A look at team performance vs recruiting quality

[Shades]

Below is a look at team performance vs recruiting quality for the 2017 season. Some of the conclusions are obvious, but it is interesting to also take a look at the numbers.
If there is interest, I can do a similar post for the 2018 season after the final ranking come out, as well as for recent previous years.


Summary for the TLDR crowd:
1) One thing common to nearly all well-performing teams, regardless of talent level, is decent/good coaching along with coaching/program stability (with a head coach tenure of 5-10-15 years).

2) A team doesn't need 5* players or top 25 recruiting classes to get to a top 10 AP Poll ranking.

3) A team needs some 5* players get to the national championship pool, although Clemson and Oklahoma have shown that it can be done with only one or two 5* players per recruiting cycle.

4) Likewise, a team needs top 15 recruiting classes to get to the national championship pool, although Clemson and Oklahoma have shown that it can be done with recruiting cycle rankings averaging in the #10-15 range.

5) Having consistently high recruiting cycles and being loaded with 5* talent does not guarantee competing for national championships and does not even guarantee making it into the AP Top 25. There are just as many notable under-performers as there are notable over-performers. Talent mismanagement can happen even in the midst of program stability (example: Florida State).

6) If Pruitt turns out to be a good coach and good manager of talent, he could get UT to the top 25 within another year or two year. It will likely take 3-4 more years of top 10-15 recruiting classes, including at least a couple 5* players per year before the Vols could get to the national championship pool. Although it definitely helps, recruiting classes don't have to be stacked with 5* players to be in the national championship pool.

7) Over the five years preceding the 2017 season, Alabama has recruited 2-3x as many 5* players (27) any of the next closest teams: USC(14), Florida State(13), Georgia(11), Ohio State(9).

Spoiler: Click for data and full summary

Teams are grouped (over-performers, under-performers, etc) according to their performance with respect to their quality of recruiting.

1st Column: Team and final record
2nd Column: Final AP Poll rank
3rd Column: Recruiting average for previous 5 years. 247 Composite rankings are used.
4th Column: Total number of 5* players recruited over previous 5 years.

For the 3rd column, for example, if a team's recruiting rankings over the previous 5 years (2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013) is #4, #8, #6, #10, #14, then their average recruiting ranking is 8.4, rounded to 8.

For the 4th column, for example, if a team recruited the following number of 5* players [1, 0, 3, 2, 4] for the previous 5 years, then their total number of 5* players in the past 5 years would be ten 5* players.

The 4th and 5th columns provide a measure of the team's talent level leading up the playing season. I wasn't certain whether to go back 4 or 5 years prior to the playing season, but the results are roughly the same. Most 5* players don't stay for 5 years, but some of the 3* and 4* players end up staying for 5 years due to red-shirting and/or injury reasons.

Only top 25 teams are are looked at, unless a team with very good recruiting falls outside the top 25, which would then fall in the "notable under-performer" group.

Also, only the Power-5 conference teams in the top 25 are considered, with the exception of any G-5 teams that have notably excellent performance.

Teams that made the 4-team playoff are highlighted in purple. Rankings in columns are color-coded to more easily see trends.



Notable Over-performers:
The notable over-performer was a G-5 team, UCF, which had an average 5-yr recruiting ranking of #68, but was undefeated and beat three ranked teams including #7 Auburn in a bowl.
Wisconsin, TCU, Oklahoma State and Northwestern we other notable over-performers, none of which had any 5* players in the previous 5 yrs, yet landed in the top 10 or top 20 AP Poll.

Slight Over-performers:
This group includes Oklahoma and Clemson, with each making the playoff and having a few 5* players, but with average 5-yr recruiting rankings outside the top 10.

Performed as expected:
This group includes Alabama and Georgia which were loaded with talent and played each other for the national championship.

Slight Under-performers:
USC was a slight under-performer. Enough talent to compete for championships, but ends up as 11-3 and ranked as AP #12.

Notable Under-performers:
LSU was a notable under-performer, having a final AP rank of 18, yet being loaded with talent.
Florida State was a severe under-performer, as it was stacked with 13 5* players in the previous 5 cycles and a #5 spot in 5-yr recruiting, but ended up 4-7 and unranked.
Other notable under-performers were Florida, UCLA, Michigan.

 

[Bring_Back_Dooley]

This is really great stuff--thanks for putting this together. It would be interesting to see the 2018 numbers (and 2015 and 2016) to see if some schools are trending up or down.

I think your observation that teams don't need to sign a ton of 5* talent to compete for national titles is interesting. I've often heard fans complain about signing "only" 1-2 5* players, but I think if those players are in premium positions (QB, OL, DE), then a team can perform much better than their ranking. Of course, coaching and player development are significant, unquantifiable factors that have a major effect, as well as conference difficulty.

 

[UtahVol]

These are always challenging data points to incorporate, particularly conference to conference. I suspect if Tennessee played in the AAU it's recruiting would translate into more wins and if UCF played in the SEC it's recruiting would result in fewer wins. Coaching definitely plays a role, but certainly the quality of opponents also helps.

 

[bignewt]

Great stuff. To me it really justifies coaching > recruiting talent.

 

[head1]

All I see is weaker conferences/schedules mean more than recruiting.

 

[sjt18]

1) One thing common to nearly all well-performing teams, regardless of talent level, is decent/good coaching along with coaching/program stability (with a head coach tenure of 5-10-15 years).

No. Programs who find coaches who can coach and build a roster become stable. Stable mediocrity doesn't produce "well-performing teams"... much less championship teams. There is a pervasive idea on this site that giving a coach 10 years to build a program is a good idea. It isn't.

The programs currently successful and "stable" went through a series of 3 to 4 year coaches to find their "guy".

UGA gives the alternate scenario. Highly stable 2nd tier program for YEARS before they finally gave up on Richt. And yes we would like to be where Richt was... but NO if that's as high as it goes.

Otherwise, thanks for the info.

 

[sjt18]

All I see is weaker conferences/schedules mean more than recruiting.

Not all... but a big factor for the likes of UCF.

 

[SmokeyDaBear]

I like it, but there is a difference in conference strength. However, that still doesn’t justify some of the underperformers. FL state, USC, Michigan etc.....very cool info. Let’s get some good offensive coaches up in here and be over performers in 4 years!

 

[Shades]

This is really great stuff--thanks for putting this together. It would be interesting to see the 2018 numbers (and 2015 and 2016) to see if some schools are trending up or down. I think your observation that teams don't need to sign a ton of 5* talent to compete for national titles is interesting. I've often heard fans complain about signing "only" 1-2 5* players, but I think if those players are in premium positions (QB, OL, DE), then a team can perform much better than their ranking. Of course, coaching and player development are significant, unquantifiable factors that have a major effect, as well as conference difficulty.

I have data on some recent past years, but not quite in good enough format to post yet. There are definitely some trends over the past 8 yrs with regard to consistent overperformers and underperformers.

USC, LSU, Texas, Florida State, Miami, Texas AM, and Georgia (until recent) and Notre Dame (to some extent) are some of the consistent underpeformers based on talent level.
Regular overperformers are Oklahoma St, TCU, Northwestern, and Wisconsin, Stanford and Michigan St.

Up and down trenders are a little harder to spot.

These are always challenging data points to incorporate, particularly conference to conference. I suspect if Tennessee played in the AAU it's recruiting would translate into more wins and if UCF played in the SEC it's recruiting would result in fewer wins. Coaching definitely plays a role, but certainly the quality of opponents also helps.

Definitely. That is why I have not considered G5 teams, as mentioned in the extended summary, unless they show some sort of unusually stellar performance.

Among P5 conferences it is tougher to parse out because even the P5 conferences ebb and flow in quality over a period of years. Interestingly the PAC 12 has been notably one of the weaker conferences in recent years, and yet USC who is consistently loaded with talent cannot seem to rise above mediocrity.

 

[Shades]

All I see is weaker conferences/schedules mean more than recruiting.

Partially true but not completely true.

[Not considering the G5.]

Within the P5, weaker P5 conferences can translate into a good overall record and high AP ranking, but in the end the overperformer team from the weaker conference has to compete with the team from the stronger conference in the playoff.

In some instances we see the overperformer get blown out in a playoff game (Mich St or Notre Dame), but in other instances we the overperformer compete (Clemson vs Bama, Oklahoma vs Georgia).

Coaching. Coaching stability. Talent. Not necessarily in that order, but all three are essential. If Pruitt starts to develop a winning program, let's not throw him out too soon if he isn't winning a NC every other year.

 

[Shades]

No. Programs who find coaches who can coach and build a roster become stable. Stable mediocrity doesn't produce "well-performing teams"... much less championship teams. There is a pervasive idea on this site that giving a coach 10 years to build a program is a good idea. It isn't.

The programs currently successful and "stable" went through a series of 3 to 4 year coaches to find their "guy".

UGA gives the alternate scenario. Highly stable 2nd tier program for YEARS before they finally gave up on Richt. And yes we would like to be where Richt was... but NO if that's as high as it goes.

Otherwise, thanks for the info.

I don't disagree with your comments, but I think you misinterpreted my comment, which simply said that most well-performing teams had good coaching along with coaching stability. No where in the statement did it mention stable mediocrity or that ALL teams with coaching stability were well-performing teams. I think you were reading some of the frustrations of the content of Volnation into my comment.

I am not of the camp to keep a mediocre coach on at UT for 10 years.

 

[sjt18]

I don't disagree with your comments, but I think you misinterpreted my comment, which simply said that most well-performing teams had good coaching along with coaching stability. No where in the statement did it mention stable mediocrity or that ALL teams with coaching stability were well-performing teams. I think you were reading some of the frustrations of the content of Volnation into my comment.

I am not of the camp to keep a mediocre coach on at UT for 10 years.

I wasn't trying to throw stones at you. There is a considerable group here who seems to think that just keeping a coach regardless of performance produces results. Not that long ago... we had people saying that firing Jones even if he had a losing records was the wrong thing to do because it would bring instability to the program. Stability for the sake of stability... is as bad as being too rash or maybe even worse.

I'd argue there were lots of reasons not to hire him in the first place... but he should have been fired before he was. The AD has to see a coaches performance apart from the record though. Jones underperformed the available talent every year at UT. The way he ran the program and the problems that arose were contrary to good leadership. His performance with the OL... could have easily been used as a justification as early as year 3. There was a steady decline throughout his tenure.

 

[bignewt]

I wasn't trying to throw stones at you. There is a considerable group here who seems to think that just keeping a coach regardless of performance produces results. Not that long ago... we had people saying that firing Jones even if he had a losing records was the wrong thing to do because it would bring instability to the program. Stability for the sake of stability... is as bad as being too rash or maybe even worse.

I'd argue there were lots of reasons not to hire him in the first place... but he should have been fired before he was. The AD has to see a coaches performance apart from the record though. Jones underperformed the available talent every year at UT. The way he ran the program and the problems that arose were contrary to good leadership. His performance with the OL... could have easily been used as a justification as early as year 3. There was a steady decline throughout his tenure.

Man I was hoping this thread would devolve into CBJ talk because of all the fresh takes!

 

[The Original Fade]

All I see is weaker conferences/schedules mean more than recruiting.

BINGO

 

[The Original Fade]

If you think stars don’t matter, look at how many 5*s Bama has accrued relative to everyone else. And who has been the dominant program the last 5-7 years? I’ll give you one guess

 

[Shades]

If you think stars don’t matter, look at how many 5*s Bama has accrued relative to everyone else. And who has been the dominant program the last 5-7 years? I’ll give you one guess

Did you think my conclusion was that stars don't matter? If so then you didn't read the post.

 

[The Original Fade]

Did you think my conclusion was that stars don't matter? If so then you didn't read the post.

No shades, I didn’t think that

 

[Shades]

Here is a summary for Tennessee the past 10 years.

Average 5-year recruiting rankings in the #13-15 range, but never managed higher than a #22 ranking in the AP poll. Yes, perennial under-performers.

Let's hope that is about to change.

 

[GoVolsDR]

No. Programs who find coaches who can coach and build a roster become stable. Stable mediocrity doesn't produce "well-performing teams"... much less championship teams. There is a pervasive idea on this site that giving a coach 10 years to build a program is a good idea. It isn't.

The programs currently successful and "stable" went through a series of 3 to 4 year coaches to find their "guy".

UGA gives the alternate scenario. Highly stable 2nd tier program for YEARS before they finally gave up on Richt. And yes we would like to be where Richt was... but NO if that's as high as it goes.

Otherwise, thanks for the info.

It took Michigan State just under a decade, but coaching and program stability took them to the 2015 CFB playoff and multiple Big 10 conference titles. I don't think that you can discount the importance of program stability, and more importantly culture, because that comes from university leadership and administration.

Tennessee is an example of an athletic program that has struggled due to incompetence at the highest levels of our university. We've only now in 2019 begun to recover as an athletic program and university. Basketball is now a resounding success, and we're beginning to see success in other sports as well. Football will be back because we now have the stability, support, guidance, and leadership needed.

We all know how important recruiting is, but you can look at Florida State and USCw as programs with some of the best recruits in America who have dramatically underperformed their rankings. Before you can win on the field (or on the court), you need to have a culture of winning at the executive level. We finally have that in Hall of Famer Phil Fulmer, who will hopefully have just as successful of a career as an administrator as he did as a coach.

GO VOLS

 

[bignewt]

Here is a summary for Tennessee the past 10 years.

Average 5-year recruiting rankings in the #13-15 range, but never managed higher than a #22 ranking in the AP poll. Yes, perennial under-performers.

Let's hope that is about to change.

View attachment 187614

Unranked in 2016?

 

[Shades]

Unranked in 2016?

Good catch. Column offset issue. Corrected above.

 

[sjt18]

Man I was hoping this thread would devolve into CBJ talk because of all the fresh takes!

When it is no longer relevant... it will be no longer relevant. One year removed from that 5 year decline... it is still relevant.

 

[sjt18]

It took Michigan State just under a decade, but coaching and program stability took them to the 2015 CFB playoff and multiple Big 10 conference titles.

Dantonio won 9 games in year two and probably would have still been fired after year 4 if he hadn't won the Big 10.

You actually kind of prove my point. A coach needs to show he can win within the first 3 or 4 seasons or else momentum is lost in the program.

It will also be interesting to see what happens going forward. He's 3-9, 10-3, and 7-6 over the last 3 years and hasn't won the Big 10. If he has a losing record this fall... he will be under job pressure.

 

[illinoisvolfan1]

So there’s hope? Oklahoma can finish 15 overall in recruiting and not be 7th in their conference. Same for Clemson. We finish 15 overall and we’re 7th in the SEC. That ain’t going to get to the SECCG much less win it.

 

[Shades]

So there’s hope? Oklahoma can finish 15 overall in recruiting and not be 7th in their conference. Same for Clemson. We finish 15 overall and we’re 7th in the SEC. That ain’t going to get to the SECCG much less win it.

No hope with the likes of Dooley or Jones regardless of recruiting. Maybe hope with Pruitt. We'll see.

With the talk of this conference this and that conference that, keep in mind that Clemson is competing strongly with Bama tonight and on previous occasions, and Oklahoma did likewise with Georgia in last year's playoff. Whether or not a team is in a weaker conference, they still have to compete with the big boys in the end.