[Husker] *Matt Hayes* discovers discrepencies between recruiting rankings and results

[Mike Jaixen]

It would have had additional merit if it went further back in time:  at least seven years, and preferably 10 years, though one could also make the argument that recruiting services weren't as relevent 10 years ago.  Or at least take 2002-2006 recruiting and compare it to 2004-2008 results.

To be sure, Hayes found some correlations between ranking and wins, such as USC.  But there were many exceptions.  Michigan, Florida State, and Miami were teams that recruited well according to the experts, but didn't perform as well on the field.

There are two issues that I have:
(1) Are recruiting rankings accurate?  Compare teams like Missouri to Nebraska.  Rivals said we were more talented than Missouri.
(2) What other factors enter in winning games than just talent?  I'd argue that the 2008 edition of the Huskers might have been slightly less talented on the field than the 2007 edition.  (Linebacker, wide receiver, secondary being key areas.)  I'd argue that the coaching staff in 2008 was overwhelmingly more competent than the previous regime, and I think that was the key reason why Nebraska had so much more success in 2008 thanin 2007.

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Husker] *Matt Hayes* discovers discrepencies between recruiting  rankings and results
To: "Mike Jaixen" <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>, "Huskers List" <husker at tssi.com>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 9:01 AM

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As you might expect, teams like Texas Tech, Missouri, and Kansas came out pretty high on the list.  And Nebraska, Kansas State, and Texas A&M came out near the bottom of the BCS conference teams.
> Mike Jaixen

Thanks, Mike -

This is an interesting article, and it certainly is additional fodder
for sports lists, but its not exactly clear what all of this means.
Rivals was the only ranking service used and billions upon billions of
electrons have been redirected from useful purposes in the debate over
whether Rivals means anything at all.  It would have been a bit more
useful if more than just Rivals had been used.  But a main criticism
of the article is that comparing success of a recruiting class to wins
in the same year is really meaningless, since there is almost always
(not a perfect correlation) a lag of a couple of years before recruits
become juniors and seniors and their true abilities can be seen in
team performance.  A second concern is whether success can only be
measured by number of wins.  We won more games this year than last,
but was that due to the recruits that came in this last year, or the
year before, or the year before that?  I sorta thought it may have had
something to do with how that recruited talent was put into play on
the field, but I could be all wet.

One person commented on that article that journalism and statistics
shouldn't mix.  I'd agree with that.  Just like what Scott Adams said:
"Science is a good thing. News reporters are good things too. But it's
never a good idea to put them in the same room."

Nick
-- 
Cognito Ergo Spud (I think, therefore I yam)
          Anon.