Can Gophs recruiting stay in top 40? Iowa moving past Gophers...Indiana next?

Donate To GopherHole

Gophers_4life said:
I would add on: what would our ranking be if you take out KW and also take out the two special teams guys and two Maroon Shirt guys?
Click to expand...

It is what it is, but when Burns turns like this he's usually correct. The others are locked. Other B1G teams signed specialists too; I don't want to go back and look it up. However, I think there were 3 other teams that signed specialists. Indiana was one I think.

Go ahead and call me lazy:D
 

Gophers_4life said:
I would add on: what would our ranking be if you take out KW and also take out the two special teams guys and two Maroon Shirt guys?
Click to expand...

Ok... I looked it up. I was right, 3 other B1G teams signed specialists. Two of them are ranked ahead of us, and one is behind us.
Purdue...Punter
MSU...Punter

Indy...Long snapper
 

dpodoll68 said:
Spoofin - just quit while you're way, way behind. You know that I'm not a GWG supporter, and that we certainly have had our share of disagreements, but on this topic he's 100% right and you're 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

DPO - I may very well be wrong, but it is my current belief. I am yet to see facts prove I am wrong. My main rub at this point is that GWG keeps using a different metric and different data set to point out how wrong I am. I’m not disputing that talent rankings are accurate on the aggregate that include the extremes - I just doubt recruiting rankings are in the middle where the Gophers sit. No worries, I don’t plan to continue this debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
DPO - I may very well be wrong, but it is my current belief. I am yet to see facts prove I am wrong. My main rub at this point is that GWG keeps using a different metric and different data set to point out how wrong I am. I’m not disputing that talent rankings are accurate on the aggregate that include the extremes - I just doubt recruiting rankings are in the middle where the Gophers sit. No worries, I don’t plan to continue this debate.
Click to expand...

The facts have proven you wrong, you're just not willing to accept that. It's good to hear that you plan to stop tilting at this windmill - now I hope you'll actually follow through.
 


He has a point.

You go back five seasons, average the recruiting rankings, then you only look at the teams ranked 20-50, and the games they played against each other. What is the correlation between the five year averaged recruiting rankings and winning a 20-50 game?

Likely pretty low.
 

Spoofin said:
DPO - I may very well be wrong, but it is my current belief. I am yet to see facts prove I am wrong. My main rub at this point is that GWG keeps using a different metric and different data set to point out how wrong I am. I’m not disputing that talent rankings are accurate on the aggregate that include the extremes - I just doubt recruiting rankings are in the middle where the Gophers sit. No worries, I don’t plan to continue this debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Except I don't. My stance has been the same for years and it is based on facts.

Your stance is based on opinion, which has been widely disputed by facts. Meanwhile you continually post the same, tired argument and fail to support it with anything factual.
 
Last edited:

scools12 said:
But we need to know.

If the ranking drops below #40 do we panic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I am not worried about the quality of our class, but if we drop below 40 will Coyle keep talking about how amazing our recruiting rankings are? He was already bragging when were low 30s and 12th in the big ten.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 

the "big picture" argument keeps circling back to the same point:

If we assume or accept that having a higher-rated class is preferable to a lower-ranked class, the question becomes this:

is there any way to quantify or qualify the difference between (for sake of example) the #30 recruiting class and the #40 recruiting class. Or the #35 recruiting class and the #50 recruiting class?

Yes, the #30 class is better than #40 - but how much better? what does the difference translate to in terms of wins? I don't think anyone has really addressed that issue - and it may be impossible to quantify, based on available data.

Because, answering that question gets back to the OP - if the Gophers have a recruiting class in the low 40's, instead of the upper 30's, is that a cause for concern? a cause for panic? fire everyone? or don't worry - doesn't really matter? that is the big-picture question.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
the "big picture" argument keeps circling back to the same point:

If we assume or accept that having a higher-rated class is preferable to a lower-ranked class, the question becomes this:

is there any way to quantify or qualify the difference between (for sake of example) the #30 recruiting class and the #40 recruiting class. Or the #35 recruiting class and the #50 recruiting class?

Yes, the #30 class is better than #40 - but how much better? what does the difference translate to in terms of wins? I don't think anyone has really addressed that issue - and it may be impossible to quantify, based on available data.

Because, answering that question gets back to the OP - if the Gophers have a recruiting class in the low 40's, instead of the upper 30's, is that a cause for concern? a cause for panic? fire everyone? or don't worry - doesn't really matter? that is the big-picture question.
Click to expand...

I suspect you can draw measurables around groups like:

- Tip top classes.
- Single digits to teems.
- Some middle of the road 20s to 50.
- Everything else.

Where those lines are will vary wildly (maybe the single digits to teens reach only to 12 some years, 20 other years) but I doubt there are more a handful of groupings where you could get stats that show real solid data.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Yes, the #30 class is better than #40 - but how much better? what does the difference translate to in terms of wins? I don't think anyone has really addressed that issue - and it may be impossible to quantify, based on available data.

Because, answering that question gets back to the OP - if the Gophers have a recruiting class in the low 40's, instead of the upper 30's, is that a cause for concern? a cause for panic? fire everyone? or don't worry - doesn't really matter? that is the big-picture question.
Click to expand...

Thank you for summarizing the discussion. Yes, I think that is a very good summary of the fundamental questions.


There are posters who will tell you that the data proves that higher ranked classes win with high percentage over lower ranked classes.

In my opinion though, Spoofin has a point: do the win-loss analysis JUST for teams that have averaged recruiting classes between say 30-50 or something like that. Look at how many times those teams have played each other in the last five years, and THEN see what the correlation is between higher ranked class and winning. I bet it drops significantly.

But those other posters ignore and deflect away from this point, so far.
 

Spoofin and SON are correct. Need more data. There is very likely a significant (Ie measurable and not attributable to random chance) difference but what is the size of the effect?
 

Word said:
I am not worried about the quality of our class, but if we drop below 40 will Coyle keep talking about how amazing our recruiting rankings are? He was already bragging when were low 30s and 12th in the big ten.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which was the premise of this whole thread to begin with.

If it drops below #40 can we start taking shots at the AD, head coach and the program as a whole.
 



OK. I will start by saying this is very limited data and no conclusions can be drawn from it. I don't know of a quick way to gather this info and so I had to do it manually. I don't have the time or desire to take it further - but since a certain poster refuses to recognize what I am saying, wants data, and I would hate for a stranger to think I am lazy, I did what I could on a small scale.

- I looked at the Big 10 teams' recruiting ranking (I used 247 composite ranking & not the talent rankings they designed to cover flaws in recruiting rankings) from 2013-2017 and averaged them.
- The following teams averaged between 20 and 50: Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan State, Maryland, Wisconsin
- Between these teams, there were (6) head-to-head contests in 2017. The team with the better average ranking won 3. The team with the worse average ranking won 3.

Next,
- I looked at the Big 10 teams' recruiting ranking (I used 247 composite ranking & not the talent rankings they designed to cover flaws in recruiting rankings) from 2014-2018 and averaged them.
- The following teams averaged between 20 and 50: Michigan State, Nebraska, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa (Penn State got too good and Iowa got just good enough)
- Between these teams, there were (6) head-to-head contests in 2018. The team with the better average ranking won 2. The team with the worse average ranking won 4.

So, without considering home field or a few other factors that would likely 'balance out' if done over a larger time period and with more teams what I saw was that recruiting rankings actually had a negative correlation to on-field results of head-to-head match-ups between B1G Teams in the 20-50 average range.
 

The only difference Between a 39 ranking and a 34 ranking is the opinions of people that believe certain players are 3 starts or 4 stars. These opinions vastly vary between scouts. It also is not shocking to see someone who decided to go to Ohio State get a favorable rerate. Wether it's the program or some extra cash in the scouts pocket.... who knows.
only thing that matters is top 15 / then 15 to 30 / 30 to 45 those groups always seem about the same.
Just need keep the program improving over all. Not year to year but every 3 years.
 

Spoofin said:
OK. I will start by saying this is very limited data and no conclusions can be drawn from it. I don't know of a quick way to gather this info and so I had to do it manually. I don't have the time or desire to take it further - but since a certain poster refuses to recognize what I am saying, wants data, and I would hate for a stranger to think I am lazy, I did what I could on a small scale.

- I looked at the Big 10 teams' recruiting ranking (I used 247 composite ranking & not the talent rankings they designed to cover flaws in recruiting rankings) from 2013-2017 and averaged them.
- The following teams averaged between 20 and 50: Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan State, Maryland, Wisconsin
- Between these teams, there were (6) head-to-head contests in 2017. The team with the better average ranking won 3. The team with the worse average ranking won 3.

Next,
- I looked at the Big 10 teams' recruiting ranking (I used 247 composite ranking & not the talent rankings they designed to cover flaws in recruiting rankings) from 2014-2018 and averaged them.
- The following teams averaged between 20 and 50: Michigan State, Nebraska, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa (Penn State got too good and Iowa got just good enough)
- Between these teams, there were (6) head-to-head contests in 2018. The team with the better average ranking won 2. The team with the worse average ranking won 4.

So, without considering home field or a few other factors that would likely 'balance out' if done over a larger time period and with more teams what I saw was that recruiting rankings actually had a negative correlation to on-field results of head-to-head match-ups between B1G Teams in the 20-50 average range.
Click to expand...

Excellent work. Seriously, this is exactly what I was thinking of but just didn't have the time to dig.

I think this small sample times undeniably lends credit to the idea, and would warrant a deeper study and across other P5 confs. Not saying you should do that, I likely won't either. But it is credible.
 

I know this is a fun argument for everyone and it's easy to debate because of the lack of definition and the variables.

A couple things are apparent in my view and I'll make these points with broader statements that generally would apply.

1. A class in the 30's is better than a class in the 40s.
2. If I have glaring needs, I'd sooner have a class in the 40's that covers those needs, than a class in the 30s which is weak in that area.
3. A class in the the top 10 is better than a class in 30-40 range by a greater margin than a class in the 20-30 range is better than a class in the 50-60 range.
4. A class ranked 32nd with a 5 star QB (who stays and meets expectations) is more valuable than a class ranked 22th with a 3 star QB.
5. I'd prefer a class in the 50's where 20 of the 25 players stay with the team for 4 years over a class in the 20's where only 6 players stay the 4 years.
6. Class in the 30-60 range can probably be coached up well enough to beat top 25 teams 1 out of 3 times, but not likely to win a National Title. But classes that average 60-100 can be coached up, but will only beat top 25 teams maybe 1 out of 10 tries.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points above.
 

Face The Facts said:
I know this is a fun argument for everyone and it's easy to debate because of the lack of definition and the variables.
Click to expand...

If there is any way I can be more clear with the definition and variables of my opinion please let me know.
- Recruiting Rankings, not Talent Rankings
- 20-50. Do not include 1-19 or 51+

As to your points....
I would agree with all, but #1. The only data that has been presented in this thread (although a very small sample size) would not support that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
If there is any way I can be more clear with the definition and variables of my opinion please let me know.
- Recruiting Rankings, not Talent Rankings
- 20-50. Do not include 1-19 or 51+

As to your points....
I would agree with all, but #1. The only data that has been presented in this thread (although a very small sample size) would not support that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your point was clear. I wasn't referring to them directly.
I should rephrase #1 a bit that generally the higher ranking the better. But I mainly made point 1 to contrast it with my 2nd point.
If all things are the same, I'll take the better ranked class, but a few spots are minor to finding the right talent.
 

Face The Facts said:
I know this is a fun argument for everyone and it's easy to debate because of the lack of definition and the variables.

A couple things are apparent in my view and I'll make these points with broader statements that generally would apply.

1. A class in the 30's is better than a class in the 40s.
2. If I have glaring needs, I'd sooner have a class in the 40's that covers those needs, than a class in the 30s which is weak in that area.
3. A class in the the top 10 is better than a class in 30-40 range by a greater margin than a class in the 20-30 range is better than a class in the 50-60 range.
4. A class ranked 32nd with a 5 star QB (who stays and meets expectations) is more valuable than a class ranked 22th with a 3 star QB.
5. I'd prefer a class in the 50's where 20 of the 25 players stay with the team for 4 years over a class in the 20's where only 6 players stay the 4 years.
6. Class in the 30-60 range can probably be coached up well enough to beat top 25 teams 1 out of 3 times, but not likely to win a National Title. But classes that average 60-100 can be coached up, but will only beat top 25 teams maybe 1 out of 10 tries.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points above.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking your point #4 is often overlooked. A good team can be built around a few strong key positions. A savvy statistician with time on his/her hands could probably go back and re-rate recruiting classes by weighting more important positions over others. That would be interesting to see.
 

Panthadad2 said:
I'm thinking your point #4 is often overlooked. A good team can be built around a few strong key positions. A savvy statistician with time on his/her hands could probably go back and re-rate recruiting classes by weighting more important positions over others. That would be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

A lot to that as well.

A class ranked 15th because they have 4 highly rated WRs and 4 highly rated corners is a different type of rating than a class that’s ranked 30th but with positional balance.
 

Some guy said:
A lot to that as well.

A class ranked 15th because they have 4 highly rated WRs and 4 highly rated corners is a different type of rating than a class that’s ranked 30th but with positional balance.
Click to expand...

That’s kind of a straw man argument because no coach really does that (unless their WR and CB rooms were empty and they truly needed it).
 

Face The Facts said:
If all things are the same, I'll take the better ranked class, but a few spots are minor to finding the right talent.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That is the punchline at the end of the day, for the classes that are realistic for us over the next few years.
 

After spending some time researching the definition of "100% wrong", I had another thought.Although there was no correlation between recruiting rankings and head-to-head games in the B1G during the past 2-years for those in the 20-50 ranking range (see post #194), maybe it still had a correlation on their overall B1G record? Tougher to evaluate as it isn't all common opponents, but worth a look.
IMG_3447.jpg

The data seems to suggest that the overall B1G record also had no correlation to the recruiting ranking for these teams “in the middle”. At least not over the past 2-years. I’ll keep searching for some correlation.

Finally, per request, I added a column to the table that shows the “Talent Ranking” versus the 5-Year Average Recruiting Ranking. I will admit that with the exception of MD that the numbers don’t change a lot. However, in both years sampled it would change the order of the teams evaluated and therefore one would have to conclude that it is not valid to use Talent Rankings in a debate revolving around Recruiting Rankings and the win % of higher vs lower ranked teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

It would also be helpful if 247 had accurate data when we’re parsing talent rankings and comparing decimal places. Close enough for government work, I suppose.
 

Face The Facts said:
I know this is a fun argument for everyone and it's easy to debate because of the lack of definition and the variables.

A couple things are apparent in my view and I'll make these points with broader statements that generally would apply.

1. A class in the 30's is better than a class in the 40s.
2. If I have glaring needs, I'd sooner have a class in the 40's that covers those needs, than a class in the 30s which is weak in that area.
3. A class in the the top 10 is better than a class in 30-40 range by a greater margin than a class in the 20-30 range is better than a class in the 50-60 range.
4. A class ranked 32nd with a 5 star QB (who stays and meets expectations) is more valuable than a class ranked 22th with a 3 star QB.
5. I'd prefer a class in the 50's where 20 of the 25 players stay with the team for 4 years over a class in the 20's where only 6 players stay the 4 years.
6. Class in the 30-60 range can probably be coached up well enough to beat top 25 teams 1 out of 3 times, but not likely to win a National Title. But classes that average 60-100 can be coached up, but will only beat top 25 teams maybe 1 out of 10 tries.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points above.
Click to expand...

I'd add that a recruit only pans out if they can stay out of trouble and keep their grades up. The star-ranking doesn't include any metrics along those lines. If a kid drops out (for whatever reason) they aren't going to help your team. At times in recruiting there's a direct trade-off: take the great athlete that comes with questionable character and grades and hope you can help him make it; or the lesser athlete that you're confident will be around for their senior year.
 

Here's a thought: it would be fun to see a ranking system that ranked recruiting classes based on how well they filled a team's needs. admittedly, this would take a lot of work, but it would be interesting. '

For example, if team A has a major need for OL talent, but their highest OL recruit is a low 3-star, that would knock them down in the "need" evaluation - regardless of the overall ranking. Likewise, if team B had a major need for RB's, and landed 2 4-star recruits, their "need" ranking would improve, regardless of the overall ranking.

Because that is what really matters. If a team pulls in several 4-star or even 5-star players, but they don't address a position of need, it may be a highly-ranked class, but not an effective class if it doesn't meet the team's needs.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom