Recruiting Rank vs. Wins in the BIG

GFBfan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
3,664
Reaction score
1,538
Points
113
Out of curiosity from the Will we stay in the top 40 thread and the discussion between GWG and Spoofin, I did a little research over the past week for all BIG teams and made a spreadsheet.
I used the 247 site to find each schools class rank for the years 2010 to 2018.
I then found the 4 year average of those rankings starting with 2013. So for 2013 I used the rankings from 2010-2013, etc.
I then went and looked at each teams schedule to determine who they beat and lost to and if they were the higher ranked team by recruiting rankings vs. the team they played. I did this for only BIG games.
This is what I found:
A. In all BIG games, the higher average ranked team was 247 and 100 for a 71% win rate

B. OSU was always in the top 10 of recruiting(except for 2010) but their 4 year ave. was always top 10. Excluding their win totals the higher ranked BIG team was 205 and 95 for a 68% win rate.

C. Teams ranked between 21 and 60 during that time were 123 and 65 for a 65% win rate.
This excluded OSU and Mich every year, PSU in 2018 and 2017, Purdue(every year but 2013), Gophers in 2015 and Illinois in 2016.

D. Teams ranked between 21 and 50 during that time were 32 and 23 for a 58% win rate.

Adding Maryland and Rutgers in 2014 and switching to a 9 game conf. schedule in 2016 didn't impact the win % of the higher ranked team much at all.
 

Very cool. Nicely done.

Just wondering ... when Top 20 recruiting teams played each other, what was the winning percentage of the higher-ranked team?

JTG
 

More evidence that having recruiting classes in the 25-50 range pretty much negates the proposed advantage of having a higher rated class, as bandied about by some on here.

Would be that the bulk of the large pool advantage goes to the very high rated teams simply being better than everyone else.

Excellent work!
 

Very nice. The 20 vs 50 class gap was 58% win percentage for the better recruits per this analysis and creeps towards 70% when all teams are included. It stands to reason as the gap shrinks to say, 25 vs 40 it may become close to a coin flip situation.

All of this circles around to the idea that despite improving the class rankings by roughly 20 spots vs the prior regime PJ and the boys will still have to outperform expected wins to win the west and get to the the Big Ten title game, as well as attract even higher ranked classes going forward. It’s a tall task and next season will be pivotal. The team is riding a wave of momentum - yes, I believe in it.
 

Very tall task.

It basically is showing us down the road of a cold, harsh reality: the only way for recruiting to make a significant, game changing impact is to start getting classes in the top 15, maybe top 20. And we can't even begin to do that unless we, at the minimum, have one extraordinary season.

But even look at Iowa after their 2015 season. Granted, they lose the champ game to Mich State, and then lost the Rose Bowl badly, so their 12-0 season ended with a thud at 12-2. But their recruiting I don't believe went up all that much. Looking at 2016 recruiting, they might have moved up a bit, but not anything game changing.
 


Very cool. Nicely done.

Just wondering ... when Top 20 recruiting teams played each other, what was the winning percentage of the higher-ranked team?

JTG

The worst 4 year average for tOSU was 2013 when it came in at 7.75, otherwise they've had a 4 year ave. of better than 5 every year. Mich. best 4 year ave. was 2013 at 14.25 and it has gone up slightly each year since. OSU has dominated that series since 2013. PSU has gotten back into the Top 20 with their 4 year ave. 18.25 in 17 and 13.75 last year. So the record of Top 20 match ups is 8 and 2 for the higher ranked team thanks to Jimbo not having a clue on how to beat the Buckeyes.
 

I know I'm taking a huge, massive leap here ....... but essentially, all arguments over recruiting rankings basically boil down to a fact that people either accept or deny: a very few teams skew the positive benefits of having a higher ranked recruiting class, way out of proportion. Far beyond what most people realize.
 

Out of curiosity from the Will we stay in the top 40 thread and the discussion between GWG and Spoofin....

D. Teams ranked between 21 and 50 during that time were 32 and 23 for a 58% win rate.

Thanks GFBfan for the work. 58% is higher than I saw in ‘17 & ‘18, but I used a different average (5-years vs 4), and more importantly you used a much larger sample size (55 games vs 12). Well Done!

Either way I feel pretty vindicated and am looking for my apology from both GWG and DPO for the rude dismissal of my theory and claim that I had been proven “100% Wrong” over and over. Turns out I never was. Ha. Speaking of GWG, has anyone checked on him?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Very nice. The 20 vs 50 class gap was 58% win percentage for the better recruits per this analysis and creeps towards 70% when all teams are included. It stands to reason as the gap shrinks to say, 25 vs 40 it may become close to a coin flip situation.

All of this circles around to the idea that despite improving the class rankings by roughly 20 spots vs the prior regime PJ and the boys will still have to outperform expected wins to win the west and get to the the Big Ten title game, as well as attract even higher ranked classes going forward. It’s a tall task and next season will be pivotal. The team is riding a wave of momentum - yes, I believe in it.

Really comes down to a staff's ability to find talented players who really fit their schemes and then develop and coach them like hell to unlock that talent.
 



Thanks GFBfan for the work. 58% is higher than I saw in ‘17 & ‘18, but I used a different average (5-years vs 4), and more importantly you used a much larger sample size (55 games vs 12). Well Done!

Either way I feel pretty vindicated and am looking for my apology from both GWG and DPO for the rude dismissal of my theory and claim that I had been proven “100% Wrong” over and over. Turns out I never was. Ha. Speaking of GWG, has anyone checked on him?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think he's been using his JG account more lately when posting...:rolleyes:
 

Really comes down to a staff's ability to find talented players who really fit their schemes and then develop and coach them like hell to unlock that talent.

So nice to finally have a rational discussion on this board in regards to rankings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Really comes down to a staff's ability to find talented players who really fit their schemes and then develop and coach them like hell to unlock that talent.

This gets repeated over and over but it’s really not true and largely an excuse for recruiting average players. Carter Coughlin and Antoine Winfield would fit anyone’s scheme. So would Bateman. And Faalele and Dunlap. And Rodney Smith. Etc etc
 

This gets repeated over and over but it’s really not true and largely an excuse for recruiting average players. Carter Coughlin and Antoine Winfield would fit anyone’s scheme. So would Bateman. And Faalele and Dunlap. And Rodney Smith. Etc etc

How about guys like Winston D. or Kamal Martin though?
 



How about guys like Winston D. or Kamal Martin though?

Maybe... describe their role in our scheme? Martin is a LB that plays primarily on passing downs. I guess you could say he's a "specialist," but doesn't every team recruit LBs that can play on 3rd and 8?

I'm a believer that coaches will blow up their "scheme" for really good players. Coughlin is example 1a. Fleck ideally wants to play a 4-3 with DEs that are big, can rush the passer and contain the edge. Eventually that will be guys like Otomewo and Mafe. The staff basically created a special role for CC because he's a baller and our best pass rusher. Carter playing rush DE doesn't fit their scheme. They created the role for him.

Think Clemson. Or Alabama. You could say they have historically had mobile QBs who could beat you with their legs like Jalen Hurts, Kelly Bryant, Deshaun Watson, etc. This year they had Trevor Lawrence and Tua. They changed schemes and primarily threw the ball out of the pocket because they were able to successfully recruit incredible QBs. Every school in America would blow up their scheme to land Lawrence. Every Gopher coach in history would love to have Bateman, even when we didn't have a downfield passing attack. They would have adapted and tried to find a way to get him the ball.
 

More evidence that having recruiting classes in the 25-50 range pretty much negates the proposed advantage of having a higher rated class, as bandied about by some on here.

Would be that the bulk of the large pool advantage goes to the very high rated teams simply being better than everyone else.

Excellent work!

That's actually the exact opposite of what his numbers are showing. Higher ranked teams win 71% of the time when using all of the data. And even when evaluating teams that are 20-50, the higher ranked team wins 58% of the time. I would assume that is statistically significant.
 

Thanks GFBfan for the work. 58% is higher than I saw in ‘17 & ‘18, but I used a different average (5-years vs 4), and more importantly you used a much larger sample size (55 games vs 12). Well Done!

Either way I feel pretty vindicated and am looking for my apology from both GWG and DPO for the rude dismissal of my theory and claim that I had been proven “100% Wrong” over and over. Turns out I never was. Ha. Speaking of GWG, has anyone checked on him?

Vindicated? You used 12 games over a 2 year period, a microscopic and cherry picked sample size. This again shows your inability to understand the recruiting ranking statistics, and what I've been saying all along.

GBFan's work (well done) shows that in your class range using your rankings, the team with the higher average ranking still has a 58% chance to win, compared to a 42% chance for the lower ranked team.

Yet you feel vindicated and owed an apology? GBFan just proved you are still 100% wrong. Really can't make it up....
 

Vindicated? You used 12 games over a 2 year period, a microscopic and cherry picked sample size. This again shows your inability to understand the recruiting ranking statistics, and what I've been saying all along.

GBFan's work (well done) shows that in your class range using your rankings, the team with the higher average ranking still has a 58% chance to win, compared to a 42% chance for the lower ranked team.

Yet you feel vindicated and owed an apology? GBFan just proved you are still 100% wrong. Really can't make it up....

Yeah, I don't know what they think they proved. If I could go to Vegas and place a wager on a game without knowing anything about the teams, records, who is home/away, injured, etc and I was right 58% of the time by recruiting rankings, that's a pretty positive statistical indicator.
 

Well done GBFan.

It got more challenging with Brohm and Frost in the Big West. Ferentz and Fitz can tell you how much of a challenge it is even before the arrival of Fleck, Brohm, and Frost.

The Gophers need to get game changing talent and more of it every recruiting cycle.

I am looking forward to see how the 2019 class work out especially Jacob Clark.
 
Last edited:

That's actually the exact opposite of what his numbers are showing. Higher ranked teams win 71% of the time when using all of the data. And even when evaluating teams that are 20-50, the higher ranked team wins 58% of the time. I would assume that is statistically significant.

Rutgers first two years in the conf. had a 4 year ave. of 39 in 2014 and 45.75 in 2015 yet they won very few conf. games, which somewhat skews the 20 to 50 results overall. It would reduce the higher ranked teams wins by 8 because of those first two years in the conf for Rutgers and would reduce the lower ranked teams wins by only 1. That would put 24 wins for higher ranked teams and 22 wins for the lower ranked teams in match ups involving teams ranked 21 to 50 not named Rutgers.
 
Last edited:

Rutgers first two years in the conf. had a 4 year ave. of 39 in 2014 and 45.75 in 2015 yet they won very few conf. games, which somewhat skews the 20 to 50 results overall. It would reduce the higher ranked teams wins by 8 because of those first two years in the conf for Rutgers and would reduce the lower ranked teams wins by only 1. That would put 24 wins for higher ranked teams and 22 wins for the lower ranked teams in match ups involving teams ranked 21 to 50 not named Rutgers.

Why would you remove Rutgers from the analysis? That seems pretty arbitrary. Why not throw out Wisconsin while you’re at it if you’re looking for outliers.
 

Really comes down to a staff's ability to find talented players who really fit their schemes and then develop and coach them like hell to unlock that talent.

Yep, PJ and his staff have to be able to overachieve their rankings or we’ll be running on a treadmill. This has pretty much been the question on PJ since he was hired from the MAC into the big time - can he select and coach up his players to compete with the blue bloods and the next tier down like Wisconsin since he won’t be able to recruit like a blue blood. So far, so good on Wisconsin. Next season need to get more consistent on covering spreads and winning games we ought to.
 

That's actually the exact opposite of what his numbers are showing. Higher ranked teams win 71% of the time when using all of the data. And even when evaluating teams that are 20-50, the higher ranked team wins 58% of the time. I would assume that is statistically significant.

It shows that if, for example we have the #40 class and Illinois has the #45 class ... we DON’T have a 7x% chance of beating them, much closer to 5x%.
 

Vindicated? <b>You used 12 games over a 2 year period, a microscopic and cherry picked sample size. </b>This again shows your inability to understand the recruiting ranking statistics, and what I've been saying all along.

GBFan's work (well done) shows that in your class range using your rankings, the team with the higher average ranking still has a 58% chance to win, compared to a 42% chance for the lower ranked team.

Yet you feel vindicated and owed an apology? GBFan just proved you are still 100% wrong. Really can't make it up....

Too good. In the same thread I used 2-years / 12-games of data (the only games that met the criteria) you picked 5-games, from 1-team (MN), over 1-year (2018), chose a different measure (Talent Rankings), then sarcastically stated, “I supposed that is just a coincidence” (chuckle, fist pump, etc.). Hypocrite (Capital H intended).

Vindicated - Yep. You bet. For years I have said to throw out the 4/5 star teams at the top and the 2 star teams at the bottom and your rankings mean nothing. For years, without proving otherwise, you just kept claiming you did. Well, now I know why you didn’t. If I made any mistake it was that I was a bit aggressive with the chosen range - 20-50 was somewhat random and maybe I should have said 25-50, maybe 20-45, who knows exactly, but other than you and JG everyone else sees what this data is pointing toward.

TBH, I didn’t expect an apology - I expected denial, a pivot, and some random diversion response which is what I got. It is almost better that way as we both know the score here. <b>Spoofin: 1, GWG: 0. </b>

Also, in that other thread I used data to prove why Talent Rankings can’t be used in a debate about higher/lower Recruiting Ranked teams. Another thing you were wrong about. <b>Spoofin: 2, GWG: 0. </b>


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I'm getting really confused.

Just so I'm clear - the team with the most points at the end of the game still wins, right? regardless of their recruiting ranking, talent ranking, or any other sort of ranking?

If there were no other factors, and recruiting ranking was the only variable, there would be no point in playing the games.

And, if you're a Gopher fan, there would be very little reason to think the Gophers will move up the conference standings, given the current recruiting rankings.

So, no matter how hard any of you try to prove you're right - the real truth is that the Gopher coaches had better be able to "over-coach" their recruiting rankings - or they're going to have to start bringing in a much higher caliber of recruits. Otherwise, the numbers tell the story, and the story is not pleasant.
 

Too good. In the same thread I used 2-years / 12-games of data (the only games that met the criteria) you picked 5-games, from 1-team (MN), over 1-year (2018), chose a different measure (Talent Rankings), then sarcastically stated, “I supposed that is just a coincidence” (chuckle, fist pump, etc.). Hypocrite (Capital H intended).

Vindicated - Yep. You bet. For years I have said to throw out the 4/5 star teams at the top and the 2 star teams at the bottom and your rankings mean nothing. For years, without proving otherwise, you just kept claiming you did. Well, now I know why you didn’t. If I made any mistake it was that I was a bit aggressive with the chosen range - 20-50 was somewhat random and maybe I should have said 25-50, maybe 20-45, who knows exactly, but other than you and JG everyone else sees what this data is pointing toward.

TBH, I didn’t expect an apology - I expected denial, a pivot, and some random diversion response which is what I got. It is almost better that way as we both know the score here. <b>Spoofin: 1, GWG: 0. </b>

Also, in that other thread I used data to prove why Talent Rankings can’t be used in a debate about higher/lower Recruiting Ranked teams. Another thing you were wrong about. <b>Spoofin: 2, GWG: 0. </b>


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's funny is that you think 58% is the same as 50%. That difference is one full win, on average, every single year. But yes, keep burying your head in the sand and thinking you're right.
 


Rutgers first two years in the conf. had a 4 year ave. of 39 in 2014 and 45.75 in 2015 yet they won very few conf. games, which somewhat skews the 20 to 50 results overall. It would reduce the higher ranked teams wins by 8 because of those first two years in the conf for Rutgers and would reduce the lower ranked teams wins by only 1. That would put 24 wins for higher ranked teams and 22 wins for the lower ranked teams in match ups involving teams ranked 21 to 50 not named Rutgers.

GFBfan
Thanks for the hard work. However, hate to be a d!ck [emoji51] but you can’t take the mean of an ordinal numbering system and make statistical comparisons with it. In other words the difference between the 3rd and 4th ranked teams in not likely to be the same as the difference between the 27th and 28th ranked teams. Further the difference between teams 27 and 28 in successive years is extremely unlikely to be the same. There are incredibly complex statistical methodologies to compare data in these systems but they’re a pain.

One might say you could compare recruiting points per 247 as they appear to be data of an interval type but I’m not even sure that true. Is the difference between a player rated 0.8566 and a player ranked 0.8666 the same as the difference between players rated 0.9777 and 0.9877?

Now my head hurts from old bits of statistics class on the West Bank forcing their way into my thoughts. Sorry- I do appreciate your efforts though and reading the resultant GWG-Spoofin match is always entertaining.

Maybe we could all contribute $ to Gopher Hole to hire a statistician to help us in our quest for true knowledge.[emoji16][emoji6]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


GFBfan
Thanks for the hard work. However, hate to be a d!ck [emoji51] but you can’t take the mean of an ordinal numbering system and make statistical comparisons with it. In other words the difference between the 3rd and 4th ranked teams in not likely to be the same as the difference between the 27th and 28th ranked teams. Further the difference between teams 27 and 28 in successive years is extremely unlikely to be the same. There are incredibly complex statistical methodologies to compare data in these systems but they’re a pain.

One might say you could compare recruiting points per 247 as they appear to be data of an interval type but I’m not even sure that true. Is the difference between a player rated 0.8566 and a player ranked 0.8666 the same as the difference between players rated 0.9777 and 0.9877?

Now my head hurts from old bits of statistics class on the West Bank forcing their way into my thoughts. Sorry- I do appreciate your efforts though and reading the resultant GWG-Spoofin match is always entertaining.

Maybe we could all contribute $ to Gopher Hole to hire a statistician to help us in our quest for true knowledge.[emoji16][emoji6]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re right but when the argument revolves around the blunted edge of “247 composite rankings #1-130” vs simple winning percentages then cave man calculations can be made restrospectively on how often eg the 30th ranked team defeats the 40th ranked team. Real statistics guys like Connelly incorporate a mixture of Rivals and 247 composite 5 year rankings in their (ever shifting) predictive formulas and rankings - based on that alone they appear to have some predictive merit and must test out retrospectively.
 

What's funny is that you think 58% is the same as 50%. That difference is one full win, on average, every single year. But yes, <b>keep burying your head in the sand </b>and thinking you're right.

I’m not the only one who has already commented on what the data is indicating.
It doesn’t take a genius to see it - just someone willing to look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




Top Bottom