3724 users online now!    CONTACT US | ADVERTISE | REGISTER       

About this Page -- This is a discussion on Recruiting Ranking and Results in 3-4 Years Page 4. within the forum Tennessee Vols Recruiting. Biggie ups to RiotVol on all this. ...

Go Back   VolNation > Tennessee Vols Forums > Tennessee Vols Recruiting

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-25-2012, 10:06 AM   #46 (permalink)
Disgusting!
 
kidbourbon's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The District
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 292
Biggie ups to RiotVol on all this.
kidbourbon is offline  
VN Likes: 1
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 12:57 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TrueOrange's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Summer: Chattanooga; School year: St. Louis
Posts: 32,828
Likes: 1,849
The Mr SEC blog, actually, just made a really good article on this topic:

Blue Chip Stories | MrSEC


Quote:
Next Wednesday, one group of SEC fans will celebrate a signing day ďchampionship.Ē* That same evening, a larger group of SEC-backers will claim that recruiting rankings arenít accurate.

Both groups will be right.* Sort of.

In order to get a grip on just how accurate recruiting rankings are when it comes to predicting success in the rough and tumble SEC, we went back through 10 years of signing day grades and rankings.* Then we compared those rankings to the actual on-field results from 2006 through 2011.

We found ó as we have before ó that recruiting rankings do provide a pretty good ballpark indicator of a programís future success.* But they are far from infallible.

As usual, we pored over the rankings as put together by Rivals.com.* Some prefer ESPNUís rankings, others Scout.com and so on.* We like Rivals.* And the data youíll see will explain why.

The general process was as follows:

1.* Tally up the recruiting rankings for all the signing classes that would normally impact a season.* Letís use this past 2011 season as an example.* True freshman signed in í11, sophomores in í10, juniors in í09, seniors in í08, and a few redshirt seniors mightíve still been around from the í07 class.* We used Rivals.comís SEC rankings, 1 through 12.

2.* Add up the SEC records for each program in a given year.* The SEC title game didnít count.* We didnít knock off Alabamaís numbers due to NCAA penalties.* We wanted to know which teams won the most in-league games onlyÖ and we wanted to know who actually won on the field, not who was stripped by the NCAA later.

3.* Finally, we compared the combined recruiting rankings with the SEC records from the season in question.* Pretty simple.

Now, signing classes can be affected ó obviously ó by coaching changes, attrition, injuries, transfers, flunk outs, drop outs, dismissals and the like.* So the system isnít perfect.* But itís close enough to give us an idea of how accurate the recruiting rankings work.

Looking at the recruiting classes from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, hereís what we found when comparing rankings to actual on-field SEC results in the fall of í06:

School 2002 Rank 2003 Rank 2004 Rank 2005 Rank 2006 Rank Combined Recruiting Rank 2006 SEC Record
Georgia 2 3 2 2 2 11 4-4
LSU 5 1 1 6 3 16 6-2
Florida 7 2 3 4 1 17 7-1
Tennessee 1 7 4 1 7 20 5-3
Auburn 3 6 6 3 4 22 6-2
S. Carolina 4 4 9 7 8 32 3-5
Alabama 9 10 5 5 5 34 2-6
Arkansas 8 8 7 8 9 40 7-1
Ole Miss 10 9 8 9 6 42 2-6
Miss. State 6 5 11 10 11 43 1-7
Kentucky 12 11 10 11 10 54 4-4
Vanderbilt 11 12 12 12 12 59 1-7
Okay, right off the bat youíll see that the combined recruiting rankings from í02 through í06 donít provide a perfect team-by-team indicator of success.* Georgia had the five best classes leading up to 2006, yet the Dawgs managed only a 4-4 SEC record.* Arkansas, on the other hand, finished with a 7-1 league mark despite ranking 8th in the SEC for that five-year recruiting window.

Looking at the six seasons from 2006 through 2011, we found that there were always some schools that finished much better or much worse than the recruiting rankings would have suggested.

So recruiting rankings donít work.* Right?* Not exactly.

For kicks we broke the league into fourths.* The idea was to see if recruiting rankings worked on a general basis.* Boy, did they:

The top three teams in recruiting rankings from í02-í06 (Georgia, LSU and Florida) combined for a 17-7 SEC record.* Thatís a winning percentage of .708

The next three teams in the recruiting rankings (Tennessee, Auburn and South Carolina) combined for a 14-10 SEC record.* Thatís a winning percentage of .583.

The next three teams down the list (Alabama, Arkansas, and Ole Miss) notched an 11-13 SEC record.* Thatís a winning percentage of .458.

And the three worst teams in Rivalsí í02 to ď06 recruiting rankings (MSU, Kentucky and Vandy) combined for an 8-24 SEC record.* Thatís a .250 winning percentage.

In other words, recruiting rankings might not tell you exactly how your team will finish in SEC play, but they will give you a pretty good idea.* And we found that to be the case in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Below are the group results for each of those seasons:

2007 Season (2003-2007 recruiting rankings)
1.* Top Three Schools (Florida, LSU, Georgia): 17-7 in SEC, .708
2.* Next Three Schools (Tennessee, Auburn, S. Carolina): 14-10 in SEC, .583
3.* Next Three Schools (Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas): 8-16 in SEC, .333
4.* Bottom Three Schools (MSU, Kentucky, Vanderbilt): 9-15 in SEC, .375

2008 Season (2004-2008 recruiting rankings)
1.* Top Three Schools (Florida, Georgia, LSU): 16-8 in SEC, .666
2.* Next Three Schools (Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama): 13-11 in SEC, .541
3.* Next Three Schools (S. Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas): 11-13 in SEC, .458
4.* Bottom Three Schools (MSU, Kentucky, Vanderbilt): 8-16 in SEC, .333

2009 Season (2005-2009 recruiting rankings)
1.* Top Three Schools (Florida, Georgia, LSU): 17-7 in SEC, .708
2.* Next Three Schools (Alabama, Tennessee, Auburn): 15-9 in SEC, .625
3.* Next Three Schools (S. Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas): 10-14 in SEC, .416
4.* Bottom Three Schools (MSU, Kentucky, Vanderbilt): 6-18 in SEC, .250

2010 Season (2006-2010 recruiting rankings)
1.* Top Three Schools (Florida, LSU, Alabama): 15-9 in SEC, .625
2.* Next Three Schools (Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee): 14-10 in SEC, .583
3.* Next Three Schools (S. Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas): 12-12 in SEC, .500
4.* Bottom Three Schools (MSU, Kentucky, Vanderbilt): 7-17 in SEC, .291

2011 Season (2007-2011 recruiting rankings)
1.* Top Three Schools (Alabama, Florida, LSU): 18-6 in SEC, .750
2.* Next Three Schools (Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn): 12-12 in SEC, .500
3.* Next Three Schools (S. Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas): 12-12 in SEC, .500
4.* Bottom Three Schools (MSU, Kentucky, Vanderbilt): 6-18 in SEC, .250

Thatís pretty impressive.* Breaking six seasons into fourths, there were 24 ďslotsĒ and only two of those slots were a tad off:

* In 2007, the bottom four schools in the recruiting rankings actually outperformed teams 7, 8 and 9 by one game in the SEC standings.

* Last season, teams 7, 8 and 9 finished with the same .500 record in conference play that teams 4, 5 and 6 did.

Other than those two tiny differences, the recruiting rankings provided a good ballpark indicator of teamsí SEC success.

The trick to reading recruiting rankings, therefore, is to use them as a compass.* Over a span of years, youíll find that the teams getting the highest marks on signing day in the SEC will usually do pretty well.* Those that score poorly, usually really wonít have good results inside the league.

But recruiting rankings cannot be used as a GPS.* They arenít precise.* They arenít perfectly accurate.* Almost every year, Arkansas outperforms its recruiting grades.* Meanwhile, a school like Tennessee ó that has seen massive attrition thanks to back-to-back coaching changes ó has underperformed based on the caliber of its signing classes.

Recruiting rankings do matter.* The more four-stars your schools signs, the better the odds youíll find a great difference-maker.* Itís a bit like buying raffle tickets.* The more you have, the better your odds of winning the prize.

Just remember ó and we canít say it enough ó these rankings have to be used as a compass to point you in the right direction.* They canít be used as GPS to tell you exactly where your favorite team will finish in a given year.

Finally, as a bonus, weíve provided the combined class rankings for each school from 2002 through 2011 below.* Also listed are each schoolís SEC record for the years 2006 through 2011.* Once againÖ even these rankings over a such a long period of time delivered a good ballpark read on how things would actually play out on the field over that six-season span of games:

School Combined 2002-2011 Recruiting Rank Combined 2006-2011 SEC Record Group Record Group Winning Pct.
Florida 1st (31 total points) 34-14
Georgia 1st (31 total points) 30-18
LSU 3rd (32 total points) 34-14 98-46 .680
Tennessee 4th (45 total points) 22-26
Alabama 5th (47 total points) 34-14
Auburn 5th (47 total points) 28-20 84-60 .583
S. Carolina 7th (63 total points) 24-24
Ole Miss 8th (80 total points) 12-36
Arkansas 9th (84 total points) 28-20 64-80 .444
Miss. State 10th (92 total points) 16-32
Kentucky 11th (109 total points) 16-32
Vanderbilt 12th (119 total points) 10-38 42-102 .291
And in case youíre wondering, the Rivals.com currently ranks the SEC recruiting classes as follows (from first to 14th): Alabama, Florida, Texas A&M, Tennessee, South Carolina, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Missouri and Kentucky.

Might show up better on the actual site...charts/columns likely much clearer
TrueOrange is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 02:59 PM   #48 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueOrange View Post
The Mr SEC blog, actually, just made a really good article on this topic:

Blue Chip Stories | MrSEC





Might show up better on the actual site...charts/columns likely much clearer


I think what I did was similar but I focused my sample more temporally, and looked at teams from all of the major conferences. I had to then scale fore schedule strength, which I'm not sure you need to do necessarily if you're just looking at SEC teams like they did (although it would help if you just stuck with the conference record vs. overall record).

Beyond that - some people prefer tables. I prefer graphs.

Cool stuff. Thanks for re-posting.
RiotVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 02:59 PM   #49 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidbourbon View Post
Biggie ups to RiotVol on all this.
Much appreciated.
RiotVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 03:00 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TrueOrange's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Summer: Chattanooga; School year: St. Louis
Posts: 32,828
Likes: 1,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotVol View Post
I think what I did was similar but I focused my sample more temporally, and looked at teams from all of the major conferences. I had to then scale fore schedule strength, which I'm not sure you need to do necessarily if you're just looking at SEC teams like they did (although it would help if you just stuck with the conference record vs. overall record).

Beyond that - some people prefer tables. I prefer graphs.

Cool stuff. Thanks for re-posting.
no prob. Glad you liked it
TrueOrange is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 03:11 PM   #51 (permalink)
@poakley21
 
pualsline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Goodlettsville, TN
Posts: 9,053
Likes: 2,388
Would it be better if I do a yearly chart like this?

Also, Teams that ended up not ranked were given a value of 50.

2008.jpg

Last edited by pualsline; 01-25-2012 at 03:25 PM..
pualsline is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 03:43 PM   #52 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by pualsline View Post
Would it be better if I do a yearly chart like this?

Also, Teams that ended up not ranked were given a value of 50.

Attachment 43940
Woah. That's a weird looking pattern. What do you think it means?
RiotVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-25-2012, 03:53 PM   #53 (permalink)
@poakley21
 
pualsline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Goodlettsville, TN
Posts: 9,053
Likes: 2,388
keep in mind that chart is only for 1 class

Last edited by pualsline; 01-25-2012 at 03:57 PM..
pualsline is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 10:42 AM   #54 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by pualsline View Post
Would it be better if I do a yearly chart like this?

Also, Teams that ended up not ranked were given a value of 50.

Attachment 43940
What is your y-axis?
RiotVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 11:04 AM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cheese Donkey's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotVol View Post
What is your y-axis?
After staring at it for a good 5 minutes, I'm going to go with ranking in the top 25 at the end of the year. Likely wrong though
Cheese Donkey is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 11:41 AM   #56 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese Donkey View Post
After staring at it for a good 5 minutes, I'm going to go with ranking in the top 25 at the end of the year. Likely wrong though
If that's correct, then it looks like a lot of teams crashed and burned three and four years after pulling a highly ranked recruiting class.

Am I reading that right?
RiotVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 11:53 AM   #57 (permalink)
@poakley21
 
pualsline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Goodlettsville, TN
Posts: 9,053
Likes: 2,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotVol View Post
If that's correct, then it looks like a lot of teams crashed and burned three and four years after pulling a highly ranked recruiting class.

Am I reading that right?
Yes...I gave non ranked teams a value of 50 instead of non ranked
pualsline is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 12:08 PM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,789
Likes: 8,213
IOW's, recruiting svc rankings mean something but not everything... pretty much what I've been saying for awhile.
sjt18 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 12:19 PM   #59 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjt18 View Post
IOW's, recruiting svc rankings mean something but not everything... pretty much what I've been saying for awhile.
Still seems pretty interesting. What year did Rivals lose a lot of their analysts to 24/7 or ESPN or whatever?
RiotVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 01-26-2012, 12:21 PM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Rocky_Top_Vol13's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: McMinnville
Posts: 7,803
Likes: 1,495
So......basically you're sayin that the better talent a team has the more likely they are to perform well on the field..... Pretty sure everyone already knew that but thanks for making it official!
Rocky_Top_Vol13 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27