Boyd: Why college football recruiting rankings are flawed metrics

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
23,485
Reaction score
7,416
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
 

Oh, boy, here we go! I'm fired up for another meaningless and flawed thread.
 

Oh, boy, here we go! I'm fired up for another meaningless and flawed thread.
Meaningless and flawed threads - welcome to gopherhole. It's still good entertainment though!
 

Oh, boy, here we go! I'm fired up for another meaningless and flawed thread.

What did you expect when you clicked on this thread. I mean seriously. If you don't like the discussions here then don't come here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I don't know the background of Wisconsin's offensive linemen (and thus could be dead wrong in my assumptions), but I think the image of these strapping farm boys is probably a bit off base in that so few people live on farms anymore. That example evokes imagery from the pre-1990s when almost all the Upper Midwest and Midwestern programs fielded teams chock full of those strapping lads. That said, there's no question that Wisconsin puts together impressive offensive lines.
 


What did you expect when you clicked on this thread. I mean seriously. If you don't like the discussions here then don't come here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always give me a good laugh, Spoof.

I don't know the background of Wisconsin's offensive linemen (and thus could be dead wrong in my assumptions), but I think the image of these strapping farm boys is probably a bit off base in that so few people live on farms anymore. That example evokes imagery from the pre-1990s when almost all the Upper Midwest and Midwestern programs fielded teams chock full of those strapping lads. That said, there's no question that Wisconsin puts together impressive offensive lines.

Best OL money can buy.
 

Here's one idea I'll pull out of my rear end and throw against the wall. And of course, it does not apply to all. It's not an absolute.

I thing I knock some "blue chippers" for is that they're full of themselves. They don't think they have to work hard in college. They should show up, waltz onto campus, and be given the starting job, on the way to the NFL.

Some three star, and especially two star, recruits are the opposite. They're driven to work hard and earn a spot on the team and hopefully get a chance at significant playing time.



You wanted discussion, so there's a discussion. Let's see if anyone will bite.
 

Here's one idea I'll pull out of my rear end and throw against the wall. And of course, it does not apply to all. It's not an absolute.

I thing I knock some "blue chippers" for is that they're full of themselves. They don't think they have to work hard in college. They should show up, waltz onto campus, and be given the starting job, on the way to the NFL.

Some three star, and especially two star, recruits are the opposite. They're driven to work hard and earn a spot on the team and hopefully get a chance at significant playing time.



You wanted discussion, so there's a discussion. Let's see if anyone will bite.

You're spot on. Many of the "blue chippers" mature athletically at an early age, get accolades, recruited, and commit early, then go on cruise control or simply plateau. Meanwhile other late bloomers know they MUST outwork the blue chippers and end up surpassing them eventually. Unfortunately for some, they might not show enough talent until it's too late in HS to get recruited by a big program. Adam Thielen comes to mind. Maybe Carson Wentz?
 

Waiting for GWG to weigh in...
 



Discuss? There's really nothing to discuss. This article is nearly 3 years old and is cherry picking a handful of teams over 2 seasons. Similarly to what GHer's do when they believe they don't matter.

Recruiting rankings are not perfect, so yes they have some flaws. But overall they still matter, which has been proven time and again by many people.
 

Discuss? There's really nothing to discuss. This article is nearly 3 years old and is cherry picking a handful of teams over 2 seasons. Similarly to what GHer's do when they believe they don't matter.

Recruiting rankings are not perfect, so yes they have some flaws. But overall they still matter, which has been proven time and again by many people.

Proven by stats that remove players that don't play and include when top 10 rated classes play bottom third classes. Good stuff. Still looking for proof that rankings between say 25-50 are anything more than a crap-shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Proven by stats that remove players that don't play and include when top 10 rated classes play bottom third classes. Good stuff. Still looking for proof that rankings between say 25-50 are anything more than a crap-shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's still based on recruiting rankings. The way I did mine based off 247 team talent still aligns to the recruiting rankings on signing day. It's not that difficult to understand.

The 25-50 has also been proven, just look at the B1G west. But we've been there before, you just continue to argue the same nonsense over and over again.
 




Let's be real here there's no difference in talent level between Michigan State who's average ranking is in the 20-25 range and the Gophers who consistently finished in the 50-60s the last 6 years. :rolleyes:

I can't believe people still reply to Spoofin when he's quite clearly trolling.
 

Oh, boy, here we go! I'm fired up for another meaningless and flawed thread.

And you logged in and wasted everyone's time to yet again to bark at the moon. Thank you for wasting everyone's time.
 

Let's be real here there's no difference in talent level between Michigan State who's average ranking is in the 20-25 range and the Gophers who consistently finished in the 50-60s the last 6 years. :rolleyes:

I can't believe people still reply to Spoofin when he's quite clearly trolling.

There is obviously a difference between say #20 and #50. I think what Spoofin and others are saying is that it's not easy to quantify that difference. It's not as cut-and-dried as some people present. Is the #20 recruit class 5% better than #50 - 10% better - 20% better?

I see it as more of a general indicator than a specific indicator. #20 is better than #50 - but how much better? And - can you quantify the difference into # of wins? Is the #20 class worth 1 more win over #50 - 2 more wins - or is it impossible to quantify because of all the other factors that weigh in - injuries - coaching decisions - or just the simple fact that some of those recruits will learn, grow and develop more than other recruits as they go through their college experience.

I would say the recruiting ranking is a snapshot in time - for those recruits on the day they sign their LOI. It has some indicative properties going forward, but there are other factors that go into success and wins beyond the rankings - or otherwise the recruiting rankings would have a perfect correlation to each team's relative success.

Or - short version - rankings mean something, but they don't mean everything.
 

Let's be real here there's no difference in talent level between Michigan State who's average ranking is in the <b>20-25 </b>range and the Gophers who consistently finished in the <b>50-60s </b>the last 6 years. :rolleyes:

I can't believe people still reply to Spoofin when he's quite clearly trolling.


1. Well, one of those teams is 12-12 in the last two years and the other is 14-11. I'll let you figure out which is which.

2. I don't think you understand what 25-50 means. I do appreciate you trying tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

1. Well, one of those teams is 12-12 in the last two years and the other is 14-11. I'll let you figure out which is which.

2. I don't think you understand what 25-50 means. I do appreciate you trying tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To answer your question classes that rank 25th typically have multiple 4 stars committed while classes in the 50 range have 0 or 1. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
 

To answer your question classes that rank 25th typically have multiple 4 stars committed while classes in the 50 range have 0 or 1. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

That doesn't answer my question in any way. I understand how teams get higher ratings. My opinion is which team will be better in that range is a crapshoot. Someone suggested I take MSU and MN in recent years as examples, so I suggest you do the same. ......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Guys, it’s quite obvious that Mich St is more talented than the Gophs. That’s why they blew us out by 50 points this year.
 




Top Bottom