If the NFL with basically unlimited resources and tons of data (four years of college, the combine, individual workouts) can miss so often on prospect evaluations, how can we really expect college recruiting services with a much larger pool, much less data to work with and much less resources to accurately rank them? They use popularity (who has offered a player) as a surrogate for talent evaluation. The result is rankings that correlate with future success, but not because the recruiting services are good at evaluating talent, but because they are good at evaluating popularity and interest; they then numerically turn that popularity and interest into "rankings".

Another sequelae of this system is that players that can "play the recruiting game" increase their popularity (and inflate their rankings). Players that aren't as good at that have lower rankings, even though they may be a stronger prospect.

(02-06-2015 11:01 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I feel that the "they could never cut it with regular competition in the contract conferences" theory to be one of the most data-disingenuous and frustratingly-convenient theories going.

Data-disingenuous: Knowing that the math (computer rankings) routinely suggests otherwise.

So, the GRAND MISNOMER imo is that, while there is no doubt there is a steep difference in resources, that that also somehow should mean that it is accurate to assume a similarly steep difference in talent between any given contract program and non-contract program. To be clear and accurate, on average, yes, there's a difference in talent, but by the same token, on average, the difference in talent is not congruent with the difference in resources.

You seem to switch between two different things here. Before the graphic, you seem to be referring to an exceptional-performance G5 team, a Boise, addressing the "but they couldn't cut it in a major conference" argument often made against their success.

Concerning this point, I think it depends on how we define "cutting it". If someone means that if Boise had played in the PAC the last 10 years, they never would have gone better than 5-4 in conference play and no better than say 9-4 in any season, then I disagree strongly. But if it means they would have averaged 12 wins playing in the SEC, I disagree strongly as well.

After the graphic, you bring another factor into the picture, resource disparity, and seem to be talking more generally, about the level of talent between the average G5 and average P5 team.

I'm not sure anyone has ever really linked resources and talent that strongly, simply because there are obvious formal constraints to fully utilizing resources to acquire and develop talent - scholarship limits, limits on the number of assistant coaches, limits on the number of recruiting trips that can be made by coaches, timing of recruiting visits, number of visits a school can offer players, no bribes allowed or full pay for play, etc. With the "autonomy" stuff, the P5 are trying to get those shackles loosened a bit, but the shackles are still pretty strong against an Alabama being able to fully use its big bucks to acquire talent.

Won't argue any of that, except that, contrary to the assertion made in the initial sentence, the two are related.

I used "backing up" as a transitional phrase to suggest that the reason people often are predisposed to assuming the superiority of a con5 program is because they perceive the first talent pyramid to be accurate, when in fact, the population of 18-22 year-old talent is not nearly so concretely segregated and not nearly so static in their talent/performance capacity... 18 year-old players are routinely under-evaluated based on who is recruiting them, and as they progress from year to year can somewhat routinely out-perform their HS "star" evaluation such that they end up getting into an NFL camp on the other end of their career.

(02-05-2015 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 08:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  But it shouldn't be a surprise when there are teams or players that outperform their rankings. There are so many strong prospects that get overlooked by the traditionally strong programs. Prospect evaluations and projections are difficult- just look at the NFL draft who miss often with way more information and data. Teams who know the kind of players that are undervalued and can develop those players are going to outperform their recruiting "rankings"

It's not just that. Probably the biggest X-factor in recruiting is physical growth. Many 17-year olds are still growing. A kid playing LB might be 6' 1", 210 lbs as a HS senior, and thus not be on the radar of an Alabama or USC. So they go to Buffalo, and then lo and behold, by the time they are 20 they are 6'5" and 245 lbs, an NFL body. Nothing the Buffalo coaches did to 'develop' them, they just kept growing.

Happens in basketball too, e.g., people wonder how David Robinson ended up at Navy instead of Kentucky or Georgetown. He was "only" 6'6" his senior year of HS, but grew 7" while at Navy.

That's why the P5 want to ease the transfer rules, so they can "re-recruit" these later-blooming physical specimens they passed on earlier.

And the opposite can happen as well - a kid that is bigger and stronger in High School can dominate, but if he has finished most of his growing, everyone else catches up to him and he no longer physically dominates

(02-06-2015 12:31 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 08:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  But it shouldn't be a surprise when there are teams or players that outperform their rankings. There are so many strong prospects that get overlooked by the traditionally strong programs. Prospect evaluations and projections are difficult- just look at the NFL draft who miss often with way more information and data. Teams who know the kind of players that are undervalued and can develop those players are going to outperform their recruiting "rankings"

It's not just that. Probably the biggest X-factor in recruiting is physical growth. Many 17-year olds are still growing. A kid playing LB might be 6' 1", 210 lbs as a HS senior, and thus not be on the radar of an Alabama or USC. So they go to Buffalo, and then lo and behold, by the time they are 20 they are 6'5" and 245 lbs, an NFL body. Nothing the Buffalo coaches did to 'develop' them, they just kept growing.

Happens in basketball too, e.g., people wonder how David Robinson ended up at Navy instead of Kentucky or Georgetown. He was "only" 6'6" his senior year of HS, but grew 7" while at Navy.

That's why the P5 want to ease the transfer rules, so they can "re-recruit" these later-blooming physical specimens they passed on earlier.

And the opposite can happen as well - a kid that is bigger and stronger in High School can dominate, but if he has finished most of his growing, everyone else catches up to him and he no longer physically dominates

Exactly. IIRC, that happened to LSU a few years back. They got a 5-star kid who was named on many lists as the #1 overall prospect in the country (I think he was either an RB or a WR). But his growth was over and he never really managed to crack the starting lineup, coaches said he got surpassed physically by later bloomers.

There are 250k HS FB players that come out in the entire country, every year, that's a lot of wheat to chaff. Then you have to make a good guess, can the kid improve, is he still going to grow etc, then the ratings services have anywhere from 20 to 37 of them as 5 stars, not a whole lot. so really have to do your homework as coaches to know a player when you see him, because he's not one of the 1500 kids followed by the services, have to find those diamonds in the rough. to be a success, unless your Alabama, Ohio or Texas etc.Schools that are good at doing this, will the be the next TCU, Boise etc Here's a url to website that pretty much spot on about recruiting and the star system, IMHO and recruiting, just in general.

http://sidelinesapp.com/item/are-the-ran...-accurate/

(02-05-2015 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It seems like the biggest name schools do relatively poorly by this measure. To me that indicates a little overzealousness in giving high ranks to those players that get offers to the top schools. Just a thought.

We can't overstate this. E.g., the schools that generally do best in recruiting are schools like Alabama, LSU, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, FSU, Florida, Auburn, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia. Do those teams sometimes have down years? Sure. But are they also the teams that are typically most often in contention for national honors? Sure again.

So while recruiters and coaches do make mistakes, by and large, the schools that recruit the best perform the best, over any meaningful period of time.

Those schools were already the best which is how they got those highly rated kids. How do we know they wouldn't have continued to be the best with lower rated kids? Until there is an example of an OSU trying to win with 3 stars or a school with no resources/culture/history starts landing top classes, I don't know how you determine anything.

We may get a glimpse of an answer if Ole Miss keeps up the recruiting, but so far the answer of that one seems very mixed and inconclusive. They're better than they were but top 5 class hasn't meant top 5 team either. Even if was extreme either way, it would be a sample size of 1 school. It's really hard to sort out IMO.

I'm open to the idea that maybe recruiting drives results, but I don't think saying 5* players win a lot tells us anything. They're going to Alabama and Ohio State to learn from the best coaches, with the best facilities, with the best winning culture and the most exposure. Those variables are likely MORE important to success than rating, so I think the impact of highly rated guys is lost in the noise (if it exists).

(02-06-2015 12:05 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Won't argue any of that, except that, contrary to the assertion made in the initial sentence, the two are related.

I used "backing up" as a transitional phrase to suggest that the reason people often are predisposed to assuming the superiority of a con5 program is because they perceive the first talent pyramid to be accurate, when in fact, the population of 18-22 year-old talent is not nearly so concretely segregated and not nearly so static in their talent/performance capacity...

Fair enough.

(02-06-2015 02:22 PM)uccheese Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It seems like the biggest name schools do relatively poorly by this measure. To me that indicates a little overzealousness in giving high ranks to those players that get offers to the top schools. Just a thought.

We can't overstate this. E.g., the schools that generally do best in recruiting are schools like Alabama, LSU, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, FSU, Florida, Auburn, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia. Do those teams sometimes have down years? Sure. But are they also the teams that are typically most often in contention for national honors? Sure again.

So while recruiters and coaches do make mistakes, by and large, the schools that recruit the best perform the best, over any meaningful period of time.

Those schools were already the best which is how they got those highly rated kids. How do we know they wouldn't have continued to be the best with lower rated kids? Until there is an example of an OSU trying to win with 3 stars or a school with no resources/culture/history starts landing top classes, I don't know how you determine anything.

We may get a glimpse of an answer if Ole Miss keeps up the recruiting, but so far the answer of that one seems very mixed and inconclusive. They're better than they were but top 5 class hasn't meant top 5 team either. Even if was extreme either way, it would be a sample size of 1 school. It's really hard to sort out IMO.

I'm open to the idea that maybe recruiting drives results, but I don't think saying 5* players win a lot tells us anything. They're going to Alabama and Ohio State to learn from the best coaches, with the best facilities, with the best winning culture and the most exposure. Those variables are likely MORE important to success than rating, so I think the impact of highly rated guys is lost in the noise (if it exists).

IMO, culture and history and facilities can attract talent, but not much else. Put me circa 1992 in an Ohio State or Alabama uniform and Marshall Faulk in an FAU uniform, and Faulk would still run over/through/around me just as easily. Sure, coaching matters a ton, it's a necessary condition, but you do have to have the talented players to win.