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

[Paul Dalen]

To support Skylar's argument, I put a new post up on huskermath.blogspot.com
.

Enjoy, and GBR.



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Skylar Dodds <sklarbodds at cox.net> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>