I decided to look at how past class rankings compared to future performance. The consensus rankings were derived from the '98-'03 rankings of Parade, SuperPrep, Rivals, Lemming, G&W, Emfinger, and PrepStar. How teams performed on the field, though, was a purely subjective rating by me, off the top of my head, w/ teams lumped into three categories based on whether classes lived up to fans' expectations: Very Happy, Fairly Happy, and Unhappy. Feel free to disagree.
In a nutshell, I was a bit suprised at the results. Some schools, like Auburn, won more than the recruiting rankings might have suggested, while schools like Notre Dame won far less. On the whole I'd guess most fans that were happy on signing day were a bit disappointed with how their classes ultimately turned out. (*Our* consensus rankings, though - which actually mirrored our own opinion of which classes were good - did seem to have some predictive value.)
I'll post the raw recruiting data (charts I input into Excel) first, with a bit more commentary afterwards.
Top 5 Finishes
Top 10 Finishes
Top 25 Finishes
It looked to me like five schools stood above the pack recruiting wise, with regular Top 5 classes. I labelled those "A+" schools. Nine additional schools - which I labelled "A" schools - frequently had Top 10 classes. And eleven further schools - "A-" schools - frequently had Top 25 classes. (We just missed this status, btw.)
5 "A+" Schools (0 Very Happy, 1 Fairly Happy, 4 Unhappy): From 1998 to 2003 (spanning 6 classes) FSU, Notre Dame, and Texas had the most consensus Top 5 recruiting classes (4 each) followed by Michigan and Tennessee (3 each). From 2001 to 2003 (3 classes) the exact same 5 teams show up as having multiple Top 5 recruiting classes. I'm guessing Michigan is happy but not satisfied, and the others are unhappy.
9 "A" Schools (3 Very Happy, 2 Fairly Happy, 4 Unhappy): Over the same time frames Bama, Florida, LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio St, OU, Penn St, UCLA, UGA, and USC often had Top 10 classes. I'm guessing LSU, Miami, and USC are very happy while UGA and Ohio St are fairly happy. The rest, though, didn't seem to benefit much from their multiple Top 10 classes.
11 "A-" Schools (2 Very Happy, 1 Fairly Happy, 8 Unhappy): Schools with relatively frequent Top 25 classes include A&M, Arizona St, Auburn, Boston College, Iowa, Michigan St, North Carolina, South Carolina, Stanford, Syracuse, and Wisconsin. I'm guessing only Iowa and Wisconsin have been very happy the past few years. AU is happy this year, but sure wasn't before. And the rest are disappointed.
Speaking of Auburn, btw, their only consensus Top 25 class from 2001-2003 (the years that probably brought in most of the kids that helped them go undefeated this year) was a single #25 finish in 2002. And their #13 class in 2000? Well, heh, it obviously wasn't good enough, on its own, at least, to prevent Tommy from almost getting fired, heh.
Of course, the SEC is simply a tough league to compete in. Nine SEC teams finished in the consensus Top 25 Combined Rankings - and this included rankings from California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois based services that some think aren't as partial to southern kids as the other services. Add the two big Texas teams and the missing Florida teams and there's not much room left. And this is what the NFL looks like too, as roughly 50% of NFL players come from the following 7 Southeast/Gulf Coast states: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
And where do the rest of the NFL's players come from? The Midwest - Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois - and California. (Anyone see Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, USC, and UCLA on the recruiting lists, heh?) The top NFL area per capita, btw, is Washington D.C. (NFL info from Chris Wallace's article "Talent - The Who, What, When, Why, and Where".)
: Despite being habitually slotted in the bottom half of the SEC by some of the most visible recruiting services - no matter how good or bad our classes are (see Forrest Davis ranking our 1996 class 12th, heh) - the *consensus* rankings mirror our own assesment, which mirrors our subsequent on the field performance.
We knew our 1996, 1999, and 2001 classes were a cut above our others, and the consensus rankings reflect that, with our 1999 class ranked 11th and our 2001 class ranked 17th. (Our 1996 class was similarly ranked, but before the time period included in my compilation, while our 2004 and 2005 classes came just after the time period I looked at - with it obviously being too soon to judge their impact in terms of wins and losses.) And sure enough, most of the key contributors in our three 9 win seasons and two 8 win seasons came from the classes we knew were good on signing day, while the lack of playmakers in our other classes showed up in our 5 to 7 win seasons.
(Btw, I'm pretty sure Otis' rankings mirror our on the field performance too. Almost to a tee, I'd bet.)
Bottom Line: We're glad we're not where we were before HDN got here, but we're not satisfied. The good news is that many think our '04 and '05 classes represent the first time in recent history that we've had solid classes back to back. And with a strong in state crop of HS players this year, with kids like Mitch Mustain, we ought to have a shot at 3 solid classes in a row. Hopefully that can take us to the next level.
After all (as I've repeatedly asked, heh), shouldn't signing classes equal to our best ones every year, versus every few years, mean more playmakers and more depth than we've had? (Wouldn't you rather have 3 Michael Grants, 3 Fred Talleys, and 3 Caleb Millers than just one of each?) If that's the case, then more talent and depth will hopefully translate into more wins. 10+ wins and victory in Atlanta during a good year (versus 9 wins and either not going to Atlanta or losing handily) and more consistency from year to year sounds good to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HawgsRUs
user profile
Stuck in Stoop land (throw a rope?)
Post #3796
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaustive & appreciated research Clampit. I enjoyed reading this. Just like you said, recruiting for the most part mirrors on field performance.
"Show me a good loser...and I'll show you a loser" >>>>>Vince Lombardi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A
lways
B
e
C
losing....
Posted on 2/13 8:04 AM | IP: Logged
Otis_Kirk
user profile
Post #8664
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina is always rated very high by recruiting services. Rivals has been real kind to them thru the years and so have others.
Posted on 2/13 8:47 AM | IP: Logged
Pig Daddy
user profile
Post #368
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Thanks jClampit. Here again is another great topic.. Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The better classes (recognized by the recruiting services) tends to lead to more wins and losses but this statement almost always yields the "chicken and the egg" conversation -- Which came first? It also yields the "Catch 22 conversation" -- How can you recruit without the wins and how do you get the wins without the recruits?
These questions have merit but I don't think they can be answered with quantitative analysis and reasoning alone. The answer is synergy. The sum of our combined classes will need to equate to more team talent and team chemistry than the computed aggregate of the individual talent level alone. I am trying to keep the quantitative approach alive here. When this occurs (and I believe it will), we will achieve the 10 wins / trip to Atlanta, SECG win (rather than lose handily), BCS game and higher national ranking. This can (and most likely will) be attributed to "over-achieving", "great coaching", "luck", "recruiting", "Scheduling (both Home-Away schedule and non-conference)", "talent", "Position Depth", "attrition or lack thereof" and some other factors. All of these factors are the components of our synergy makeup.
It's not that we CAN'T get there with the class rankings we have garnered against the other "big boys", It's that we HAVEN'T gotten there YET. It's the "break out" year, the year with the greatest synergy, that will launch us to the next level.
Posted on 2/13 9:02 AM | IP: Logged
OkHogfan1959
user profile
Post #253
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great work Clampit....I enjoyed reading that info.
Posted on 2/13 10:12 AM | IP: Logged
jclampit
user profile
Jacksonville, FL
Post #1584
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here they were ranked 11th and 8th in 2002 and 2003, and Scout had them with two virtual Top 10 classes followed by a Top 25 class in 2004. That's a lot better than what showed up in the consensus rankings...
Maybe Rivals and Scout have a whole lot more South Carolina subscribers than the other services?
Posted on 2/13 12:25 PM | IP: Logged
jclampit
user profile
Jacksonville, FL
Post #1585
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like you said, recruiting for the most part mirrors on field performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was expecting the corellation to be stronger nationally than it was.
Maybe there is some of that "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" going on, especially with teams like Notre Dame (who, according to the consensus rankings, was the most talented team in the country). They certainly are a big name school that seems to automatically be rated high. ("If they're looking at a kid, he *must* be good! Lets give him 4 Stars.")
Or maybe some schools actually do recruit off of recruiting service lists versus having great evaluators on staff - and the recruiting services just miss a lot more than many think? Or maybe the services were right, but some guys just can't coach a lick, no matter how much talent they have? Maybe certain services have their own personal favorites and biases, or cater to the fan bases that buy their products?
Or, all conspiracy theories aside, heh, maybe it's just as simple as these evaluators are simply human, and we all miss, just like when NFL execs were debating whether Ryan Leaf was better than Peyton Manning. No hidden agendas there. The guys that preferred Leaf just missed. And the guys that preferred Peyton either got it right, or were lucky.
I'm sure there are a bunch of reasons. But whatever the reasons, the corellation wasn't as strong as I'd expected.
It seems to me that *our* classes, though, have more predictive value than most, for whatever reason. The majority of key contributors in our good years do seem to have come from the classes we thought were good ones, even when many services slotted them in our traditional middle to lower end of the SEC slot. And the *consensus* rankings actually did mirror our own assessment of which classes were good and which ones weren't.
And the lack of key contributors from our lesser classes did certainly seem to show up on the field during our lesser years. Our 1997 and 1998 classes weren't the best. That showed up after Clint graduated. Our 2000 class was fortunately sandwiched b/w good classes in 1999 and 2001. But our 2002 and 2003 classes hurt us on the field this year, especially since we lost 5 kids early (had they chosen to stay in school and make their grades) in Bat, LR, Jason, Shawn, and Pierce. (We still wouldn't have had a replacement for Caleb...)
Posted on 2/13 12:52 PM | IP: Logged
jclampit
user profile
Jacksonville, FL
Post #1587
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
What I'd like to see... Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was honestly a bit surprised at how this all turned out. It looked to me like most fans whose schools won in the recruiting polls probably ended up disappointed in how those classes turned out.
You know how Stassen (Stassen website) compares all these magazine's (Athlons, Lindys, Sporting News, etc.) predictions with how teams actually finish on the field? It'd be nice if someone did that for recruiting services, to see who was the most accurate over the years.
If I could figure out a way to make a little money doing it, I'd do it, heh. But to buy yearly reports from all those services, compile all those kids and class rankings, and then compile how teams and highly rated kids fared, and then jumble it all back together to rank the services... Well, that would take lot of time and bit of money too, heh. I'd like to see the results, though.
This post was edited on 2/14 1:39 AM by Trey Biddyif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
In a nutshell, I was a bit suprised at the results. Some schools, like Auburn, won more than the recruiting rankings might have suggested, while schools like Notre Dame won far less. On the whole I'd guess most fans that were happy on signing day were a bit disappointed with how their classes ultimately turned out. (*Our* consensus rankings, though - which actually mirrored our own opinion of which classes were good - did seem to have some predictive value.)
I'll post the raw recruiting data (charts I input into Excel) first, with a bit more commentary afterwards.
Top 5 Finishes
Top 10 Finishes
Top 25 Finishes
It looked to me like five schools stood above the pack recruiting wise, with regular Top 5 classes. I labelled those "A+" schools. Nine additional schools - which I labelled "A" schools - frequently had Top 10 classes. And eleven further schools - "A-" schools - frequently had Top 25 classes. (We just missed this status, btw.)
5 "A+" Schools (0 Very Happy, 1 Fairly Happy, 4 Unhappy): From 1998 to 2003 (spanning 6 classes) FSU, Notre Dame, and Texas had the most consensus Top 5 recruiting classes (4 each) followed by Michigan and Tennessee (3 each). From 2001 to 2003 (3 classes) the exact same 5 teams show up as having multiple Top 5 recruiting classes. I'm guessing Michigan is happy but not satisfied, and the others are unhappy.
9 "A" Schools (3 Very Happy, 2 Fairly Happy, 4 Unhappy): Over the same time frames Bama, Florida, LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio St, OU, Penn St, UCLA, UGA, and USC often had Top 10 classes. I'm guessing LSU, Miami, and USC are very happy while UGA and Ohio St are fairly happy. The rest, though, didn't seem to benefit much from their multiple Top 10 classes.
11 "A-" Schools (2 Very Happy, 1 Fairly Happy, 8 Unhappy): Schools with relatively frequent Top 25 classes include A&M, Arizona St, Auburn, Boston College, Iowa, Michigan St, North Carolina, South Carolina, Stanford, Syracuse, and Wisconsin. I'm guessing only Iowa and Wisconsin have been very happy the past few years. AU is happy this year, but sure wasn't before. And the rest are disappointed.
Speaking of Auburn, btw, their only consensus Top 25 class from 2001-2003 (the years that probably brought in most of the kids that helped them go undefeated this year) was a single #25 finish in 2002. And their #13 class in 2000? Well, heh, it obviously wasn't good enough, on its own, at least, to prevent Tommy from almost getting fired, heh.
Of course, the SEC is simply a tough league to compete in. Nine SEC teams finished in the consensus Top 25 Combined Rankings - and this included rankings from California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois based services that some think aren't as partial to southern kids as the other services. Add the two big Texas teams and the missing Florida teams and there's not much room left. And this is what the NFL looks like too, as roughly 50% of NFL players come from the following 7 Southeast/Gulf Coast states: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
And where do the rest of the NFL's players come from? The Midwest - Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois - and California. (Anyone see Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, USC, and UCLA on the recruiting lists, heh?) The top NFL area per capita, btw, is Washington D.C. (NFL info from Chris Wallace's article "Talent - The Who, What, When, Why, and Where".)
: Despite being habitually slotted in the bottom half of the SEC by some of the most visible recruiting services - no matter how good or bad our classes are (see Forrest Davis ranking our 1996 class 12th, heh) - the *consensus* rankings mirror our own assesment, which mirrors our subsequent on the field performance.We knew our 1996, 1999, and 2001 classes were a cut above our others, and the consensus rankings reflect that, with our 1999 class ranked 11th and our 2001 class ranked 17th. (Our 1996 class was similarly ranked, but before the time period included in my compilation, while our 2004 and 2005 classes came just after the time period I looked at - with it obviously being too soon to judge their impact in terms of wins and losses.) And sure enough, most of the key contributors in our three 9 win seasons and two 8 win seasons came from the classes we knew were good on signing day, while the lack of playmakers in our other classes showed up in our 5 to 7 win seasons.
(Btw, I'm pretty sure Otis' rankings mirror our on the field performance too. Almost to a tee, I'd bet.)
Bottom Line: We're glad we're not where we were before HDN got here, but we're not satisfied. The good news is that many think our '04 and '05 classes represent the first time in recent history that we've had solid classes back to back. And with a strong in state crop of HS players this year, with kids like Mitch Mustain, we ought to have a shot at 3 solid classes in a row. Hopefully that can take us to the next level.
After all (as I've repeatedly asked, heh), shouldn't signing classes equal to our best ones every year, versus every few years, mean more playmakers and more depth than we've had? (Wouldn't you rather have 3 Michael Grants, 3 Fred Talleys, and 3 Caleb Millers than just one of each?) If that's the case, then more talent and depth will hopefully translate into more wins. 10+ wins and victory in Atlanta during a good year (versus 9 wins and either not going to Atlanta or losing handily) and more consistency from year to year sounds good to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HawgsRUs
user profile
Stuck in Stoop land (throw a rope?)
Post #3796
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaustive & appreciated research Clampit. I enjoyed reading this. Just like you said, recruiting for the most part mirrors on field performance.
"Show me a good loser...and I'll show you a loser" >>>>>Vince Lombardi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A
lways
B
e
C
losing....
Posted on 2/13 8:04 AM | IP: Logged
Otis_Kirk
user profile
Post #8664
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina is always rated very high by recruiting services. Rivals has been real kind to them thru the years and so have others.
Posted on 2/13 8:47 AM | IP: Logged
Pig Daddy
user profile
Post #368
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Thanks jClampit. Here again is another great topic.. Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The better classes (recognized by the recruiting services) tends to lead to more wins and losses but this statement almost always yields the "chicken and the egg" conversation -- Which came first? It also yields the "Catch 22 conversation" -- How can you recruit without the wins and how do you get the wins without the recruits?
These questions have merit but I don't think they can be answered with quantitative analysis and reasoning alone. The answer is synergy. The sum of our combined classes will need to equate to more team talent and team chemistry than the computed aggregate of the individual talent level alone. I am trying to keep the quantitative approach alive here. When this occurs (and I believe it will), we will achieve the 10 wins / trip to Atlanta, SECG win (rather than lose handily), BCS game and higher national ranking. This can (and most likely will) be attributed to "over-achieving", "great coaching", "luck", "recruiting", "Scheduling (both Home-Away schedule and non-conference)", "talent", "Position Depth", "attrition or lack thereof" and some other factors. All of these factors are the components of our synergy makeup.
It's not that we CAN'T get there with the class rankings we have garnered against the other "big boys", It's that we HAVEN'T gotten there YET. It's the "break out" year, the year with the greatest synergy, that will launch us to the next level.
Posted on 2/13 9:02 AM | IP: Logged
OkHogfan1959
user profile
Post #253
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great work Clampit....I enjoyed reading that info.
Posted on 2/13 10:12 AM | IP: Logged
jclampit
user profile
Jacksonville, FL
Post #1584
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here they were ranked 11th and 8th in 2002 and 2003, and Scout had them with two virtual Top 10 classes followed by a Top 25 class in 2004. That's a lot better than what showed up in the consensus rankings...
Maybe Rivals and Scout have a whole lot more South Carolina subscribers than the other services?
Posted on 2/13 12:25 PM | IP: Logged
jclampit
user profile
Jacksonville, FL
Post #1585
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
Re: Past consensus class rankings versus on the field performance Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like you said, recruiting for the most part mirrors on field performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was expecting the corellation to be stronger nationally than it was.
Maybe there is some of that "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" going on, especially with teams like Notre Dame (who, according to the consensus rankings, was the most talented team in the country). They certainly are a big name school that seems to automatically be rated high. ("If they're looking at a kid, he *must* be good! Lets give him 4 Stars.")
Or maybe some schools actually do recruit off of recruiting service lists versus having great evaluators on staff - and the recruiting services just miss a lot more than many think? Or maybe the services were right, but some guys just can't coach a lick, no matter how much talent they have? Maybe certain services have their own personal favorites and biases, or cater to the fan bases that buy their products?
Or, all conspiracy theories aside, heh, maybe it's just as simple as these evaluators are simply human, and we all miss, just like when NFL execs were debating whether Ryan Leaf was better than Peyton Manning. No hidden agendas there. The guys that preferred Leaf just missed. And the guys that preferred Peyton either got it right, or were lucky.
I'm sure there are a bunch of reasons. But whatever the reasons, the corellation wasn't as strong as I'd expected.
It seems to me that *our* classes, though, have more predictive value than most, for whatever reason. The majority of key contributors in our good years do seem to have come from the classes we thought were good ones, even when many services slotted them in our traditional middle to lower end of the SEC slot. And the *consensus* rankings actually did mirror our own assessment of which classes were good and which ones weren't.
And the lack of key contributors from our lesser classes did certainly seem to show up on the field during our lesser years. Our 1997 and 1998 classes weren't the best. That showed up after Clint graduated. Our 2000 class was fortunately sandwiched b/w good classes in 1999 and 2001. But our 2002 and 2003 classes hurt us on the field this year, especially since we lost 5 kids early (had they chosen to stay in school and make their grades) in Bat, LR, Jason, Shawn, and Pierce. (We still wouldn't have had a replacement for Caleb...)
Posted on 2/13 12:52 PM | IP: Logged
jclampit
user profile
Jacksonville, FL
Post #1587
feature
lock | pin | move
del | ban | posts
What I'd like to see... Edit | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was honestly a bit surprised at how this all turned out. It looked to me like most fans whose schools won in the recruiting polls probably ended up disappointed in how those classes turned out.
You know how Stassen (Stassen website) compares all these magazine's (Athlons, Lindys, Sporting News, etc.) predictions with how teams actually finish on the field? It'd be nice if someone did that for recruiting services, to see who was the most accurate over the years.
If I could figure out a way to make a little money doing it, I'd do it, heh. But to buy yearly reports from all those services, compile all those kids and class rankings, and then compile how teams and highly rated kids fared, and then jumble it all back together to rank the services... Well, that would take lot of time and bit of money too, heh. I'd like to see the results, though.
This post was edited on 2/14 1:39 AM by Trey Biddyif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
