+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 (/thread-823153.html)
Pages: 1 2
AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - BullsFanInTX - 08-02-2017 12:51 PM
Not sure how much to read into this, but the AAC is blowing away the other G4's in this recruiting cycle. When looking at the rankings, if you include the AAC in the G's, then 8 out of the top 10 recruiting classes came from the AAC. What, if anything, do you make of this.
247 G4 + AAC rankings:
http://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
1. Cincinnati
2. USF
3. UConn (possibly suspect ranking)
4. Houston
5. UCF
6. SMU
7. ECU
8. Toledo
9. Temple
10. Western Michigan
10A. Navy (possibly 10th due to UConn's suspect ranking).
Rivals G4 + AAC rankings:
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2018/all-teams/football
1a. Houston (29th nationally)
1b. USF (29th nationally)
3. SMU
4. Cincinnati
5. Temple
6. Arkansas St.
7. Navy
8. UCF
9. ECU
10. Toledo
Again, 8 of top 10 recruiting classes are in AAC, 9 of 11 if you include Memphis in Rivals.
Thoughts on this. Why is the AAC running circles around the G4 in recruiting and to a certain extent keeping up with mid level P's?
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - arkstfan - 08-02-2017 02:14 PM
I wouldn't read a ton into it. 2012-2017 Texas was never worse than second in Big XII recruiting rankings, several top 10, barely missed #1 in 2012.
There is some confirmation bias preloaded into recruiting rankings. if Smith and Jones look really similar but Alabama is looking at Smith and not at Jones you might just go ahead put Smith ahead of Jones when it might be something as simple as Bama feels they have Smith locked up and won't waste the time on Jones.
Few years ago a "no star" gets an offer from La.Tech and becomes a one star, adds another from AState and becomes a two star, later OKST offers and he's a solid three star recruit now.
Couple of the worst rated classes in AState history ended up going 20-6 to finish their college career.
I would never totally dismiss recruiting rankings just as I would never use them to make my case about how good a team is.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - BullsFanInTX - 08-02-2017 02:50 PM
(08-02-2017 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: I wouldn't read a ton into it. 2012-2017 Texas was never worse than second in Big XII recruiting rankings, several top 10, barely missed #1 in 2012.
There is some confirmation bias preloaded into recruiting rankings. if Smith and Jones look really similar but Alabama is looking at Smith and not at Jones you might just go ahead put Smith ahead of Jones when it might be something as simple as Bama feels they have Smith locked up and won't waste the time on Jones.
Few years ago a "no star" gets an offer from La.Tech and becomes a one star, adds another from AState and becomes a two star, later OKST offers and he's a solid three star recruit now.
Couple of the worst rated classes in AState history ended up going 20-6 to finish their college career.
I would never totally dismiss recruiting rankings just as I would never use them to make my case about how good a team is.
Yes, I get that there is bias based on offers. We'd be naïve to think that the same recruit would receive the same amount of stars at school "A" than he would at Alabama.
However, are there biases among all the conferences. Is the AAC getting a small bump in stars to account for these rankings? Or, are they just recruiting better.
By the way, recruiting rankings do matter, and I would argue significantly. For every Texas, you have 5 or more other schools that pulled in highly rated recruits and it paid off on field.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - TrojanCampaign - 08-02-2017 03:12 PM
(08-02-2017 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: I wouldn't read a ton into it. 2012-2017 Texas was never worse than second in Big XII recruiting rankings, several top 10, barely missed #1 in 2012.
There is some confirmation bias preloaded into recruiting rankings. if Smith and Jones look really similar but Alabama is looking at Smith and not at Jones you might just go ahead put Smith ahead of Jones when it might be something as simple as Bama feels they have Smith locked up and won't waste the time on Jones.
Few years ago a "no star" gets an offer from La.Tech and becomes a one star, adds another from AState and becomes a two star, later OKST offers and he's a solid three star recruit now.
Couple of the worst rated classes in AState history ended up going 20-6 to finish their college career.
I would never totally dismiss recruiting rankings just as I would never use them to make my case about how good a team is.
20-6 in the Sun Belt. Against other teams who are lucky to get 3 star recruits.
Recruiting is one of the most important factors into how good a team is. Do you think Alabama is so good because Nick Saban is coaching them so much better than everyone else? He is a great coach, but let's analyze the Alabama recruiting classes going back to 2012.
2012 #1
2013 #1
2014 #1
2015 #1
2016 #2
2017 #1
Meanwhile to my knowledge no Sun Belt team has even been in the top 25 in recruiting. And coincidentally when is the last time a Sun Belt team has finished ranked in the top 25?
Good coaching is important but good talent > good coaching in most cases.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - Attackcoog - 08-02-2017 03:13 PM
(08-02-2017 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: I wouldn't read a ton into it. 2012-2017 Texas was never worse than second in Big XII recruiting rankings, several top 10, barely missed #1 in 2012.
There is some confirmation bias preloaded into recruiting rankings. if Smith and Jones look really similar but Alabama is looking at Smith and not at Jones you might just go ahead put Smith ahead of Jones when it might be something as simple as Bama feels they have Smith locked up and won't waste the time on Jones.
Few years ago a "no star" gets an offer from La.Tech and becomes a one star, adds another from AState and becomes a two star, later OKST offers and he's a solid three star recruit now.
Couple of the worst rated classes in AState history ended up going 20-6 to finish their college career.
I would never totally dismiss recruiting rankings just as I would never use them to make my case about how good a team is.
It's a lot like insurance risk tables. They are pretty decent at predicting how many will die or get sick---less so at determining which specific person will get sick or die. In this instance, when there 8 of the top 10 recruiting classes are from one conference---I think it's a fairly strong indication that some of thoses classes are going to pan out---likely more pan out than don't. The more those numbers start to stack up, the more likely they are to become statistically significant.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - perimeterpost - 08-02-2017 08:47 PM
Let's be honest,below the top 100 or so recruits nobody does any real analysis. Instead of looking at where these recruits start lets look at where they finish.
Here's the number of top 100 NFL Draft picks taken in 2017, by conference.
6- AAC
5- MAC
4- CUSA
2- SBC
0- MWC
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - colohank - 08-02-2017 09:05 PM
(08-02-2017 03:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:(08-02-2017 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: I wouldn't read a ton into it. 2012-2017 Texas was never worse than second in Big XII recruiting rankings, several top 10, barely missed #1 in 2012.
There is some confirmation bias preloaded into recruiting rankings. if Smith and Jones look really similar but Alabama is looking at Smith and not at Jones you might just go ahead put Smith ahead of Jones when it might be something as simple as Bama feels they have Smith locked up and won't waste the time on Jones.
Few years ago a "no star" gets an offer from La.Tech and becomes a one star, adds another from AState and becomes a two star, later OKST offers and he's a solid three star recruit now.
Couple of the worst rated classes in AState history ended up going 20-6 to finish their college career.
I would never totally dismiss recruiting rankings just as I would never use them to make my case about how good a team is.
20-6 in the Sun Belt. Against other teams who are lucky to get 3 star recruits.
Recruiting is one of the most important factors into how good a team is. Do you think Alabama is so good because Nick Saban is coaching them so much better than everyone else? He is a great coach, but let's analyze the Alabama recruiting classes going back to 2012.
2012 #1
2013 #1
2014 #1
2015 #1
2016 #2
2017 #1
Meanwhile to my knowledge no Sun Belt team has even been in the top 25 in recruiting. And coincidentally when is the last time a Sun Belt team has finished ranked in the top 25?
Good coaching is important but good talent > good coaching in most cases.
With specific reference to Tommy Tuberville, any level of talent > coaching. Give Tommy a 5-star QB to work with, and watch the kid's world collapse. Thank heavens those days are behind us.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - natibeast21 - 08-02-2017 09:31 PM
(08-02-2017 09:05 PM)colohank Wrote:(08-02-2017 03:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:(08-02-2017 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: I wouldn't read a ton into it. 2012-2017 Texas was never worse than second in Big XII recruiting rankings, several top 10, barely missed #1 in 2012.
There is some confirmation bias preloaded into recruiting rankings. if Smith and Jones look really similar but Alabama is looking at Smith and not at Jones you might just go ahead put Smith ahead of Jones when it might be something as simple as Bama feels they have Smith locked up and won't waste the time on Jones.
Few years ago a "no star" gets an offer from La.Tech and becomes a one star, adds another from AState and becomes a two star, later OKST offers and he's a solid three star recruit now.
Couple of the worst rated classes in AState history ended up going 20-6 to finish their college career.
I would never totally dismiss recruiting rankings just as I would never use them to make my case about how good a team is.
20-6 in the Sun Belt. Against other teams who are lucky to get 3 star recruits.
Recruiting is one of the most important factors into how good a team is. Do you think Alabama is so good because Nick Saban is coaching them so much better than everyone else? He is a great coach, but let's analyze the Alabama recruiting classes going back to 2012.
2012 #1
2013 #1
2014 #1
2015 #1
2016 #2
2017 #1
Meanwhile to my knowledge no Sun Belt team has even been in the top 25 in recruiting. And coincidentally when is the last time a Sun Belt team has finished ranked in the top 25?
Good coaching is important but good talent > good coaching in most cases.
With specific reference to Tommy Tuberville, any level of talent > coaching. Give Tommy a 5-star QB to work with, and watch the kid's world collapse. Thank heavens those days are behind us.
The answer is simple. G4 gonna G4 and P6 gonna P6
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - Chappy - 08-02-2017 09:32 PM
Given that recruiting rankings are an inexact science influenced by school reputation, I'd say this means the P6 campaign is working, at least in the eyes of the recruiting services.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - Nerdlinger - 08-02-2017 10:12 PM
This "P6/G4" thing seems sad. Yes, the American is better than the other G5 conferences by most measures of success, but it is not on par with the P5 conferences. The P5/G5 divide will stand until 2025, at which point it's more likely to go to P4 than P6. End of story, really.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - MWC Tex - 08-02-2017 10:25 PM
Don't care about rankings when it is on the field performance that matters.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - dbackjon - 08-03-2017 01:05 AM
Any thread with G4 in it should be moved to the AAC forum
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - BruceMcF - 08-03-2017 03:01 AM
(08-02-2017 12:51 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: Not sure how much to read into this, but the AAC is blowing away the other G4's in this recruiting cycle. ...Note that just saying "the other G4's" implies that the AAC is part of the group, which implies that your counting skills are sub par.
I'll believe that the AAC is not part of the Group of Five when I see them when I see them send back their share of the Go5 CFP payout, and/or when I see them leave aside competition for the Go5 Access Bowl spot in place of a big money bowl commitment for their champion that is only trumped by a CFP semi-final bid.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - quo vadis - 08-03-2017 04:52 AM
(08-02-2017 10:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Don't care about rankings when it is on the field performance that matters.
Recruiting matters greatly, the only ones who say it doesn't are the ones that aren't recruiting well. It's no secret that the schools that are consistently near the top of the recruiting rankings also are the ones that consistently go to NY6 bowls and the playoffs. Sure, there have been a few schools, like Boise, that manage to spin performance gold out of recruiting straw, but they are big time outliers and they also don't face the strong regular season schedule that wears a team out and exposes a lack of depth.
That said, there surely are diminishing returns. I mean, if USC has the #7 ranked class and Toledo the #80 ranked class, surely that's a major, significant difference in talent that will have a big impact on the field.
But in the case of these G5 rankings, if Memphis is ranked #60 and Toledo is ranked #80, you have to wonder if there's much practical difference there. It's probably the difference between a school having an average recruit that has a 2.7 star rating and the other a 2.4 star rating.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - JCMiner - 08-03-2017 08:09 AM
Here's a thought stop comparing the AAC to the G5 and instead compare it with the P5.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - Hokie Mark - 08-03-2017 08:39 AM
(08-03-2017 04:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(08-02-2017 10:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Don't care about rankings when it is on the field performance that matters.
Recruiting matters greatly, the only ones who say it doesn't are the ones that aren't recruiting well. It's no secret that the schools that are consistently near the top of the recruiting rankings also are the ones that consistently go to NY6 bowls and the playoffs. Sure, there have been a few schools, like Boise, that manage to spin performance gold out of recruiting straw, but they are big time outliers and they also don't face the strong regular season schedule that wears a team out and exposes a lack of depth.
That said, there surely are diminishing returns. I mean, if USC has the #7 ranked class and Toledo the #80 ranked class, surely that's a major, significant difference in talent that will have a big impact on the field.
But in the case of these G5 rankings, if Memphis is ranked #60 and Toledo is ranked #80, you have to wonder if there's much practical difference there. It's probably the difference between a school having an average recruit that has a 2.7 star rating and the other a 2.4 star rating.
According to 247Sports, here are some average star ratings for 2018 classes (as they stand today):
#1 Ohio State 4.06*
#20 Washington 3.45*
#40 Cincinnati 3.00*
#60 SMU 2.61*
#90 Georgia State 1.91*
#128 E. Kentucky 1.00*
http://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - MWC Tex - 08-03-2017 09:41 AM
So I went to the links and did the analysis for 2018...but it is so skewed because the AAC has over 200 commits and the MW has 75, CUSA 110 so there are more commits coming for those two conferences that will change the data. So I also did 2017.
247 sports:
2018 so far: AAC (202 commits) Average 81.08, MW (75 commits) Average 79.47, CUSA (110 commits) Average 79.16, MAC (119 commits) avg: 78.66, SB [ULL isn't listed] (92 commits) avg w/o ULL: 79.05
2017: AAC (295 commits) Avg: 80.72, MW (307 commits) Avg:79.52, CUSA (307 commits) Avg: 79.47, MAC (288 commits) avg: 78.78, SB (255 commits) avg: 78.40
[Navy and AF skew the commit count...not sure how 247 sports each gave them 60 commits for the year]
No significance difference so far in 2018 but the MW/CUSA have more commits coming.
Rivals:
2018 so far: AAC (237 commits) avg: 2.22, MW (75 commits) avg: 1.93, CUSA (101 commits) avg: 1.63, SB [CCU isn't listed] (54 commits) avg: 1.99 w/o CCU, MAC (87 commits) avg: 1.52
2017: AAC (311 commits) avg: 2.32, MW (298 commits) avg: 2.17, CUSA (299 commits) avg: 1.99, MAC (274 commits) avg: 2.05, SB (231 commits) avg: 2.02
Rivals shows a bit of a difference for 2018 but as they update the commits for the MW and CUSA, that will change.
2017 shows the AAC higher but not much over the MW, but a bit of a difference over CUSA.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - BullsFanInTX - 08-03-2017 10:05 AM
(08-03-2017 03:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:(08-02-2017 12:51 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: Not sure how much to read into this, but the AAC is blowing away the other G4's in this recruiting cycle. ...Note that just saying "the other G4's" implies that the AAC is part of the group, which implies that your counting skills are sub par.
I'll believe that the AAC is not part of the Group of Five when I see them when I see them send back their share of the Go5 CFP payout, and/or when I see them leave aside competition for the Go5 Access Bowl spot in place of a big money bowl commitment for their champion this is only trumped by a CFP semi-final bid.
A straw man. None of that has anything to do with the question asked. Why is the AAC running laps around the other so called Group of 5 (ok so I will submit to that term for the purposes of this thread)? If you have an answer, great, feel free to chime in. The rest of your statement has nothing to do with this thread. The fact is, the AAC currently has 9 out of the top 11 G5 classes, and will likely end up with the vast majority of top G5 classes on signing day. Why is that? Any and all answers to that question are welcome. You can even say my analysis is wrong. MWC Tex made some good points in his argument.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - Bronco69 - 08-03-2017 10:44 AM
(08-02-2017 12:51 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: Not sure how much to read into this, but the AAC is blowing away the other G4's in this recruiting cycle. When looking at the rankings, if you include the AAC in the G's, then 8 out of the top 10 recruiting classes came from the AAC. What, if anything, do you make of this.
247 G4 + AAC rankings:
http://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
1. Cincinnati
2. USF
3. UConn (possibly suspect ranking)
4. Houston
5. UCF
6. SMU
7. ECU
8. Toledo
9. Temple
10. Western Michigan
10A. Navy (possibly 10th due to UConn's suspect ranking).
Rivals G4 + AAC rankings:
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2018/all-teams/football
1a. Houston (29th nationally)
1b. USF (29th nationally)
3. SMU
4. Cincinnati
5. Temple
6. Arkansas St.
7. Navy
8. UCF
9. ECU
10. Toledo
Again, 8 of top 10 recruiting classes are in AAC, 9 of 11 if you include Memphis in Rivals.
Thoughts on this. Why is the AAC running circles around the G4 in recruiting and to a certain extent keeping up with mid level P's?
Recruiting stars talent does not equal performance.
Boise State has had 26 players drafted in the last 10 years. Of those, not one of them was a 4 or 5 star recruit. In fact, in 2012 Boise State had 5 NFL draft picks and 7 players from it's 2011 defensive line in NFL camps and, again, all were 2-3 star recruits.
During the height of Boise State's run (Chris Petersen era), Boise State never cracked the top 40 in recruiting but Petersen compiled an obscene record of 92-12 in 8 years. All the while taking whatever BCS/P5 scalps along the way that would actually schedule Boise State.
The AAC fans, for a conference that is 1-9 the last two years in bowls, are awfully myopic. How many Access Bowls has that "superior" conference made? I think its the same number as the MWC and the lowly MAC.
RE: AAC recruiting levels vs. G4 - Attackcoog - 08-03-2017 11:02 AM
(08-03-2017 10:44 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:(08-02-2017 12:51 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: Not sure how much to read into this, but the AAC is blowing away the other G4's in this recruiting cycle. When looking at the rankings, if you include the AAC in the G's, then 8 out of the top 10 recruiting classes came from the AAC. What, if anything, do you make of this.
247 G4 + AAC rankings:
http://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
1. Cincinnati
2. USF
3. UConn (possibly suspect ranking)
4. Houston
5. UCF
6. SMU
7. ECU
8. Toledo
9. Temple
10. Western Michigan
10A. Navy (possibly 10th due to UConn's suspect ranking).
Rivals G4 + AAC rankings:
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2018/all-teams/football
1a. Houston (29th nationally)
1b. USF (29th nationally)
3. SMU
4. Cincinnati
5. Temple
6. Arkansas St.
7. Navy
8. UCF
9. ECU
10. Toledo
Again, 8 of top 10 recruiting classes are in AAC, 9 of 11 if you include Memphis in Rivals.
Thoughts on this. Why is the AAC running circles around the G4 in recruiting and to a certain extent keeping up with mid level P's?
Recruiting stars talent does not equal performance.
Boise State has had 26 players drafted in the last 10 years. Of those, not one of them was a 4 or 5 star recruit. In fact, in 2012 Boise State had 5 NFL draft picks and 7 players from it's 2011 defensive line in NFL camps and, again, all were 2-3 star recruits.
During the height of Boise State's run (Chris Petersen era), Boise State never cracked the top 40 in recruiting but Petersen compiled an obscene record of 92-12 in 8 years. All the while taking whatever BCS/P5 scalps along the way that would actually schedule Boise State.
The AAC fans, for a conference that is 1-9 the last two years in bowls, are awfully myopic. How many Access Bowls has that "superior" conference made? I think its the same number as the MWC and the lowly MAC.
Actually it kinda does. You realize that "top 40" would have likely placed Boise as the best recruiting in the non-power conferences. I'd also point out that the AAC isn't getting a bunch of 4-5 stars. The reality is these higher rated non-power school recruiting classes basically are made of highly rated 3-stars and an occasional higher rated kid. The biggest difference is the top non-power classes are deeper in in 3-stars with the occasion higher rated recruit rather than fewer 3-stars with a lot of lower rated kids mixed in.
Doesnt mean that some of those lower rated classes from other conferences wont end up being better---it does, however, mean that its more likely that most (but not necessarily all) of those higher rated AAC classes will probably develop into top non-power squads. Boise is actually a good example of what consistent recruiting near the top of the non-power conferences looks like.
Here is the BIG key---coaching. When you combine a G5 recruiting at the top of the non-power programs with top quality coaching---you get the TCU's, Utah's, Boise's, and W Michigans of the non-power world. The higher budgets in the AAC have allowed the hiring of better overall quality of coaching top to bottom in the AAC than most other non-power conferences. Combining that coaching with the higher quality recruiting classes is a very potent concoction likely to continue to allow the AAC to significantly outperform the other non-power conferences.