A look at team performance vs recruiting quality
- Thread starter Shades
- Start date
Shades
30 minutes of ball and we are smokin at the end
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 843
- Likes
- 3,306
Now that Clemson has annihilated Bama for the NC, let's compare their recruiting scores over the past 4-5 years in the table below.
The conclusion is that, in addition to good coaching, a team needs to recruit well to beat a team like Bama, but doesn't have to recruit lights-out like Bama to beat them. Clemson has shown this to be true twice, with the talent gap being larger two years ago than the talent gap tonight.
In 2014 through 2017, Bama had the clear edge over Clemson in recruiting, but Clemson finally caught up on par with Bama in the 2018 cycle. In fact Clemson's average recruit score of 93.45 was higher than Bama's 91.94 for 2018. Clemson's avg recruit score steadily increased over the past 5 years from 88.69 to 93.45.
If we average the recruiting rankings over these 5 years, we get:
Alabama 5 yr recruiting average = #2
Clemson 5 yr recruiting average = #12
If we average the recruiting rankings over 4 years instead of 5 years, we get something similar:
Alabama 5 yr recruiting average = #2
Clemson 5 yr recruiting average = #11
One interesting thing is that in the 2018 and 2017 cycle, Clemson only had 17 and 14 recruits, so their overall recruiting rank was biased lower because of the low number of recruits. This is somewhat baffling; how can they develop quality depth with such small classes (grad transfers?)? It may not have shown up this year, but will it show up in the next year or two?
The following table shows the total number of players of each type summed over either 5 years or 4 years preceding the 2018 season. Whether the sum is taken over the previous 5 years or 4 years, Bama has signed nearly twice the number of 5* and 4* players as Clemson.
For most teams that have been in the NC playoff pool in recent years, if we exclude Bama, a typical recruiting profile summed over 4 years looks like:
5-10% of the players are 5*
45-60% of the players are 4*
35-50% of the players are 3*
Bama has been in a separate echelon with:
20% of the players are 5*
55% of the players are 4*
25% of the players are 3*
Tennessee has recently had a running 4-year recruiting profile that roughly looks like:
1-2% of the players are 5*
35-40% of the players are 4*
55-60% of the players are 3*
Pruitt's first cycle ending in Feb of last year followed the typical Tennessee pattern, but his current 2019 cycle is looking to break out of that pattern.
The conclusion is that, in addition to good coaching, a team needs to recruit well to beat a team like Bama, but doesn't have to recruit lights-out like Bama to beat them. Clemson has shown this to be true twice, with the talent gap being larger two years ago than the talent gap tonight.
In 2014 through 2017, Bama had the clear edge over Clemson in recruiting, but Clemson finally caught up on par with Bama in the 2018 cycle. In fact Clemson's average recruit score of 93.45 was higher than Bama's 91.94 for 2018. Clemson's avg recruit score steadily increased over the past 5 years from 88.69 to 93.45.
If we average the recruiting rankings over these 5 years, we get:
Alabama 5 yr recruiting average = #2
Clemson 5 yr recruiting average = #12
If we average the recruiting rankings over 4 years instead of 5 years, we get something similar:
Alabama 5 yr recruiting average = #2
Clemson 5 yr recruiting average = #11
One interesting thing is that in the 2018 and 2017 cycle, Clemson only had 17 and 14 recruits, so their overall recruiting rank was biased lower because of the low number of recruits. This is somewhat baffling; how can they develop quality depth with such small classes (grad transfers?)? It may not have shown up this year, but will it show up in the next year or two?
The following table shows the total number of players of each type summed over either 5 years or 4 years preceding the 2018 season. Whether the sum is taken over the previous 5 years or 4 years, Bama has signed nearly twice the number of 5* and 4* players as Clemson.
For most teams that have been in the NC playoff pool in recent years, if we exclude Bama, a typical recruiting profile summed over 4 years looks like:
5-10% of the players are 5*
45-60% of the players are 4*
35-50% of the players are 3*
Bama has been in a separate echelon with:
20% of the players are 5*
55% of the players are 4*
25% of the players are 3*
Tennessee has recently had a running 4-year recruiting profile that roughly looks like:
1-2% of the players are 5*
35-40% of the players are 4*
55-60% of the players are 3*
Pruitt's first cycle ending in Feb of last year followed the typical Tennessee pattern, but his current 2019 cycle is looking to break out of that pattern.
Shades
30 minutes of ball and we are smokin at the end
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 843
- Likes
- 3,306
I will see if I can assemble some numbers into a table. But off the cuff, with the exception of Bama, there are some differences but there isn't a huge difference in talent level for the teams listed below.
Big 10 - Ohio State, Michigan
Big 12 - Oklahoma, Texas
Pac 12 - USC
ACC - Clemson, Florida State
SEC - [Alabama], Georgia, LSU, Auburn
Ind - Notre Dame
As noted before USCw has had a continued wealth of recruiting riches second only to Bama, and enough talent to compete every year in the playoff pool, but have mostly wallowed in mediocrity. After winning the NC, Fisher's Florida State team went on a steady decline until and after his departure, despite repeated stellar recruiting classes on par with USCw.
SweetasSoda
Captain of the Cheerleaders
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 22,989
- Likes
- 141,170
captennmike
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 161
- Likes
- 144
Sudden Impact
Who we are is what We do with what We have!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,057
- Likes
- 7,407
If the evaluation services were all the same and gave an evaluation of every HS player then yes put validity in the ranking system...
We had several busts in our 5* players, because they were not developed or held accountable.
We overlooked several players ratings and sat them on the bench(poor Coaching).
We never coached them up.
We never recruited to position of need because fans buy into Stars*.
Pretty sad to take a 2 star OL not coach him up vs taking a 5 star player not coaching him up but never even putting him on the field.
Face it our Pretty Boy Coach played favorites and the ones that earned it did it on their own...in spite of coaching...
We had several busts in our 5* players, because they were not developed or held accountable.
We overlooked several players ratings and sat them on the bench(poor Coaching).
We never coached them up.
We never recruited to position of need because fans buy into Stars*.
Pretty sad to take a 2 star OL not coach him up vs taking a 5 star player not coaching him up but never even putting him on the field.
Face it our Pretty Boy Coach played favorites and the ones that earned it did it on their own...in spite of coaching...
Shades
30 minutes of ball and we are smokin at the end
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 843
- Likes
- 3,306
Here is another look at Clemson and Bama recruiting; maybe the best look so far, on a year by year basis.
Until the last couple years, Clemson has been winning 10+ games per year for the past 8 years recruiting with a quality similar to that of Tennessee recruiting.
It has only been for the past couple years that they have recruited with a player quality (avg recruit score) on par with Alabama.
Until the last couple years, Clemson has been winning 10+ games per year for the past 8 years recruiting with a quality similar to that of Tennessee recruiting.
It has only been for the past couple years that they have recruited with a player quality (avg recruit score) on par with Alabama.
LouderVol
Extra and Terrestrial
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 55,173
- Likes
- 55,230
In the 8 years prior to Fitzgerald taking over, NW had one winning record. In his first year, they won 7. In his 3rd year, they won 9. In their entire history they've won 9 or more games only 7 times... twice under Gary Barnett and 5 times in Fitzgerald's 13 years.
You again made my point. In just his 3rd year, he produced the second best season they'd ever had.
The successful coach at UT will need some good breaks in recruiting. The "guy" will have to find some underrated players early on that help lift the program so that top recruits take notice. He will have to catch some serious breaks on having low injury rates over the first 3 or 4 years.
And.... he'll have to be a very good coach of the game and developer of players.
And.... he'll have to be a very good coach of the game and developer of players.
Shades
30 minutes of ball and we are smokin at the end
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
- Messages
- 843
- Likes
- 3,306
Here are the results for the 2018 season.
Notable Over-performers
* Army's accomplishments are commendable considering their avg recruiting ranking of 119. They played a weak schedule, but only lost to Oklahoma by 7 pts and demolished Houston in a bowl game.
* Washington State did very well despite their #43 average recruiting ranking, but probably not this good if in a stronger conference.
Other Over-performers
* Clemson and Oklahoma once again did well despite their lower avg recruiting rankings, Oklahoma more so because of their lack of 5* players. Clemson as packed in the 5* players in the last couple years. Clemson avg recruiting rankings skewed a little to the low side due to their small classes the past two years.
* And of course Kentucky over-performed, considering their recruiting has hovered being ranked in the #30's over the past several years.
As Expected
* A lot of blue-blood teams performed as expected roughly commensurate to their recruiting over the past 5 yrs.
* Note that Notre Dame made the playoff with a decent, but not stellar 5yr recruiting average. Zero 5* players, though, and it showed when they got blown out by Clemson.
Notable Under-performers
* Notable under-performers were unranked Florida State and USC (loaded with talent) and unranked Auburn. That makes Auburn notably under-performing 3 of the last 4 years. USC notably under-performed 2 of the last 4 yrs and Fla State 2-3 of the last 4 years.
Notable Over-performers
* Army's accomplishments are commendable considering their avg recruiting ranking of 119. They played a weak schedule, but only lost to Oklahoma by 7 pts and demolished Houston in a bowl game.
* Washington State did very well despite their #43 average recruiting ranking, but probably not this good if in a stronger conference.
Other Over-performers
* Clemson and Oklahoma once again did well despite their lower avg recruiting rankings, Oklahoma more so because of their lack of 5* players. Clemson as packed in the 5* players in the last couple years. Clemson avg recruiting rankings skewed a little to the low side due to their small classes the past two years.
* And of course Kentucky over-performed, considering their recruiting has hovered being ranked in the #30's over the past several years.
As Expected
* A lot of blue-blood teams performed as expected roughly commensurate to their recruiting over the past 5 yrs.
* Note that Notre Dame made the playoff with a decent, but not stellar 5yr recruiting average. Zero 5* players, though, and it showed when they got blown out by Clemson.
Notable Under-performers
* Notable under-performers were unranked Florida State and USC (loaded with talent) and unranked Auburn. That makes Auburn notably under-performing 3 of the last 4 years. USC notably under-performed 2 of the last 4 yrs and Fla State 2-3 of the last 4 years.
Last edited:
VN Store
