This won't be as long as my usual posts. I am working on more graphics and a more in-depth discussion to be published later.
So, as I have often said: recruiting correlates strongly with wins. How have the 2014 recruiting classes shaken up the landscape of the SEC? Not much really.
Here is a list of the four year recruiting averages of all SEC teams. The column on the far right shows the change in the numerical average, not a change in position rankings. Remember, about 70% or more, the team with the higher recruiting average will win a game over a team with a lower average. That number is about 90% in championship games.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90d57/90d576953be52b496f7f388532017cac79984cec" alt="2014SEC.jpg 2014SEC.jpg"
Here is something that will blow your mind (well, it did mine anyway). This is UT's 2014 schedule ranked by opponent's average recruiting classes. As a simple explanation of how to read this; the teams below UT should be a win, the teams above should be a loss. This schedule, by these numbers, is actually slightly easier than last year (1 game difference in predicted wins vs. losses).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c37c/0c37cff5d5a9bcabe8de13701ec0f21a1d372737" alt="2014UT.jpg 2014UT.jpg"
Here is a graphic illustrating how this recruiting class (projected into a 2 deep with the remaining players) improves the overall roster immensely.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ffc16/ffc16c5fd115afb44ffce45b7ac3e487a2c0470d" alt="projected starter strength.jpg projected starter strength.jpg"
More discussion to follow on my blog. I'll keep you posted.
If you want to see how these numbers worked last year, insofar as singular games and seasonal trends, click here:
https://docs.google.com/a/mybloodis...yfdEpwUHpyWXUzY3JWRFU1Skc1UTRiZ2c&output=html
So, as I have often said: recruiting correlates strongly with wins. How have the 2014 recruiting classes shaken up the landscape of the SEC? Not much really.
Here is a list of the four year recruiting averages of all SEC teams. The column on the far right shows the change in the numerical average, not a change in position rankings. Remember, about 70% or more, the team with the higher recruiting average will win a game over a team with a lower average. That number is about 90% in championship games.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90d57/90d576953be52b496f7f388532017cac79984cec" alt="2014SEC.jpg 2014SEC.jpg"
Here is something that will blow your mind (well, it did mine anyway). This is UT's 2014 schedule ranked by opponent's average recruiting classes. As a simple explanation of how to read this; the teams below UT should be a win, the teams above should be a loss. This schedule, by these numbers, is actually slightly easier than last year (1 game difference in predicted wins vs. losses).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c37c/0c37cff5d5a9bcabe8de13701ec0f21a1d372737" alt="2014UT.jpg 2014UT.jpg"
Here is a graphic illustrating how this recruiting class (projected into a 2 deep with the remaining players) improves the overall roster immensely.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ffc16/ffc16c5fd115afb44ffce45b7ac3e487a2c0470d" alt="projected starter strength.jpg projected starter strength.jpg"
More discussion to follow on my blog. I'll keep you posted.
If you want to see how these numbers worked last year, insofar as singular games and seasonal trends, click here:
https://docs.google.com/a/mybloodis...yfdEpwUHpyWXUzY3JWRFU1Skc1UTRiZ2c&output=html
Last edited: