes from the best schools (go look at a roster and the g5 has 3/4 players on a roster full 9f sec guys).

That's why I liked this write up, it looks at the entirety of college football (the entire pool of recruited players) and compares it to team performance, not team popularity.

Also 45%? So a coin flip is more accurate at predicting outcomes than ranking correlation? That's not a good predictor.
(01-17-2019 12:15 PM)Foreverandever Wrote: [ -> ]When I have time I will come back and dig into this...

That's why I liked this write up, it looks at the entirety of college football (the entire pool of recruited players) and compares it to team performance, not team popularity.

As you suggested, I think you may have skimmed my post too quickly. I tried to include a variety of metrics, sources, and ideas to support my statement exactly because of the issues you correctly present. I'm not trying to advocate one side or the other, I had a discussion some time ago and looked into this - the data convinced me that rankings actually have merit. So I shared what I found.

Note that at least one of the metrics I cite does exactly what you wanted: tried to ascertain if higher ranked recruiting classes generally win games against lower ranked recruiting classes. It found they did (see the graphic or link above).


Quote:Also 45%? So a coin flip is more accurate at predicting outcomes than ranking correlation? That's not a good predictor.

I don't think that fairly represents what the study concluded. Here is a portion of the summary:

The results indicated that [the rankings] predicted up to 45% of the variances
in the end-of-season ratings and total wins. Thus, other factors (besides recruiting rankings) must be contributing to the end-of-season ratings for the 100 NCAA football teams included in this study.


and a portion of the conclusion

These results indicated that recruiting is an important factor in a team’s success that predicted up to 45% of the variance in end-of-season ratings and total wins. However, there was a large portion of the variance in the end-of-season ratings and total wins that was unaccounted for by recruiting services. Thus, there are many other factors besides recruiting classes that may contribute the success of an NCAA football team.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6442/7f...35dfdf.pdf

The study is only 11 pages long and I'd encourage you to read it. It is not trying to predict who will win an individual game. I believe the study is trying to look at recruiting rankings (using a variety of services) and see how much the aggregate recruiting rankings correlate to the end of season rankings (Sagarin). I believe the question they are trying to answer is basically - how much of a teams success is a result of just recruiting. (it also looked at total wins and next years recruiting success correlated to previous years on-field success)

It found that up to 45% of a team's success may be a result of recruiting alone. Player development, in game coaching decisions, discipline, injuries, transfers, luck and whatever else account for the rest. If that's accurate, recruiting can be dang near half the battle.

That's a huge deal.


Again, I'm not trying to advocate. I'm just sharing what I found when I looked into this during an email debate with a buddy (like the nerd I am), so pasted and formatted it for everyone's amusement. I previously believed the rankings were nto as good as the data suggests. I'd be just as pleased if someone had data showing that recruiting rankings don't correlate to successful programs. I'd be really pleased if the results on the field were AAC teams winning all OOC games, regardless of recruit ranking nonsense. :)
247 just bumped up one of our recruits to a four-star giving us six for the season! That has to be a record for a G5 team. There are no more excuses for us not winning our conference.

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Footba...nce=M-West
(01-29-2019 07:38 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote: [ -> ]247 just bumped up one of our recruits to a four-star giving us six for the season! That has to be a record for a G5 team. There are no more excuses for us not winning our conference.

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Footba...nce=M-West

Lol.....

You realize its basketball season right?

Oh wait. You're really a Zag fan 03-lmfao

Go home Fanhood, we'll see you in July after AAC baseball season.
I hate to disagree, but it is always football season.
Go Cats!!
(01-29-2019 08:18 PM)bearcat29 Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to disagree, but it is always football season.

Not when you're a "super fan" of a school who doesn't have it and made a name for themselves on the hardwood.

Otherwise agree. ..


Wonder how good that 4* rating feels right about now.

https://247sports.com/Player/Deondre-Francois-31531/

Somebody on this board (and elsewhere) already made this comparison, but these services treat players like they're the star-bellied sneetches of Dr. Seuss...

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

USFFan
https://theathletic.com/799347/2019/02/0...gning-day/

Behind the paywall, but interesting in light of this topic. As you might guess, lots of highly rated people who didn't pan out, people further down the list that make you go "wow, he was rated lower than some of those busts above him?"

USFFan
https://theathletic.com/822497/2019/02/1...ivals-247/

Once again, behind The Athletic's paywall, but here's the story of a completely fabricated "3 star" recruit named Blake Carringer, who probably would have done well dating Lennay Kakua. And it fooled all of the supposedly expert recruiting sites.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...g-rankings

So the next time somebody tells you how "these guys aren't frauds, they really know what they're doing," just remind them that they were all catfished. In 2019.

Recruiting websites are for profit websites that make their money based on subscriptions from thirsty fans who want to be sold a rosy future for the teams they root for. Once you realize that, it will make you (and your wallet) feel much better...

USFFan
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's