Recruiting great is great! Who gets the most out of the talent? (last 3 years)

[GarrettFildman]

I've compiled the 247 recruiting data between the 2013 and 2018 classes and compared the 4-year recruiting class average rankings for each 4-year period corresponding to the classes mostly playing for teams in the last 3 seasons (i.e. 2013-2016 classes are used to evaluate the final AP poll results for the 2016 season, 2014-2017 classes are used for the 2017 season results, 2015-2018 classes are used for the 2018 season results).

The strongest performance in terms of outpacing their recruiting talent on hand are the non-power 5 schools. Specifically,

UCF +114 (increase in AP results from 4-year recruiting class average ranking) finished #6 and #11 despite #66 and #65 ranked 4-year classes in '17 and '18

USF +79 finished #19 and #21 in '16 and '17 despite #56 and #63 ranked 4-year classes

Army +59 finished #19 in '18 despite #78 (of the schools who have been ranked at least once since 2011) ranked 4-year classes

I'm not going to list any other non-power 5 due to not being very relevant except

Notre Dame +5 finished #8, #11, and #5 in '16, '17, and '18 with the #9, #10, and #10 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Best of the power 5 conferences at turning talent into a winner the last 3 years:

Northwestern +62 finished #17 and #21 in '17, and '18 with the #48 and #52 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Wisconsin +56 finished #9 and #7 in '16 and '17 with the #37 and #35 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Colorado +52 although it was only in '16 with the #69 ranked 4-year class resulting in #17 final ranking

Oklahoma St +46 finished #11 and #14 in '16 and '17 with the #34 and #37 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Washington +44 finished #4, #16, and #13 in '16, '17, and '18 with the #27, #28, and #22 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Syracuse +41 but all this year finishing #15 with the #56 ranked 4-year class average

West Virginia +39 finished #18 and #20 in '16 and '18 with the #35 and #42 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Wash St +35 all this past year finishing #10 with the #45 ranked 4-year class

Clemson +28 finished #1, #4, and #1 in '16, '17, and '18 with the #15, #11, and #8 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Oklahoma +28 finished #5, #3, and #4 in '16, '17, and '18 with the #16, #13, and #11 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Utah, TCU, and Kentucky at +24, +23, and +22 all in single years ('16, '17, and '18 respectively)

Virginia Tech +21 finished #16 and #24 in '16 and '17 with the #30 and #31 ranked 4-year classes respectively

Penn St +20 finished #7, #8, and #17 in '16, '17, and '18 with the #21, #19, and #12 ranked 4-year classes respectively (notice the upward trend in talent)

NC St, Iowa, and Louisville round out those that got more out of their talent although each was in just one year ('17, '18, and '16 respectively) with +19, +19, and +17

I'll make another post later about those that squandered their recruited talent and who really blew it (hint lots of SEC and PAC10 teams that recruit well but don't get results but spoiler, Florida State is the absolute worst offender and it isn't even close).

 

[GarrettFildman]

OK, so now for the absolute recruiting sinkholes. These are the places that recruits should be avoiding once they learn how much talent goes there to underperform.

Worst:

Florida St with the #4, #4, and #5 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked each year

UCLA with the #13, #15, and #16 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked each year

Ole Miss with the #11, #17, and #21 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked each year

Oregon with the #19, #21, and #19 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked each year

Tennessee with the #12, #8, and #13 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked except for #22 in '16

South Carolina with the #20, #22, and #20 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked each year

Texas A&M with the #8, #9, and #15 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked except this past year at #16

Texas with the #14, #14, and #9 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked except #9 this past year

Auburn with the #6, #7, and #7 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #24, #10, and unranked

Arkansas and Arizona St finished unranked each year with top 25 talent in 2 of 3 years

USC with the #7, #6, and #4 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #3, #12, and unranked (notice the horrible trend on results)

Georgia with the #5, #5, and #3 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished unranked, #2, and #8

Florida with the #10, #12, and #14 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #14, unranked, and #7

LSU with the #2, #2, and #6 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #13, #18, and #6

Miami with the #18, #20, and #17 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #20, #13, and unranked

Miss St and Nebraska had top 25 talent this past year but did not finish ranked in any of the last 3 years


For those interested, even though I didn't list them as an underperformer because it has only been a slight underperform as the numbers bear out with their talent:

Michigan with the #17, #18, and #18 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #10, unranked, and #14

Ohio St with the #3, #3, and #2 ranked 4-year recruiting classes in '16, 17', and '18 respectively, they finished #6, #5, and #3




​

 

[Nitwit97]

I assume Alabama gets a score of zero. Classes are #1 and they finish there every year.

 

[GarrettFildman]

I assume Alabama gets a score of zero. Classes are #1 and they finish there every year.

Almost, technically a -2. Finished #2 in '16 and '18 with #1 4-year class going back to 2009-2012. So they have had a talent advantage over the entire NCAA since 2012. Their individual 2018 class was #5, 2010 was #4. All the rest were #1. I think USC in the Reggie Bush days were the last to have greater 4-year talent on hand than Alabama in any season.

 

[psu00]

Interesting numbers to see the correlation or non correlation between recruiting classes and final rankings. Appreciate the work it took you to run those numbers for so many teams.

I’m still surprised Miami, Florida St, Texas, and Texas AM keep struggling given their location and recruiting advantages.

UCLA continues to amaze me that they can’t get their act together. In LA with great recruiting territory of California. Their recruiting rankings were pretty good the last 3 years but they continue to seriously underperform.

 

[ralphster]

I will never get why LSU is so successful at recruiting. Poor academic reputation. Crummy area. Hot as Hades. Never really top dog in SEC. Hmmmm.

 

[GarrettFildman]

Interesting numbers to see the correlation or non correlation between recruiting classes and final rankings. Appreciate the work it took you to run those numbers for so many teams.

I’m still surprised Miami, Florida St, Texas, and Texas AM keep struggling given their location and recruiting advantages.

UCLA continues to amaze me that they can’t get their act together. In LA with great recruiting territory of California. Their recruiting rankings were pretty good the last 3 years but they continue to seriously underperform.

Agreed on all observations.

I actually would go further. If I'm a recruit, a parent of a recruit, or a coach, I show the ROI. It's an investment and you better demand a return.

While I don't think that the over-performing non-power 5 schools provide the same return, consistently over-performing power 5 schools will. And these talent sinkholes like FSU, Miami, LSU, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Oregon, Tennessee, and UCLA need to get shunned by recruits, at least those that care about winning.

If I'm a coach, I steer a kid to Washington over UCLA and Oregon. They simply do more with less talent. Clemson deserves the recruits it's getting now because they showed they can win it all with them.

In the B1G, Penn St and Wisconsin are better choices than Ohio St and Michigan in terms of ROI and a chance to play for a title. If Ohio St can only manage a 31-0 loss in 1 appearance in the playoff the last 3 years with talent that only Alabama can match, then how does another 5 star recruit even make a difference there? They've had those players and what was perceived as a top 3 head coach and have consistently shown to be 2nd tier in the last 3 years. Time to see what an overachieving program on the cusp like Penn St or Wisconsin could do with that type of elite talent. We've played them to almost a stalemate for 3 years with much less talent. I'd imagine with equal or better talent, it's lights out.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Sort of discussed previously....

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...ad-worst-coaching-in-fbs.230794/#post-3953183

 

[joeparules]

The only “long-term” outcome that 99% of these kids care about - obviously - is “getting to the $$$$”

NFL Draft picks this century:

OSU 131
Bama 118
Miami 115
LSU 112
USC 110
Florida 110
Florida St 108
Georgia 108


PSU 77



Next?

This is very true, but don't forget many recruits want the $$$$ now in addition to the best shot at $$$$ later in the NFL. Plus this century includes the worst five year span (2000-2004) in 132 years of PSU football AND the second worst sanctions in NCAA history. I will always cheer for programs like Northwestern and Stanford (along with PSU obviously) since they try to win it the "right way". It's no coincidence that the top programs listed are also considered the "dirtiest" among college football.

 

[joeparules]

I don’t know who’s “dirty” or not..... or to what degree..... or even what that entails.....

I was just pointing out that many of the programs that were labeled as “underachieving” happen to be the most proficient at turning out NFL draft picks (something that - obviously - is of primary import to many prospects, for better or worse).

Being an engineer means I enjoy all the data from the OP. The obvious problem with the rankings is that it is difficult to overachieve when you consistently get top 5 recruiting classes (no where to go but down). Sure a program like UCF has greatly overachieved recently, but I'm sure they would trade places with an "under-performer" like O$U in a heartbeat.

Since I am not in the college sports business, I base my opinions on who is "dirty" on articles like this ... https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1000169-5-most-notorious-college-football-programs#slide0 and reports of players receiving cash/cars at programs like Bama. I just don't think it is a coincidence that four of the five programs from the article are also listed in your top eight NFL producers.

 

[Grant Green]

Sort of discussed previously....

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...ad-worst-coaching-in-fbs.230794/#post-3953183

Yeah, no offense to the OP but comparing recruiting ranking to SP+ is a better barometer than using a poll.

 

[GarrettFildman]

The only “long-term” outcome that 99% of these kids care about - obviously - is “getting to the $$$$”

NFL Draft picks this century:

OSU 131
Bama 118
Miami 115
LSU 112
USC 110
Florida 110
Florida St 108
Georgia 108


PSU 77



Next?

Appreciate the stats Normie, very interesting for us middle aged, nostalgic, guys. I was on the road driving 8 hours yesterday to see family and then to my childhood best friend's son's little league game last evening. I have just 2 questions for you about the stats, a response to your other post, and a promise.

1) How is a data set going back before all of the kids being recruited today were even born relevant to them? Any stories about the 1968 Woody Hayes team you'd like to also convey to recruits about winning? Maybe the 2000 draft 7th round long snapper Kevin Houser is not a strong predictor of a 2020 recruiting class 4 or 5 star's chance to make the NFL either.

2) If your stats are accurate, how did Ohio St not get more out of consistently high NFL talent for 20 years compared to teams like Alabama who have absolutely dominated with it? This is an example of why I say Ohio St has underperformed with the talent they bring in. Other teams that have brought in elite talent have been able to dominate for a period of time.

3) Your deflection about measuring "underperforming" by such things as fan following is a sorry attempt to obfuscate legitimate and relevant recruiting ROI results. I suggest not being so butt-hurt that the data shows Ohio St to be a slight underperformer with respect to recruiting talent relative to final polls. Lots of top football schools like LSU, Florida, and Georgia fall into this category. It's OK if Ohio St has slightly underperformed the past 3 seasons. Life goes on man.

4) What IS relevant with respect to NFL drafts are conversion rates. i.e. does a 4 or 5 star player have better odds of going to the NFL from school A or school B. For example, Ohio St had 2 more draft picks this past draft than Washington. So is Ohio St the better route to the NFL? Not when Ohio St had over twice as many 4 stars on their roster than Washington and 10 5-stars while Washington had 0. Washington had a considerably better conversion rate to get talent into the NFL this past year and would have been the better choice for a 4 or 5 star recruit wanting to maximize their chances of making the NFL. My promise is that I'll provide this type of analysis after I return from visiting family. But there is a lot of data to crunch to which I currently do not have access and I'll be with family for a week. I want to go deeper than the superficial and irrelevant snapshots that schools provide to kids but really have no bearing on the actual success odds for recruits in turning their dreams into realities.

 

[GarrettFildman]

I’m sorry..... but I can’t make your brain work better.

Normie, the stats are the stats. Ohio St should do slightly more with the talent they have brought in. This is why Clemson has won 2 of the last 3 championships with much less talent and Alabama has been dominant before that with basically the same talent as Ohio St. This has nothing to do with anyone's brains, it is what the data shows.

Further, if you use your brain, you know that NFL chances of a kid born after 2000 are not impacted by NFL draft results from 2000. Let's be honest in our analysis of the data instead of spinning.

I didn't say Penn St is the best choice to maximize their odds. I have to analyze a ton of data for all power 5 schools before I let the data decide who has been improving 4 and 5 star recruit's chances at the NFL. And even though Penn St was a +20 on recruiting ROI with respect to on the field results (final AP polls) in the last 3 years, some schools like Washington, Clemson, and Oklahoma did better. Yes, Ohio St underperformed slightly. But not nearly as bad as Florida St, Ole Miss, UCLA, Texas A&M and others. Just be honest and let the data give a clear picture of the ROI.

 

[AWS1022]

This is why Clemson has won 2 of the last 3 championships with much less talent

Playing in the pathetic ACC has something to do with that.