Importance of Rankings

#26
#26
I understand your point, but that’s not what the data here is showing. Yes, there are outliers like TU, Ohio State, and TAMU who, despite having some of the best classes, haven’t won crap.

But the correlation is clear in this data. There have been no exceptions as far as I can tell. Composite rankings are just one of many factors, but they are crucial, imo. Great coaching and leadership are what elevate these teams to championship level.

This data is not an indictment of our staff or recruiting. Our recruiting is not exceptional yet, but it has steadily improved since CJH arrived. I expect this trend to continue. If we make some noise in the new SEC, elite recruiting will follow naturally, without the need for coaching changes. This school practically recruits itself anyway.

We can’t ignore the data showing cold hard truths. We are on the brink of elite status.

I will update this data when the new composites are out. I believe people will see it in a better light if this positive trend continues.

View attachment 657445
you admitted earlier that correlation was not causation. your data needs to prove causation. plenty of things are correlated while not being causative.

and you are working on just a slightly different argument than others who have said you MUST have Top 5 classes. you expanded to Top 15, which is a pretty wide net. realistically in any competitive field there are only so many viable candidates who have a chance at winning. and your metric is to take the approx Top 25% of the P5 in recruiting to have a chance. that is too general to be considered a specific indicator towards success. imo.

and by expanding from Top 5 to Top 15 you have expanded the field to include every exception from the previous standard. which just goes back to is it actual correlation, or are you just collecting data points? One of the things that made the Top 5 argument somewhat acceptable to me is that it had exceptions, your apparent rule has NO exceptions? Real world data doesn't work that way, there are always exceptions. which is why I think you are being too broad in claiming correlation yet alone causation.

and I don't think looking at recruiting classes will ever show an acceptable level of correlation, yet alone causation, because there is so much more that goes into winning a college football championship than just recruiting. if recruiting was all that mattered there would be no practices, and coaches like Butch who just chased stars while ignoring needs or fit, would rule. Instead you get good/great recruiters who also develop, and typically have some type of scheme that adds benefits. at some point it also comes down to luck, injuries, weather, an oddly shaped ball that doesn't bounce as it should, a coach not taking a knee. plenty goes into winning beyond recruiting. and not enough data has been presented to say recruiting is even the most important of the considerations. its just the easiest set by subjective analysts who clearly have some bias in rankings following around the good teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vawlz
#27
#27
OP,

Get the information for each
National Championship team the past 10 years.
- then gather what they’re HS star ranking was.
- only for the two deep of each team

And see what that reveals…

Stealing data from the Blue Chip Ratio. How many players on each roster were 4 or 5 stars:

  • 2023: Michigan won it all with a 54% mark.
  • 2022: Georgia took home the title in dominant fashion with a 77% ratio.
  • 2021: Georgia had an 80% BCR and won it all, beating the No. 1 BCR team, Alabama, in the title game. Three of the four CFP teams were BCR teams; Cincinnati was the first party crasher since 2017.
  • 2020: Alabama had an 83% BCR and won it all. All four CFP teams were BCR schools.
  • 2019: LSU won it with a 64% BCR. All four CFP teams were BCR schools. (Joe Burrow)
  • 2018: Clemson took it home with a 68% mark. All four CFP teams were BCR schools. (Trevor Lawrence)
  • 2017: Alabama won it all with an incredible 80% mark.
  • 2016: Clemson took home the title after signing 52% blue chips in the 2013-16 classes. (Deshaun Watson)
  • 2015: Alabama had a 77% mark.
  • 2014: Ohio State won the title with a 68%.
  • 2013: Florida State was at 53%. (Jameis Winston)
  • 2012: Alabama was at 71%.
  • 2011: 'Bama won the first of its back-to-back titles ... also with a 71% mark.

I think the highest ever was Bama with 90%+ in 2022 or 2023
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 25vol and LittleVol
#28
#28
Stealing data from the Blue Chip Ratio. How many players on each roster were 4 or 5 stars:

  • 2023: Michigan won it all with a 54% mark.
  • 2022: Georgia took home the title in dominant fashion with a 77% ratio.
  • 2021: Georgia had an 80% BCR and won it all, beating the No. 1 BCR team, Alabama, in the title game. Three of the four CFP teams were BCR teams; Cincinnati was the first party crasher since 2017.
  • 2020: Alabama had an 83% BCR and won it all. All four CFP teams were BCR schools.
  • 2019: LSU won it with a 64% BCR. All four CFP teams were BCR schools.
  • 2018: Clemson took it home with a 68% mark. All four CFP teams were BCR schools.
  • 2017: Alabama won it all with an incredible 80% mark.
  • 2016: Clemson took home the title after signing 52% blue chips in the 2013-16 classes.
  • 2015: Alabama had a 77% mark.
  • 2014: Ohio State won the title with a 68%.
  • 2013: Florida State was at 53%.
  • 2012: Alabama was at 71%.
  • 2011: 'Bama won the first of its back-to-back titles ... also with a 71% mark.

I think the highest ever was Bama with 90%+ in 2022 or 2023
And what percentage will Tennessee have this upcoming season?

Thank you for the stats!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigSteve09
#29
#29
you admitted earlier that correlation was not causation. your data needs to prove causation. plenty of things are correlated while not being causative.

and you are working on just a slightly different argument than others who have said you MUST have Top 5 classes. you expanded to Top 15, which is a pretty wide net. realistically in any competitive field there are only so many viable candidates who have a chance at winning. and your metric is to take the approx Top 25% of the P5 in recruiting to have a chance. that is too general to be considered a specific indicator towards success. imo.

and by expanding from Top 5 to Top 15 you have expanded the field to include every exception from the previous standard. which just goes back to is it actual correlation, or are you just collecting data points? One of the things that made the Top 5 argument somewhat acceptable to me is that it had exceptions, your apparent rule has NO exceptions? Real world data doesn't work that way, there are always exceptions. which is why I think you are being too broad in claiming correlation yet alone causation.

and I don't think looking at recruiting classes will ever show an acceptable level of correlation, yet alone causation, because there is so much more that goes into winning a college football championship than just recruiting. if recruiting was all that mattered there would be no practices, and coaches like Butch who just chased stars while ignoring needs or fit, would rule. Instead you get good/great recruiters who also develop, and typically have some type of scheme that adds benefits. at some point it also comes down to luck, injuries, weather, an oddly shaped ball that doesn't bounce as it should, a coach not taking a knee. plenty goes into winning beyond recruiting. and not enough data has been presented to say recruiting is even the most important of the considerations. its just the easiest set by subjective analysts who clearly have some bias in rankings following around the good teams.

I tried to organize my reply specific to different points you made. Here it is:

1. I understand applied statistics, so I know the difference between correlation and causation. The comment you’re referencing is where I said, ‘I agree correlation doesn’t always equal causation.’ I went on to explain that this data is correlative, not causative. I don’t think this data supports causation at all because there’s too many examples of underperformance relative to composite ratings and too many variables to consider. It is certainly correlative, and I think an argument can be made for that. If you don’t think so, we can just agree to disagree on this one.

2. My OP where I said ‘top 15 isn’t going to cut it’ was making light of the fact that we need to be around the 1-10 range of composite rankings to have any postseason success. I believe my data shows this correlation clearly.

3. In the 10 years I collected this data, there were no exceptions. Examples of “no exceptions” in real-world statistics are uncommon but they do happen. For instance, consider Olympic sprinters who win gold medals; all recent winners have run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds.This isn’t surprising because it’s a known benchmark for success. Similarly, top 10 recruiting classes are a benchmark for winning championships.

4. If you go back through my previous comments, you’ll find that I agree with you. I think this data is correlative to other factors, not causation, but I think it’s a strong correlation that needs to be present along with other variables.

Thank you for the discussion.
 
#30
#30
OP is there a way to look at changes in a recruit’s rankings after commitment especially say to the top five or ten teams over the last decade? If there’s some bias as far as ranking adjustments by where a recruit commits it would show up there.
As far as I know, this is not tracked anywhere. I’m would be interested in seeing this data myself. If we wanted to, we could pick the top 100 recruits and track their rankings over a period of a few years and do it ourselves.

The recruiting publications would never do this because at best it would show no indication that this bias occurs, and at worst it would show that there is inherent bias and make them look bad.
 
#31
#31
And what percentage will Tennessee have this upcoming season?

Thank you for the stats!
We didn't break the 50% threshold, surprisingly. We are damn close, though. Another top 10ish class and we probably break it for next season. Bud did say that Tennessee is on his radar to break the trend this year because we are just under the 50% threshold and Nico is the real deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LittleVol
#32
#32
We didn't break the 50% threshold, surprisingly. We are damn close, though. Another top 10ish class and we probably break it for next season. Bud did say that Tennessee is on his radar to break the trend this year because we are just under the 50% threshold and Nico is the real deal.
Good work, man!

That’s some of the best information I’ve seen on here.

Now we can kind of know what percentage to look for based off history.

The two deep on each national championship team had an average of 65% blue ships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigSteve09
#33
#33
I already posted this on the football board, but I figured a lot of people frequent here and not there. Please delete mods if you don’t think it belongs.

I’ve been seeing a ton of negative sentiment on this board and others lately regarding recruiting rankings and whether they matter, so I decided to dive into this myself.

I think we all would like to believe they don’t matter considering how far behind we’ve been the past few years and CJH’s tendency to coach up 3* guys to 4-5* levels in some cases.

Anyway, here’s some data I’ve gathered on the last 10 national champions and their composite rankings in the three years preceding their championship. This is available on the 247 website for anyone who’d like to see it for themselves.

Some observations I’ve made from looking at it:

• 80% of champions have had at least 2 top 10 finishes before their championship.
• 60% of champions have had a top 10 finish all 3 years prior.

What I also think is that exceptional performance by players/coaches can overcome the rankings, as you can see from Clemson in ‘16/‘18 and Michigan in ‘23.

But what you don’t see is a single national champ that didn’t have a top 10 finish. If we can recruit 5-9 rated classes, I think we’ll get there, but top 15 classes aren’t going to cut it, especially not in this new SEC climate.

View attachment 657347
Bless your heart
 
#34
#34
Good work, man!

That’s some of the best information I’ve seen on here.

Now we can kind of know what percentage to look for based off history.

The two deep on each national championship team had an average of 65% blue ships.
The biggest bust during this Blue Chip Ratio era was probably 2022 Alabama. They had 89% blue chips, 90% including transfers. AND Bryce Young, who was a fantastic college QB. Lost two games, no SEC, no playoff.
 
#36
#36
Bless your heart
Thanks for the meaningful discussion. Got any other points you'd like to make or is ridiculing something you don't understand your go-to? EDIT: I've been drinking tonight, so just putting this out there, I apologize if I misunderstood whatever you're trying to say here.
 
#38
#38
Great data, Ive always held this same belief. However, I think more than ever there are opportunities to beat the trend due to the transfer portal. When you can plug all your holes with upgrades it’s a game changer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 25vol
#39
#39
Thanks for the meaningful discussion. Got any other points you'd like to make or is ridiculing something you don't understand your go-to? EDIT: I've been drinking tonight, so just putting this out there, I apologize if I misunderstood whatever you're trying to say here.
It’s probably one of the more divisive and talked about subjects in the recruiting forum. Much like the Bible, it’s been poured over and discussed since the dawn of man, or in this case VN. I gave some more meaningful comments below. I’d try the search function to find some more stuff on it. Plenty of work and discussion been had that can be found there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 25vol
#40
#40
I already posted this on the football board, but I figured a lot of people frequent here and not there. Please delete mods if you don’t think it belongs.

I’ve been seeing a ton of negative sentiment on this board and others lately regarding recruiting rankings and whether they matter, so I decided to dive into this myself.

I think we all would like to believe they don’t matter considering how far behind we’ve been the past few years and CJH’s tendency to coach up 3* guys to 4-5* levels in some cases.

Anyway, here’s some data I’ve gathered on the last 10 national champions and their composite rankings in the three years preceding their championship. This is available on the 247 website for anyone who’d like to see it for themselves.

Some observations I’ve made from looking at it:

• 80% of champions have had at least 2 top 10 finishes before their championship.
• 60% of champions have had a top 10 finish all 3 years prior.

What I also think is that exceptional performance by players/coaches can overcome the rankings, as you can see from Clemson in ‘16/‘18 and Michigan in ‘23.

But what you don’t see is a single national champ that didn’t have a top 10 finish. If we can recruit 5-9 rated classes, I think we’ll get there, but top 15 classes aren’t going to cut it, especially not in this new SEC climate.

View attachment 657347
The fallacy in all of this is that posters treat player ratings/rankings as gospel; that is, the star rating/ranking of the player is indicative of exactly how the player will perform regardless of the school he attends. This discounts any impact on the player's development (e.g., coaching, system "fit", S&C). See TAMU's "historic" recruiting class of a few years ago--how'd that turn out for them? Clemson's recent on-field struggles despite consistent, solid recruiting should also raise eyebrows.

Further, and why I don't give a rat's @ss about "recruiting rankings," is the consistent evidence that the player rating/ranking systems are wholly arbitrary, at best (e.g., dropping players in rating/ranking for not attending summer camps or not playing b/c of injury (GMac), raising players for committing to certain schools (cough, UGA, cough)). Watching Perlotte suddenly drop 300 spots when he looks to be leaning to us should tell you that these "systems" are arbitrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vol_in_ga
#41
#41
It’s probably one of the more divisive and talked about subjects in the recruiting forum. Much like the Bible, it’s been poured over and discussed since the dawn of man, or in this case VN. I gave some more meaningful comments below. I’d try the search function to find some more stuff on it. Plenty of work and discussion been had that can be found there.
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
 
#42
#42
The fallacy in all of this is that posters treat player ratings/rankings as gospel; that is, the star rating/ranking of the player is indicative of exactly how the player will perform regardless of the school he attends. This discounts any impact on the player's development (e.g., coaching, system "fit", S&C). See TAMU's "historic" recruiting class of a few years ago--how'd that turn out for them? Clemson's recent on-field struggles despite consistent, solid recruiting should also raise eyebrows.

Further, and why I don't give a rat's @ss about "recruiting rankings," is the consistent evidence that the player rating/ranking systems are wholly arbitrary, at best (e.g., dropping players in rating/ranking for not attending summer camps or not playing b/c of injury (GMac), raising players for committing to certain schools (cough, UGA, cough)). Watching Perlotte suddenly drop 300 spots when he looks to be leaning to us should tell you that these "systems" are arbitrary.
Fair enough. I work with data as a career and just like most other things in life, the “Garbage in, Garbage out” rule applies. There’s no way I can prove or disprove this data because I’m not the one collecting it; I merely gathered it and analyzed it for any noticeable trends. I will say that I trust this data more so than recruiting rankings for example because this is a composite rank so TTFWIW. Whether or not the data can be trusted, the correlation is still there so that could mean several things in this case.
 
#44
#44
The fallacy in all of this is that posters treat player ratings/rankings as gospel; that is, the star rating/ranking of the player is indicative of exactly how the player will perform regardless of the school he attends. This discounts any impact on the player's development (e.g., coaching, system "fit", S&C). See TAMU's "historic" recruiting class of a few years ago--how'd that turn out for them? Clemson's recent on-field struggles despite consistent, solid recruiting should also raise eyebrows.

Further, and why I don't give a rat's @ss about "recruiting rankings," is the consistent evidence that the player rating/ranking systems are wholly arbitrary, at best (e.g., dropping players in rating/ranking for not attending summer camps or not playing b/c of injury (GMac), raising players for committing to certain schools (cough, UGA, cough)). Watching Perlotte suddenly drop 300 spots when he looks to be leaning to us should tell you that these "systems" are arbitrary.
It’s more indicative than not on a broad scale. Wouldn’t say completely arbitrary, but also would agree taking it as gospel on a per player basis is fools gold. That said, it’s hard to not focus on the pieces of the pie when judging the whole.
 
#45
#45
Rankings would hold more water if there wasn’t so much political propaganda behind it.

No different when teams like Bama, Georgia, Texas benefit from no calls on the field.
 
#46
#46
They don’t matter finding good players is all that matters… are the best schools finding the best players yes that’s always been true but the recruiting sites obviously give coaches with winning track records the benefit of ranking their commits high… they are truly getting good players so that is the safe bet but it’s way too many to accurately rank every player… how good is heup and the staff at finding and getting the top priority players… once we show results the classes will come no matter what because the recruiting services will start to respect Tennessees recruiting a little more… and more top level players will want to come to Tennessee… honestly the difference in the 15th and 6th recruiting class is marginal and overall talent on those rosters are pretty close. I never care about rankings only talent…
 

VN Store



Back
Top