Statistics tell the story III

#51
#51
Here is something else that I have not quite digested yet, but it is interesting. I went back and looked at Cincinnati's schedule for the Jones era to determine the recruiting ranges for the teams he beat and lost to.

In his three years, Jones beat 9 teams ranked higher than his Cincinnati team. These 9 teams averaged being almost 14 recruiting classes ahead of Cincy, and Jones' average margin of victory was 14 points each.

Jones only lost to 3 teams ranked below Cincy in that same time span. Those teams averaged 9 recruiting classes below the bearcats, with an average loss by 16 points. While that might be a little shocking, consider that 2 of the three losses came in his first year coaching at Cincy.

The widest gap that Jones beat was 31.75 recruiting class rankings (Rutgers 2010), the second highest was 29.25 (VaTech 2012). The widest gap of a loss was to Toledo (19.75 below Cincy) and that was in 2012. The loss to Toledo, obviously, was the biggest factor in dragging the average loss differential down. The other two losses were against teams with a talent differential less than 5 below Cincinnati.

To put that in a more orange tinted perspective, it means that should those proportional relationships hold, Jones could be able to improve our talent enough to potentially beat everyone on UT's schedule.

In 3 years, UT has not won against a team with a better recruiting record. In fact our 2012 loss to Vanderbilt had a talent differential of 45.5, and the 2011 loss to Kentucky had a talent differential of 36. Those are pretty shocking numbers, in hindsight. Here is a way to illustrate that conundrum: picture Bama losing to Utah and Georgia Tech respectively. That is the same sort of talent differential that UT lost to when we played Vandy and Kentucky.
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
daj2576 said:
You're right. There are certainly many intangibles. I think using a four year average tends to mitigate both the booms and the busts, plus it tends to flatten out the impact of leaving early for the draft and other things.

Basically with every school being calculated as a four year average, the algorithm tends to assume that players are developed or not roughly at the same rate across the NCAA. Is that a bad assumption? Could be. I bet that if there are outliers that blow up that average they are fewer than the norm. That is just a gut feeling.

Good input though. I don't mind if we disagree, in fact that is the best way to sharpen an analysis. :)
Click to expand...

Some problems with recruiting rankings;

(again not to knock your execellent analyces.)

Recruits are ranked but when they go to Jr College or prep school they are also counted in the next or the next class also.

A good outlier would by Snyder, who took over the very worst won/loss record in major football at Kan St and had them ranked in the to five for five straight years which put them into a rarified area occupied by only UT and a few others.

He retired and Kan St fell off the map, they brought him back and this year, with only one more win, Kan St would be playing for the NC.

COACHING COUNTS!

At no time do I think Kan St has ever been ranked in the top five by the recruiting services.

A few years ago after we suffered a loss to Georgia, a Dawg fan expanded on how Geroria was better than UT and I went to the statistics which showed UT to be ranked #7 and Geo to be ranked #17 when you consider such things as bowl game played, bowl games won, total games won, conference championships etc etc.

I am trying to look up all those stats again, give me time.

What we need now is a revival of unified school spirit.

I like your approach! :loco:
 
#53
#53
Rockytopia said:
Some problems with recruiting rankings;

(again not to knock your execellent analyces.)

Recruits are ranked but when they go to Jr College or prep school they are also counted in the next or the next class also.

A good outlier would by Snyder, who took over the very worst won/loss record in major football at Kan St and had them ranked in the to five for five straight years which put them into a rarified area occupied by only UT and a few others.

He retired and Kan St fell off the map, they brought him back and this year, with only one more win, Kan St would be playing for the NC.

COACHING COUNTS!

At no time do I think Kan St has ever been ranked in the top five by the recruiting services.

A few years ago after we suffered a loss to Georgia, a Dawg fan expanded on how Geroria was better than UT and I went to the statistics which showed UT to be ranked #7 and Geo to be ranked #17 when you consider such things as bowl game played, bowl games won, total games won, conference championships etc etc.

I am trying to look up all those stats again, give me time.

What we need now is a revival of unified school spirit.

I like your approach! :loco:
Click to expand...

All good points. Obviously coaching counts. The purpose of any of this was not to say that coaching does not count. The end result has shown that in the SEC recruiting is a key indicator of long term success. This sort of analysis also tends to isolate the coaches who over perform based on their recruiting.

There are many draw backs to this analysis as well. For one, as the bowl games are showing, it does not tend to predict unique match ups like are shown during the bowl season. I think there are too many intangibles that recruiting alone does not account for, such as emotion, location, inevitable coaching changes, etc.

I have only been observing this data set since September, so it would be interesting to break down the bowl games and see if there are other trends that can be accounted for to help sharpen the predictability of these matchups.
 
#54
#54
daj2576 said:
Here is something else that I have not quite digested yet, but it is interesting. I went back and looked at Cincinnati's schedule for the Jones era to determine the recruiting ranges for the teams he beat and lost to.

In his three years, Jones beat 9 teams ranked higher than his Cincinnati team. These 9 teams averaged being almost 14 recruiting classes ahead of Cincy, and Jones' average margin of victory was 14 points each.

Jones only lost to 3 teams ranked below Cincy in that same time span. Those teams averaged 9 recruiting classes below the bearcats, with an average loss by 16 points. While that might be a little shocking, consider that 2 of the three losses came in his first year coaching at Cincy.

The widest gap that Jones beat was 31.75 recruiting class rankings (Rutgers 2010), the second highest was 29.25 (VaTech 2012). The widest gap of a loss was to Toledo (19.75 below Cincy) and that was in 2012. The loss to Toledo, obviously, was the biggest factor in dragging the average loss differential down. The other two losses were against teams with a talent differential less than 5 below Cincinnati.

To put that in a more orange tinted perspective, it means that should those proportional relationships hold, Jones could be able to improve our talent enough to potentially beat everyone on UT's schedule.

In 3 years, UT has not won against a team with a better recruiting record. In fact our 2012 loss to Vanderbilt had a talent differential of 45.5, and the 2011 loss to Kentucky had a talent differential of 36. Those are pretty shocking numbers, in hindsight. Here is a way to illustrate that conundrum: picture Bama losing to Utah and Georgia Tech respectively. That is the same sort of talent differential that UT lost to when we played Vandy and Kentucky.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute your main point. But to imply that our talent is now of a high caliber based on recent years recruiting classes, recall that those talented classes were jacked up by the likes of Janzen Jackson, Bryce Brown, Darick Rodgers, Cameron Clear ... multi-star guys who were nowhere to be found when we really needed them this last year or two.
 
#55
#55
More data:

Most consecutive bowl appearanes:

1 Nebraska 35 1969-2003

2 Michigan 33 1975-2007

3 Florida St. 30 1982-20XX

4 Alabama 25 1959-1983

5 Florida 21 1991-20XX

6 Virginia Tech 19 1993-20XX

7 Brigham Young (UT) 17 1978-1994

8 Tennessee 16 1989-2004

9 Georgia 15 1997-20XX

10 Georgia Tech 15 1997-20XX

11 Mississippi 15 1957-1971

12 Ohio St. 15 1972-1986

13 Oklahoma 13 1999-20XX

14 Penn St. 13 1971-1983

15 Boston College (MA) 12 1999-2010

16 Louisiana St. 12 2000-20XX

17 Miami (FL) 12 1983 1994

18 Ohio St. 12 2000-20XX

19 Texas 12 1998-2009

20 Kansas St. 11 1993-2003

Most of the time Nebraska never was in the top ten in the recruiting rankings.
 
#56
#56
orangebloodgmc said:
I don't dispute your main point. But to imply that our talent is now of a high caliber based on recent years recruiting classes, recall that those talented classes were jacked up by the likes of Janzen Jackson, Bryce Brown, Darick Rodgers, Cameron Clear ... multi-star guys who were nowhere to be found when we really needed them this last year or two.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I am implying that our talent is of the highest caliber, yet. What I am implying is that we have more talent on hand than Arkansas ever did with Petrino. We have more talent, on hand, than Miss. State, Vandy, Kentucky, Missouri and probably South Carolina (even if you account for that attrition). What I am implying is that we have more talent than our record shows and put in the right hands, we could make a huge jump in performance based off of that talent base.

Again, this is not a perfect evaluation. It does, however, provide a reasonable floor from which a much more detailed analysis can be had. I think this sort of analysis also tends to burp out the coaches who either far exceed or under perform. Dooley and Chizik were under performers (and got fired). Petrino, Spurrier, Franklin and Mullen are different levels of over performers. Then there is another weakness of this evaluation revealed: coaches like Saban and Miles who recruit so well that their only possibility over a long enough time line is to underperform their expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
Rockytopia said:
More data:

Most consecutive bowl appearanes:

1 Nebraska 35 1969-2003

2 Michigan 33 1975-2007

3 Florida St. 30 1982-20XX

4 Alabama 25 1959-1983

5 Florida 21 1991-20XX

6 Virginia Tech 19 1993-20XX

7 Brigham Young (UT) 17 1978-1994

8 Tennessee 16 1989-2004

9 Georgia 15 1997-20XX

10 Georgia Tech 15 1997-20XX

11 Mississippi 15 1957-1971

12 Ohio St. 15 1972-1986

13 Oklahoma 13 1999-20XX

14 Penn St. 13 1971-1983

15 Boston College (MA) 12 1999-2010

16 Louisiana St. 12 2000-20XX

17 Miami (FL) 12 1983 1994

18 Ohio St. 12 2000-20XX

19 Texas 12 1998-2009

20 Kansas St. 11 1993-2003

Most of the time Nebraska never was in the top ten in the recruiting rankings.
Click to expand...

While those are interesting stats, I don't think it is a fair evaluation for a few reasons. 1) I am not sure when modern recruiting rankings like Rivals came into existence with such a powerful, national database. I know you can generally only get data back as far as 2002, so it would be difficult for me to evaluate who had better recruiting classes over the span of Nebraskas unbroken run of bowl games. 2) Outside of the modern SEC, it is much easier to win without insane recruiting averages. For instance, Wisconsin, Baylor, Kansas State and others are all well outside of the top 25 when viewed solely from a recruiting stand point. You would be hard pressed to find a dominant SEC team, in the "modern" era, who has had long term success without out recruiting the majority of their rivals. In the SEC, that requires top 10 classes, as a general rule.

Good information though.
 
#58
#58
Regardless of how truly objective this is, it passes the smell test for me. Who here (that has been following college football for any length of time) can dispute that there are some coaches that consistently get more out of a team than the talent would support, and conversely, there are some that coach well below their talent.

You can argue that we aren't as good as our recruiting classes would suggest, but I'll flip that back and say that to lose players of the caliber we have lost, is a further indictment of the ability of the head coach to manage them. They arrive as kids. Kids do dumb things. Good leaders and mentors can mitigate that to a great deal, but poor ones exacerbate the problem. Further, a good head coach can likely tell the difference between good kids doing bad things and plain bad kids.

Give a good coach a recruiting class 10 spots lower, but full of good kids that can be taught, vs a higher class of thugs that can't or won't, and he'll win every time. In that spectrum, my guess is that Kiffin was at the bottom, Dooley somewhat better, and CBJ well above either...but time will tell.

I gotta say though...I really loved the heart that Cincy showed last night. At 16-0 in the first quarter they could have laid down. With Duke about to score with 1:30 or so left, they could have laid down. But they didn't...and they won by 14...while being coached by 2 assistants and a gaggle of GAs. That's impressive...and that is pure coaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
More information: (most wins)


Rank...Team..........Win...Loss...Tie...Games

1......Michigan......903...316....38....1257

2......Nebraska......866...352....41....1259

2......Texas.........866...337....34....1237

4......Notre Dame....865...301....41....1207

5......Ohio St.......837...316....53....1206

6......Oklahoma......829...312....53....1194

7......Alabama.......826...321....43....1190

8......Tennessee.....799...354....54....1207

9......Southern Cal..786...318....54....1158

10.....Georgia.......759...402....54....1215

11.....Louisiana St..744...392....47....1183

12.....Penn St.......723...365....43....1131

13.....Auburn........721...414....47....1182

14.....W. Virginia...708...462....45....1215

15.....Syracuse......698...497....49....1244

16.....Vir Tech......696...440....46....1182

17.....Geo Tech......695...468....43....1206

18.....Texas A&M.....692...452....48....1192

19.....Pittsburgh....684...499....41....1224

20.....Arkansas......683...464....40....1187

21.....Florida.......680...386....40....1106




While those are interesting stats, I don't think it is a fair evaluation for a few reasons. 1) I am not sure when modern recruiting rankings like Rivals came into existence with such a powerful, national database. I know you can generally only get data back as far as 2002, so it would be difficult for me to evaluate who had better recruiting classes over the span of Nebraskas unbroken run of bowl games. 2) Outside of the modern SEC, it is much easier to win without insane recruiting averages. For instance, Wisconsin, Baylor, Kansas State and others are all well outside of the top 25 when viewed solely from a recruiting stand point. You would be hard pressed to find a dominant SEC team, in the "modern" era, who has had long term success without out recruiting the majority of their rivals. In the SEC, that requires top 10 classes, as a general rule.
Click to expand...

Well I wholeheartedly agree the necessity of recruiting talented players and the consideration of the level of the competition are a couple of the top factors determining outcomes, just pointing out that winning tradition and certainly coaching play a big part as well, we don't need to lose sight of that.

Ever heard of the coach who says; "I can take my players and beat yours or take your players and beat mine?"

I went to 21 in the data above to include Florida.

Florida always had plenty of talent but until Spurrior came along and lit a fire under them they just usually underperformed.

Look at Nebraska, during their best years their recruiting classes averaged about 13th and they thumped us pretty good in a bowl game when ours were averaging in the top five.
 
#60
#60
Rockytopia said:
More information: (most wins)


Rank...Team..........Win...Loss...Tie...Games

1......Michigan......903...316....38....1257

2......Nebraska......866...352....41....1259

2......Texas.........866...337....34....1237

4......Notre Dame....865...301....41....1207

5......Ohio St.......837...316....53....1206

6......Oklahoma......829...312....53....1194

7......Alabama.......826...321....43....1190

8......Tennessee.....799...354....54....1207

9......Southern Cal..786...318....54....1158

10.....Georgia.......759...402....54....1215

11.....Louisiana St..744...392....47....1183

12.....Penn St.......723...365....43....1131

13.....Auburn........721...414....47....1182

14.....W. Virginia...708...462....45....1215

15.....Syracuse......698...497....49....1244

16.....Vir Tech......696...440....46....1182

17.....Geo Tech......695...468....43....1206

18.....Texas A&M.....692...452....48....1192

19.....Pittsburgh....684...499....41....1224

20.....Arkansas......683...464....40....1187

21.....Florida.......680...386....40....1106






Well I wholeheartedly agree the necessity of recruiting talented players and the consideration of the level of the competition are a couple of the top factors determining outcomes, just pointing out that winning tradition and certainly coaching play a big part as well, we don't need to lose sight of that.

Ever heard of the coach who says; "I can take my players and beat yours or take your players and beat mine?"

I went to 21 in the data above to include Florida.

Florida always had plenty of talent but until Spurrior came along and lit a fire under them they just usually underperformed.

Look at Nebraska, during their best years their recruiting classes averaged about 13th and they thumped us pretty good in a bowl game when ours were averaging in the top five.
Click to expand...

Good points and great conversation!
 
#61
#61
Rockytopia said:
Look at Nebraska, during their best years their recruiting classes averaged about 13th and they thumped us pretty good in a bowl game when ours were averaging in the top five.
Click to expand...

where are you getting pre-2000 recruiting rankings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
Can anyone give me a list of the spread for each game? I would like to see how the recruiting ranking matrix holds up to the spread.
 
#63
#63
daj2576 said:
Here is something that really made me feel much better.

Per tm3 I went back and reviewed Butch Jones' numbers at Cincy.

Here is what I found:


Cincinnati's 2012 schedule ranked in order of recruiting averages

Virginia Tech = 25.25
(22) Rutgers = 39.5
Pitt = 46.25
(16) Louisville = 48.75
South Florida = 50.75
Cincinnati = 54.5
Toledo = 74.25
Syracuse = 83.75
Connecticut = 84
Temple = 92.5
Miami (OH) = 98.75
Fordham = X
Delaware St = X

Cincinnati's predicted wins = 7. ACTUAL WINS = 9 (+2)


2011

Tennessee = 16.75
West Virginia = 35.75
Pittsburgh = 41.5
Rutgers = 45
North Carolina State = 50.75
Louisville = 52
South Florida = 52
Cincinnati = 58.75
Vanderbilt = 73
Syracuse = 79.5
Connecticut = 82.5
Akron = 86
Miami (OH) = 99.5
Austin Peay = X

Predicted wins = 6. ACTUAL WINS = 10 (+4)

2010

(8)Oklahoma = 12.5
West Virginia = 23.8
Pittsburgh = 33.5
Rutgers = 37
North Carolina State = 41.75
South Florida = 50.75
Louisville = 55
Fresno State = 66.75
Cincinnati = 68.75
Syracuse = 72.75
Connecticut = 73.5
Miami (OH) = 88.5
Indiana St = X

Predicted wins = 4. ACTUAL WINS = 4 (+0).
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting all this together, I like seeing hard figures.

Out of curiosity, could you do the same for LaTech during Dooley's tenure?

If you do, hopefully the results don't put a negative spin on the positive vibes I'm getting from this.
 
#64
#64
Luke said:
Thanks for putting all this together, I like seeing hard figures.

Out of curiosity, could you do the same for LaTech during Dooley's tenure?

If you do, hopefully the results don't put a negative spin on the positive vibes I'm getting from this.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. Give me a day or so to scratch out a little time.
 
#65
#65
My conclusion after tracking this evaluation multiple ways is this: better recruiting creates a rebuttable presumption of victory, where coaching creates the upsets.

As far as Dooley at La-Tech goes, here are the numbers. I just did this evaluation for conference play which included Boise State, Louisiana Tech, Fresno State, Utah State, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, San Jose State and New Mexico State.

2009
Louisiana Tech's predicted conference wins: 6
Actual conference wins: 3
vs ranked opponents (OOC): 0 for 2

2008
Predicted conference wins: 6
Actual conference wins: 5
vs ranked opponents (OOC): 0 for 2

2007
Predicted conference wins: 7
Actual conference wins: 4
played no ranked opponents

Tech never beat Nevada under Dooley who they consistently out recruited. Tech never beat Boise State under Dooley, who consistently out recruited Tech.

He was spotless against the conference powerhouses of San Jose State and New Mexico State who were the bottom two in conference recruiting.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
Based on these numbers, it would appear the guy who hired Dooley was an idiot or not interested in winning a lot of football games.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top