Pompous Elitist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 23,555
- Reaction score
- 7,483
- Points
- 113
Discuss
Everyone agrees that recruiting is an immensely important part of college football. Big picture points focusing on how only teams recruiting blue chippers are winning titles have obscured what still seems to be an obvious fact within the world of college football, which is that lots of talent is overlooked annually and the recruiting rankings regularly fail to predict the success of major teams each season.
So how do we reconcile these two data points? Recruiting sites might be our most useful resource, but are they really a very good one? A closer look at the world of recruiting penetrates through the large sample sizes and inconsistent criterion to reveal some interesting truths.
Why do the recruiting rankings seem to matter?
Most of the major programs are fishing in the same spots, which are where the recruiting services all congregate with their scales and tape measures to validate the catch. Within that world, recruiting rankings serve to demonstrate which schools are landing the known fish, the obvious whoppers who bring a team great depth of size and speed.
For picking out which three-star loaded also rans might be sleeping giants? The services are nearly entirely useless.
And how many of the "big fish" blue chippers are good enough to guarantee results? Very few it seems. Here's 2014's top ten teams ranked by Football Outsiders' F/+ followed by their recruiting rankings the previous six seasons based on 247's composite class rankings which combine the service rankings...
...What's getting overlooked?
The statisticians at FiveThirtyEight measured how teams recruit vs. how they perform in terms of wins over multiple seasons, and the results are helpful for demonstrating the recruiting services' oversights.
Let's start with Wisconsin, who consistently "get the most out of their recruits" if you assume that the services are accurately assessing talent. Where are the Badgers getting all of their players?
On a national level they follow the same program as every one else, attempting to cull recruits from developed connections in Florida, Texas, and California. However within their state, the Badgers regularly find several big time players despite having a population of only 5.8 million people. The key is the type of athletes who live in the state, namely big farm boys who grow up playing multiple sports and are far from their peak size and potential when they enter college.
Do you think the recruiting services regularly send scouts to rural games in Midwest America? How often do they even spot all the key recruits in a big metro area like Dallas-Ft. Worth with its nearly seven million people? If you are a gifted receiver playing on a running team with a terrible QB in a metro area you are unlikely to be effectively scouted. If you are that same player in nowheresville, Minnesota? Even less so.
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...-rankings-are-flawed-metrics-talent-blue-chip
Everyone agrees that recruiting is an immensely important part of college football. Big picture points focusing on how only teams recruiting blue chippers are winning titles have obscured what still seems to be an obvious fact within the world of college football, which is that lots of talent is overlooked annually and the recruiting rankings regularly fail to predict the success of major teams each season.
So how do we reconcile these two data points? Recruiting sites might be our most useful resource, but are they really a very good one? A closer look at the world of recruiting penetrates through the large sample sizes and inconsistent criterion to reveal some interesting truths.
Why do the recruiting rankings seem to matter?
Most of the major programs are fishing in the same spots, which are where the recruiting services all congregate with their scales and tape measures to validate the catch. Within that world, recruiting rankings serve to demonstrate which schools are landing the known fish, the obvious whoppers who bring a team great depth of size and speed.
For picking out which three-star loaded also rans might be sleeping giants? The services are nearly entirely useless.
And how many of the "big fish" blue chippers are good enough to guarantee results? Very few it seems. Here's 2014's top ten teams ranked by Football Outsiders' F/+ followed by their recruiting rankings the previous six seasons based on 247's composite class rankings which combine the service rankings...
...What's getting overlooked?
The statisticians at FiveThirtyEight measured how teams recruit vs. how they perform in terms of wins over multiple seasons, and the results are helpful for demonstrating the recruiting services' oversights.
Let's start with Wisconsin, who consistently "get the most out of their recruits" if you assume that the services are accurately assessing talent. Where are the Badgers getting all of their players?
On a national level they follow the same program as every one else, attempting to cull recruits from developed connections in Florida, Texas, and California. However within their state, the Badgers regularly find several big time players despite having a population of only 5.8 million people. The key is the type of athletes who live in the state, namely big farm boys who grow up playing multiple sports and are far from their peak size and potential when they enter college.
Do you think the recruiting services regularly send scouts to rural games in Midwest America? How often do they even spot all the key recruits in a big metro area like Dallas-Ft. Worth with its nearly seven million people? If you are a gifted receiver playing on a running team with a terrible QB in a metro area you are unlikely to be effectively scouted. If you are that same player in nowheresville, Minnesota? Even less so.
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...-rankings-are-flawed-metrics-talent-blue-chip