[Husker] Average 4-year Recruiting Rankings and WL%

[Skylar Dodds]

I've stayed out of this quite a bit, but there are significant correlations between rankings and results.

First and foremost, as Andy pointed out that I had mentioned before, the rankings simply give you probability.  For instance, if you have 100 5-star athletes you'll have on average 40 or 50 all conference performers.  For 100 4-stars, that number drops to 20-30, 3-star... 5, 2-star...1, etc etc.

Given that there are typically only 20 5-stars, 200 4-stars, and thousands of 2 & 3 stars, it's quite easy to find successful 2&3 stars to buck the trend as it is easy to find 5-star busts (in fact draftees and all-conference typically are about 50/50 2&3 vs 4&5... but it's because of numbers).  But that doesn't AT ALL disprove the value of the rankings.

It's been mentioned a lot that a certain school looking at a kid will increase his value is partially true, but only in that it will get the kid more attention and looks and invites to camps to be seen.  He doesn't get an automatic bump, he just gets a closer look (which obviously can result in a bump).

Lastly, and probably the most convincing start of them all for recruiting.  Not one team... Not one has won a BCS title without consistent top 15 recruiting leading up to it.  And most average in the top 10.  That is NOT an accident.  Yes, some teams can vastly outperform their ranking, but there's zero question those are exceptions or outliers.  Boise State had been an example for a while, Kansas State this year, etc.  But make no mistake, there is a strong correlation between recruiting and top 25 finishes, and especially if you want a championship.

--
Skylar

Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's really a chicken/egg argument.  When Alabama recruits a player now, people automatically assume he's pretty darn good, and he earns a higher ranking as a result.  There are numerous instances where the services bump the star ranking for a player once they commit to a known school.  I think a couple of Nebraska's recruits this year have received bumps in star rankings in recent weeks because they committed.  And you can't say that a high school player suddenly got better in December either...
>
>Mike Jaixen
>http://huskermike.blogspot.com
>http://www.cornnation.com
>
>--- On Tue, 1/29/13, Dick Karre <dkarre at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>From: Dick Karre <dkarre at comcast.net>
>Subject: Re: [Husker] Average 4-year Recruiting Rankings and WL%
>To: husker at tssi.com
>Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2013, 1:34 PM
>
>On 1/29/2013 12:24 PM, Kenneth Oliver wrote:
>> Something I read years ago suggested that correlation between recruiting and w/l record was not as expected. Higher recruiting ranks was not well correlated to subsequent higher w/l records.  But a high w/l record was correlated to higher subsequent recruiting rankings. The rich get richer.
>
>And the players recruited by the rich are (perhaps) more highly regarded because they are recruited by the rich.
>
>-- Dick Karre
>dkarre at comcast.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>husker site list
>husker at tssi.com
>http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>_______________________________________________
>husker site list
>husker at tssi.com
>http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker