Do Good Recruiting Classes Make a Good Team?
by Buck Bravo on Jan 13, 2010 6:51 AM CST
in Gopher Football
5 comments
Back in October I published an article looking at recruiting class ratings and Big Ten standings. While I don't have the time to conduct a formal statistical analysis, the cumulative effect of recruiting classes definitely influences results on the field.
For this follow-up article, I weighted the recruiting class ratings so that the classes contributing to the roster can be used to predict how a team will finish the season. For example, the 2005-2009 recruiting classes contributed to the 2009 season.
A frequent poster at Gopher Hole who goes by the nickname Schnoodler also did a similar analysis a while back. We use slightly different methodologies, but we both came up results that indicate a strong correlation between recruiting classes and team standings.
First, here are a few graphs that illustrate how Big Ten teams were predicted to finish for 2008 and 2009:
As for comparing these predictions to actual results, I used the Sagarin ratings of the Big Ten teams in 2008 and 2009. Sagarin ratings account for strength of schedule, and prevent teams with cupcake schedules from unfairly benefiting from easy wins. Here's how the Big Ten teams stacked up versus the predicted rankings:
Illinois finished 5 spots below what was predicted for 2009, and Michigan bombed out in both 2008 and 2009. Michigan fans attribute this phenomenon to Rich Rodriguez's rebuilding process. Northwestern has performed significantly better than expectations in both years. Otherwise, every team finished within a spot or two of their predicted rank.
As Barry Switzer once said, "It's not about the X's and the O's. It's about the Johnnies and the Joes." Coaching can make a difference, but generally not much. And yes, I'm aware that a few teams such as Boise State have great coaching and posted excellent records. Those teams are the exception to the rule, not the rule. Additionally, look at Boise State's schedule and you'll see that the only two real challenges that they faced all season were from Oregon at home to open the season and from TCU, another team that posted a great record by feasting on cupcakes.
Once the 2010 recruiting classes have been signed, I'll post my predictions for next season. Stay tuned.
0 recs |
5 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Michigan’s low showing isn’t just the system change but attrition. They ran a series on retaining recruiting stars through their college career over on an mgodiary. Interesting look from a Michigan prospective at least.
Boils down to the Wolverines only retaining about 58% of their players.
The yellow is recruited players, blue is the number of players still on the roster as of mid season. You can see a lot of the upperclassmen left.
I only bring this up because, and I could be absolutely incorrect in this, but I thought the Gophers suffered quite a bit of attrition previous to the Brewster hire. I’d be interested to see the rankings done in terms of talent still on the team as well, and perhaps in terms of class depth.
Just a thought.
by formerlyanonymous on Jan 13, 2010 8:05 AM CST reply actions
I meant for that to be only one graph and not take up so much space, sorry.
by formerlyanonymous on Jan 13, 2010 8:06 AM CST reply actions
Great graphs and great information. Exactly the type of conversation I like to have for articles like this one.
Buck Bravo
by Buck Bravo on Jan 13, 2010 8:11 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
It's not about the X's and the O's. It's about the Johnnies and the Joes
I’m not sure I fully agree that coaching doesn’t matter much. The X’s and O’s of coaching may not be as important as they are perceived to be, but I still think that you need great coaching to get the best out of the players that you have. In fact, that is my biggest gripe with Brewster and his staff. I’m not so concerned that they seem to have poorly developed gameplans, as much as I am that they don’t seem to improve their players from year to year. A coach who can recruit and “coach up” his players, will more likely be able to overcome deficiencies in playcalling. At least, that’s my take based on what I’m seeing here.
Dave MN
I think the best programs – Ohio State, Penn State, and yes, recently Iowa – marry the goals of high quality athletes that fit their scheme, along with continuity in the players and the coaching ranks, and a majority of key players that stay in the program for 4-5 years.
Look at Minnesota – there is a higher level of athlete coming in, albeit in the middle tier of the Big Ten, but there has been reduced continuity of athlete based on the coaching change, and no continuity based on coaching turnover. That explains the inconsistent performance on the field.
Same with Michigan – they regularly get top 10-15 recruiting classes. However, severe attrition from their 2005-2008 classes, along with the turnover in the coaching philosophy, is largely to explain for the team’s severe underperformance in 2008 and 2009 (in 2009, for example, they only had 69 scholarship players, and only 13 juniors and seniors on scholarship.)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
