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

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
I know you’re being sarcastic but you’re right - Iowa and Wisconsin have been outliers in terms over outperforming their recruiting rankings over the years, particularly Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being sarcastic, because I wasn't talking about recruiting rankings .... the phrase I replied to was specifically "level of winning".

Iowa, less so but still decently, and Wisconsin particularly (other than a few blips), do a fair amount of winning, and it doesn't seem their overall situations are so much different than the U of Minn so as that we wouldn't be able to achieve the same. If Iowa can do it, if Wisconsin can do it ... Minnesota can do it.
 

John Galt said:
Recruiting rankings are a great correlator to on-field success, but fall short in 2 important ways:

1. The arbitrary nature of when a team is ranked. We assign a ranking to the Gophers and every other team on national signing day in February, but the rankings would move considerably if we evaluated teams based on who was actually eligible in August, still on the team after year 1, year 2, etc. Our 2017 class was ranked #12 in the B1G and 59th overall on signing day. We lost 2 of our top 4 recruits after year 1 (KHH and Adam Beck), so the ranking would have dropped considerably and wouldn't be accurate after one year's worth of attrition. Every team goes through this, but it impacts teams differently. Brewster probably would have never had a class in the top 30 if you measured who was eligible in August.

2. Transfers aren't accounted for in rankings. OJ Smith and Williamson were key contributors this year. Hopefully Grimes and Dew-Treadway are in the future. Yet there is no way to capture this in the rankings.
Click to expand...

Yes ... but the counter-argument to that goes something like this: every fall you're allowed to have 25 new players on the roster who are receiving a scholarship, ie "initial counters". If you multiply 25 by 5 ... well obviously that is 125 and way over the 85 total limit. So attrition is a known thing that always happens in college football, to every team. It has to. Therefore, if you average that out for every team, then it somewhat invalidates your argument that players leaving and transferring around can more negatively affect some teams and less negatively affect others. There are always exceptions, of course.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I wasn't being sarcastic, because I wasn't talking about recruiting rankings .... the phrase I replied to was specifically "level of winning".

Iowa, less so but still decently, and Wisconsin particularly (other than a few blips), do a fair amount of winning, and it doesn't seem their overall situations are so much different than the U of Minn so as that we wouldn't be able to achieve the same. If Iowa can do it, if Wisconsin can do it ... Minnesota can do it.
Click to expand...

You asked what we need to get to that level of winning, in the context of replying to a recruiting rankings post. Ergo, my assumption was you’re asking if we need top 25 or 30 classes, neither of which Iowa or Wisconsin has consistently attained - yet have ended up in the top 25 rankings.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You asked what we need to get to that level of winning, in the context of replying to a recruiting rankings post. Ergo, my assumption was you’re asking if we need top 25 or 30 classes, neither of which Iowa or Wisconsin has consistently attained - yet have ended up in the top 25 rankings.
Click to expand...

Your point is fine!

I was asking what "level of winning" meant in the context of the statment "if he can have classes in the 35-45 range, that's all the talent needed to elevate the program to the next level of winning".
 



UpAndUnder43 said:
This should help! Williamson and Nubin now 4 stars.

https://247sports.com/Article/Two-Minnesota-signees-climb-the-rankings--128246025/
Click to expand...

Good for them! I think that's a great honor to be thought of so highly.

And I know there are those who say a ranking change has nothing to do with suddenly making them better players. And that's true. But I also believe that appearances matter. Recruits know if good players are looking at a certain school, and I suspect they're tempted to look more closely at a school that is attracting talent.

If I'm buying a new home, and I drive to one open house that is filled with people, and then drive to another open house that doesn't have anybody, I know which house I think is better.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Yes ... but the counter-argument to that goes something like this: every fall you're allowed to have 25 new players on the roster who are receiving a scholarship, ie "initial counters". If you multiply 25 by 5 ... well obviously that is 125 and way over the 85 total limit. So attrition is a known thing that always happens in college football, to every team. It has to. Therefore, if you average that out for every team, then it somewhat invalidates your argument that players leaving and transferring around can more negatively affect some teams and less negatively affect others. There are always exceptions, of course.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it affects every team differently. Why would I average it out for every team when some teams consistently have higher attrition rates? If Team A is consistently ranked around #30 but tends to have high player retention, and Team B is consistently ranked around #20 but loses a lot more kids due to transferring, academics, etc, it wouldn't be that surprising for Team A to be better than team B.
 

John Galt said:
Like I said, it affects every team differently. Why would I average it out for every team when some teams consistently have higher attrition rates? If Team A is consistently ranked around #30 but tends to have high player retention, and Team B is consistently ranked around #20 but loses a lot more kids due to transferring, academics, etc, it wouldn't be that surprising for Team A to be better than team B.
Click to expand...

Rankings #20 vs #30 as far as rooting rankings could be very pretty close.

As for attrition, you're still crooting guys who get #20 to replace them and attrition is generally guys not starting (not that many full time starters transfer who are likely to start the next year). Coaching and etc to bring out that ranking potential come into play.

I'm not sure with a 20 to 30 comparison that your theory really works. Too close, too many other factors. And I say that as a guy who is in the camp of "crooting rankings do matter".
 

John Galt said:
Like I said, it affects every team differently. Why would I average it out for every team when some teams consistently have higher attrition rates? If Team A is consistently ranked around #30 but tends to have high player retention, and Team B is consistently ranked around #20 but loses a lot more kids due to transferring, academics, etc, it wouldn't be that surprising for Team A to be better than team B.
Click to expand...

By does that actually happen??
 



I think (?) there is a general consensus that higher-rated recruiting classes are preferable to lower-rated classes.

The sticking point is where you draw the line?

if the Gophers had (let's say) the #20 recruiting class in the Country for 5 years in a row, how much better would they be as opposed to having the #30 recruiting class 5 years in a row? would that be worth 1 more win? 2 more wins? Or, what about #20 versus #40?

it's hard to quantify just how much of a difference it makes in the teams' actual performance.

Again, by the eye test, the Gophers seem to be bringing in a better caliber of recruits. But, the team ranking is not showing a big spike. Could that be because other teams in the B1G have also elevated their recruiting? Are we seeing a "ratings creep" effect, where a high 3-star player today is just better than a high 3-star player 10 years ago?
 



JG is right. Even 247 agrees. They came up with a whole different system to try and address those large flaws in the team recruiting ranking system. The talent ranking is certainly better, but still doesn’t consider many other factors already mentioned that I believe are what separates #20/#30/#40.....

BTW - telling me the higher talent ranking team wins 75% of the games does little to nothing in proving recruiting rankings. No matter how many times a certain poster claims this is proof. If 247 wanted to be fully transparent they would publish what the record of the higher <b>recruiting</b> ranked team is when both teams playing are between a subset range (ex:20-50) and not what the record is for the higher talent ranking team is in all games played - including all the NC games when the powerhouses play The Citadel or the conference games when tOSU plays Rutgers, etc.

At the end of the day I think it is obvious PJ is a better recruiter than we have had. I couldn’t care less what the ranking is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Isn't the real question if the Gophers recruiting ranking can stay in the top 40? Wasn't that the reason for the OP?

If not - then what?
 

scools12 said:
Isn't the real question if the Gophers recruiting ranking can stay in the top 40? Wasn't that the reason for the OP?

If not - then what?
Click to expand...

Can it? Sure. Will it? Maybe 50% chance. What does that mean? Who knows.
 

John Galt said:
How can it not?
Click to expand...

You were very specific, team #30 keeping more players, team #20 losing more players. Do you have examples?

In the less specific sense -- yes of course it does happen .... to *some* degree. That is my point. If the degree is relatively small (small variation across teams), it weakens the argument in general.
 

Spoofin said:
JG is right. Even 247 agrees. They came up with a whole different system to try and address those large flaws in the team recruiting ranking system. The talent ranking is certainly better, but still doesn’t consider many other factors already mentioned that I believe are what separates #20/#30/#40.....

BTW - telling me the higher talent ranking team wins 75% of the games does little to nothing in proving recruiting rankings. No matter how many times a certain poster claims this is proof. If 247 wanted to be fully transparent they would publish what the record of the higher <b>recruiting</b> ranked team is when both teams playing are between a subset range (ex:20-50) and not what the record is for the higher talent ranking team is in all games played - including all the NC games when the powerhouses play The Citadel or the conference games when tOSU plays Rutgers, etc.

At the end of the day I think it is obvious PJ is a better recruiter than we have had. I couldn’t care less what the ranking is.
Click to expand...

Must be just a strange coincidence then right? Is that what you're going with? How does a team get better talent based on recruiting rankings? Couldn't be with lower ranked classes could it?
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Must be just a strange coincidence then right? Is that what you're going with? How does a team get better talent based on recruiting rankings? Couldn't be with lower ranked classes could it?
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point I am making. Likely intentionally. I hope so. Have a great day GWG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Urbandale said:
Good for them! I think that's a great honor to be thought of so highly.

And I know there are those who say a ranking change has nothing to do with suddenly making them better players. And that's true. But I also believe that appearances matter. Recruits know if good players are looking at a certain school, and I suspect they're tempted to look more closely at a school that is attracting talent.

If I'm buying a new home, and I drive to one open house that is filled with people, and then drive to another open house that doesn't have anybody, I know which house I think is better.
Click to expand...

Composite 3 stars. 247 has their rating at 90 for each but Rivals and ESPN either failed to bump them or haven’t done so yet. In any event, nice to see.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Must be just a strange coincidence then right? Is that what you're going with? How does a team get better talent based on recruiting rankings? Couldn't be with lower ranked classes could it?
Click to expand...

There should be a way to calculate winning percentage data sets of teams with 5 yr recruiting rank of for example 25 vs 40.

Of course teams in the top 10 recruiting rankings will run off FCS and G5 teams and slant the data. Let’s limit the data to see the correlation value of more closely matched Power 5 teams. Has anyone done this?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
There should be a way to calculate winning percentage data sets of teams with 5 yr recruiting rank of for example 25 vs 40.

Of course teams in the top 10 recruiting rankings will run off FCS and G5 teams and slant the data. Let’s limit the data to see the correlation value of more closely matched Power 5 teams. Has anyone done this?
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to give it a shot if I could find data sources. Does 247 provide a spreadsheet or database of their team rankings? I'm sure I can find a source for FBS wins somewhere? Wouldn't this also need to be augmented by strength of schedule in some fashion?
 

swelna said:
I'd be willing to give it a shot if I could find data sources. Does 247 provide a spreadsheet or database of their team rankings? I'm sure I can find a source for FBS wins somewhere? Wouldn't this also need to be augmented by strength of schedule in some fashion?
Click to expand...

I’d limit it to conference play only.
 

Spoofin said:
You continue to miss the point I am making. Likely intentionally. I hope so. Have a great day GWG.


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

You're not making one. Just trying to cherry pick to fit your narrative, yet are too lazy to actually do the analysis.
 

Word said:
Can it? Sure. Will it? Maybe 50% chance. What does that mean? Who knows.
Click to expand...

But we need to know.

If the ranking drops below #40 do we panic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
You're not making one. Just trying to cherry pick to fit your narrative, yet are too lazy to actually do the analysis.
Click to expand...

This response is weak, even for you.

We both know I’m not cherry picking anything and have been consistent for years. I am asking about a relevant subset of data (20-50) within the topic of discussion (recruiting rankings). It would be cherry picking to use a different set of data (talent Rankings), claim they are basically the same (why do you think 247 created this?), and include the annual tOSU drubbing of Kent State (along with hundreds of similar contests) in the data set to secure the desired result. You know, exactly what 247 did and for years you have said is the proof presented to me so many times by so many.

It’s almost as if there is a reason valid Scientific studies are conducted by independent sources and not by the folks whose income depends on the results.

If I knew were to collect all this data I would be happy to give the analysis a shot. I only ask for it as someone keeps telling me they have already proven my theory wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
This response is weak, even for you.

We both know I’m not cherry picking anything and have been consistent for years. I am asking about a relevant subset of data (20-50) within the topic of discussion (recruiting rankings). It would be cherry picking to use a different set of data (talent Rankings), claim they are basically the same (why do you think 247 created this?), and include the annual tOSU drubbing of Kent State (along with hundreds of similar contests) in the data set to secure the desired result. You know, exactly what 247 did and for years you have said is the proof presented to me so many times by so many.

It’s almost as if there is a reason valid Scientific studies are conducted by independent sources and not by the folks whose income depends on the results.

If I knew were to collect all this data I would be happy to give the analysis a shot. I only ask for it as someone keeps telling me they have already proven my theory wrong.


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

Again, 247s team talent is based on recruiting rankings, something you refuse to acknowledge. Picking the 20-50 range is cherry picking. The Gophers were ranked 48 and played 6 teams in that range this year, meaning they played 7 outside of that range. Why eliminate 7 games?

Of those 6 teams they played in the 20-50 range, 5 of them were ranked higher than the Gophers. What was our record? 1-4. The other team was Georgia Tech ranked at 50, who we easily beat. No correlation there though right?

Looking at the rest of the games, the Gophers were 5-1 against teams ranked lower than 50, and 0-1 against teams ranked higher than 20.

And what valid independent scientific studies are you talking about? The ones that time and again prove that recruiting rankings matter? As for finding the data, you can't be serious right? You can't find recruiting rankings and a W/L record on the internet? Another lazy excuse.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Again, 247s team talent is based on recruiting rankings, something you refuse to acknowledge. Picking the 20-50 range is cherry picking. The Gophers were ranked 48 and played 6 teams in that range this year, meaning they played 7 outside of that range. Why eliminate 7 games?

Of those 6 teams they played in the 20-50 range, 5 of them were ranked higher than the Gophers. What was our record? 1-4. The other team was Georgia Tech ranked at 50, who we easily beat. No correlation there though right?

Looking at the rest of the games, the Gophers were 5-1 against teams ranked lower than 50, and 0-1 against teams ranked higher than 20.

And what valid independent scientific studies are you talking about? The ones that time and again prove that recruiting rankings matter? As for finding the data, you can't be serious right? You can't find recruiting rankings and a W/L record on the internet? Another lazy excuse.
Click to expand...

You picked one team and used talent Rankings. That is cherry picking. If I find one ‘outlier’ to your theory will you admit I am right?

Talent Rankings are based on recruiting rankings (when did I deny?) after they remove the biggest flaws in recruiting rankings. Why do they do that? Would Brew’s top class have ranked different between these measurements?

We are not talking W/L records - we are talking head to head. You know that, but hey, you keep being you. You are a very difficult person to have a discussion with when you make up things others have or have not said, pivot whenever needed, and refuse to admit flaws in your own statements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
You picked one team and used talent Rankings. That is cherry picking. If I find one ‘outlier’ to your theory will you admit I am right?

Talent Rankings are based on recruiting rankings (when did I deny?) after they remove the biggest flaws in recruiting rankings. Why do they do that? Would Brew’s top class have ranked different between these measurements?

We are not talking W/L records - we are talking head to head. You know that, but hey, you keep being you. You are a very difficult person to have a discussion with when you make up things others have or have not said, pivot whenever needed, and refuse to admit flaws in your own statements.


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

I picked one team because it took me 30 seconds to do. I've done the entire B1G overall for 3 seasons here, head to head, less talent vs more talent: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?78881-Why-Talent-Recruiting-Rankings-Matter

As far as removing the biggest flaws? What? That players leave or don't make the roster? That happens to every team, every year. The aggregate 4-5 year recruiting class rankings is unlikely to significantly differ from the talent rankings. Don't believe it? Then do the analysis.

But head to head record doesn't involve wins or losses now, is that what you're trying to say? Which made up metric would you like to use to try and prove a point you don't have?
 

If Burns is right and KW doesn't sign, how far do we drop?
 

Spoofin said:
You picked one team and used talent Rankings. That is cherry picking. If I find one ‘outlier’ to your theory will you admit I am right?

Talent Rankings are based on recruiting rankings (when did I deny?) after they remove the biggest flaws in recruiting rankings. Why do they do that? Would Brew’s top class have ranked different between these measurements?

We are not talking W/L records - we are talking head to head. You know that, but hey, you keep being you. You are a very difficult person to have a discussion with when you make up things others have or have not said, pivot whenever needed, and refuse to admit flaws in your own statements.
Click to expand...

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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom