The 2014 Recruiting Class: A first look at the impact.

#52
#52
Orangedogsrule said:
It would take a lot of research, but I'd like to see SEC data going back several years on the star rankings of gameday rosters. A chart for who actually played and another for the gameday depth chart. I think it may be even more telling than what you have done, which is great by the way. So much attrition, transfer, busts, etc. from freshman recruiting classes. How hard is it to find the Rivals Rating for each player to take the field? Take a whole office.
Click to expand...

The guys that help with my blog, and I, are actually tracking that going forward. At least for UT. I've always thought that would be a great way to look at what to expect on game day. You can find the in progress roster and projected two deep here:

https://sites.google.com/a/mybloodisorange.com/roster/

It's still a work in progress, so don't be too harsh on the layout and colors just yet. We are playing around with the appearance.
 
#56
#56
Seems like digging up star ratings and 2-deeps would be a good candidate for crowd sourcing.

Have you looked at the numerical ranking vs the star rating? It seems like you might be able to increase the predictability that way although there's enough variability that it could just be in the noise. Would be interesting to see regardless.
 
#57
#57
Col_Cathcart said:
Seems like digging up star ratings and 2-deeps would be a good candidate for crowd sourcing.

Have you looked at the numerical ranking vs the star rating? It seems like you might be able to increase the predictability that way although there's enough variability that it could just be in the noise. Would be interesting to see regardless.
Click to expand...

I have to draw a line at some point that is distant enough from what my employer does as to not reveal any of his methodology and conclusions. Where I draw that line is right about the data that I've already shown.

There are ways to drastically increase predictability but I can't get you much closer than this. :)
 
#58
#58
Daj just in case you have not seen this

Below is a breakdown of how many four- and five-star prospects each SEC school has signed in the last four years:


•Alabama: 66 (21 in 2013, 17 in 2012, 16 in 2011, 12 in 2010)

•Florida: 66 (22 in 2013, 15 in 2012, 11 in 2011, 18 in 2010)

•Georgia: 57 (21 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 17 in 2011, 9 in 2010)

•Auburn: 54 (15 in 2013, 12 in 2012, 16 in 2011, 11 in 2010)

•LSU: 49 (20 in 2013, 9 in 2012, 8 in 2011, 12 in 2010)

•South Carolina: 33 (11 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 7 in 2011, 5 in 2010)

•Tennessee: 33 (7 in 2013, 7 in 2012, 9 in 2011, 10 in 2010)

•Texas A&M: 31 (17 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 1 in 2011, 3 in 2010)

•Ole Miss: 25 (14 in 2013, 3 in 2012, 4 in 2011, 4 in 2010)

•Arkansas: 21 (5 in 2013, 5 in 2012, 9 in 2011, 2 in 2010)

•Mississippi State: 15 (8 in 2013, 3 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 4 in 2010)

•Vanderbilt: 13 (12 in 2013, 1 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 0 in 2010)

•Missouri: 11 (4 in 2013, 4 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 3 in 2010)

•Kentucky: 9 (6 in 2013, 1 in 2012, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2010)

Total records over that 4 year span:
Alabama: 46-7
Florida: 30-21
Georgia: 36-18
Auburn: 37-16
LSU: 44-9
USCe: 42-11
UT: 21-28
TAM: 36-16
Ole Miss:21-29
Arkansas: 28-22
Miss ST: 31-21
Vanderbilt: 26-25
Mizzou: 35-17
UK: 15-34

Spurrier has done a lot with a little

Muschump and Richt have done relatively little with a lot

Only UK has lost more games than UT in the last 4 years. Ouch.
 
#59
#59
tm3 said:
Daj just in case you have not seen this

Below is a breakdown of how many four- and five-star prospects each SEC school has signed in the last four years:


•Alabama: 66 (21 in 2013, 17 in 2012, 16 in 2011, 12 in 2010)

•Florida: 66 (22 in 2013, 15 in 2012, 11 in 2011, 18 in 2010)

•Georgia: 57 (21 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 17 in 2011, 9 in 2010)

•Auburn: 54 (15 in 2013, 12 in 2012, 16 in 2011, 11 in 2010)

•LSU: 49 (20 in 2013, 9 in 2012, 8 in 2011, 12 in 2010)

•South Carolina: 33 (11 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 7 in 2011, 5 in 2010)

•Tennessee: 33 (7 in 2013, 7 in 2012, 9 in 2011, 10 in 2010)

•Texas A&M: 31 (17 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 1 in 2011, 3 in 2010)

•Ole Miss: 25 (14 in 2013, 3 in 2012, 4 in 2011, 4 in 2010)

•Arkansas: 21 (5 in 2013, 5 in 2012, 9 in 2011, 2 in 2010)

•Mississippi State: 15 (8 in 2013, 3 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 4 in 2010)

•Vanderbilt: 13 (12 in 2013, 1 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 0 in 2010)

•Missouri: 11 (4 in 2013, 4 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 3 in 2010)

•Kentucky: 9 (6 in 2013, 1 in 2012, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2010)

Total records over that 4 year span:
Alabama: 46-7
Florida: 30-21
Georgia: 36-18
Auburn: 37-16
LSU: 44-9
USCe: 42-11
UT: 21-28
TAM: 36-16
Ole Miss:21-29
Arkansas: 28-22
Miss ST: 31-21
Vanderbilt: 26-25
Mizzou: 35-17
UK: 15-34

Spurrier has done a lot with a little

Muschump and Richt have done relatively little with a lot

Only UK has lost more games than UT in the last 4 years. Ouch.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting way to look at data. Interesting for sure. My numbers show that over the past five years, UT and UF battle for largest under performer. Last year that award fell squarely on Muschamp.

Spurrier has a history of over performance BUT he has flattened out the past two to three years. Richt is about the most stable performer in relation to talent in my view (Miles is about at the same level insofar as performing right at his talent).
 
#60
#60
daj2576 said:
By the way, I have other great news. After ten years of marriage, my wife is finally pregnant! I am going to be a father, and I have never been so scared and happy all at once. We aren't telling our family yet (so if you happen to know me or my wife, or our family keep it hush), but I had to tell someone.

Here is what my wife gave me to tell me the news.

View attachment 74025

:rock::crazy::)
Click to expand...

Awesome (allsome) congrats :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
VolFan4Life87 said:
Something that blows my mind, is how AWFUL South Alabama's recruiting rankings are over the past few years, and how they nearly beat us last year.:no:
Click to expand...

Right before that last play, I pulled up Rivals and looked through the ratings. When I saw how much higher rated our classes were, I just sat there and belly laughed at the TV. Then Randolph made the pic. :loco:
 
#65
#65
nashvol1 said:
This means little on the margin without great QB play. The difference maker.
Click to expand...

This is always cited, but I believe it is an arguable conclusion. I've seen some numbers that show (if memory serves) that .2 games a year is all that can be attributed to an experienced vs. Inexperienced qb. In other words, people tend to give too much credit to the QB and not enough to the other ten guys on the field.

The one position that is undervalued is kicker/punter. The same numbers show that experience at those positions account for almost two wins during a season.
 
#66
#66
daj2576 said:
This is always cited, but I believe it is an arguable conclusion. I've seen some numbers that show (if memory serves) that .2 games a year is all that can be attributed to an experienced vs. Inexperienced qb. In other words, people tend to give too much credit to the QB and not enough to the other ten guys on the field.

The one position that is undervalued is kicker/punter. The same numbers show that experience at those positions account for almost two wins during a season.
Click to expand...

In other news, football is a team sport?
 
#68
#68
Daj, I've brought up this point before and don't remember you responding.

I'm assuming your analysis doesn't weight freshman versus seniors. Shouldn't our talent rating be weighted because most of the "talent" being freshman and a couple sophomores for 2014?

Perhaps (25)% weighting discount towards freshman and 25% to seniors, because everything held equal, a team of 5* seniors would smash a team of 5* freshman.

Love your analysis by the way, not being argumentative for arguments sake, just pondering a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
daj2576 said:
This is always cited, but I believe it is an arguable conclusion. I've seen some numbers that show (if memory serves) that .2 games a year is all that can be attributed to an experienced vs. Inexperienced qb. In other words, people tend to give too much credit to the QB and not enough to the other ten guys on the field.

The one position that is undervalued is kicker/punter. The same numbers show that experience at those positions account for almost two wins during a season.
Click to expand...

I think "experienced" isn't necessarily the best metric to use. FSU just won the NC with a RSF at QB. I think "good QB play" is a pretty big deal. If they're effective I don't think it much matters what class they're in.

To keep it closer to home the '05 Vols had the #7 (total) defense in the country. This is a team that had Arian Foster in the backfield and Robert Meachem/Jayson Swain/Bret Smith at WR. We had Rick Clausen at QB. I think that last bit mattered...a lot.
 
#70
#70
hndog609 said:
I think "experienced" isn't necessarily the best metric to use. FSU just won the NC with a RSF at QB. I think "good QB play" is a pretty big deal. If they're effective I don't think it much matters what class they're in.

To keep it closer to home the '05 Vols had the #7 (total) defense in the country. This is a team that had Arian Foster in the backfield and Robert Meachem/Jayson Swain/Bret Smith at WR. We had Rick Clausen at QB. I think that last bit mattered...a lot.
Click to expand...

I think it is really difficult to distinguish what makes a QB "good" without discussing his line, backs, receivers, etc. Experience might be a bad metric, but raw talent might be the biggest factor in any evaluation, which is exactly what I've shown.
 
#71
#71
General Jack said:
Daj, I've brought up this point before and don't remember you responding.

I'm assuming your analysis doesn't weight freshman versus seniors. Shouldn't our talent rating be weighted because most of the "talent" being freshman and a couple sophomores for 2014?

Perhaps (25)% weighting discount towards freshman and 25% to seniors, because everything held equal, a team of 5* seniors would smash a team of 5* freshman.

Love your analysis by the way, not being argumentative for arguments sake, just pondering a point.
Click to expand...

I think I have responded to you before, or at least someone who made a similar argument. Without adjusting for your factors, I am showing you what predicts north of 70% of every game played. The remaining 30% generally reveals coaches who have a history of over or under performance. That, to me, suggests that all other factors only have a tiny impact overall. In fact, if I had to rate the order of importance of things that account for about 95% of every game it would be raw talent (70+%), then coach effect and venue would be the two remaining quantifiable values. Everything else would be too muddy to distinguish.

To put it another way, without adjusting for what you ask, I have seen systems whose predictive ability skyrockets above 70%. They are very expensive (And, valuable) thus cannot be shared on a message board, but they exist.
 
#72
#72
daj2576 said:
I think it is really difficult to distinguish what makes a QB "good" without discussing his line, backs, receivers, etc. Experience might be a bad metric, but raw talent might be the biggest factor in any evaluation, which is exactly what I've shown.
Click to expand...

I was merely commenting on this:

I've seen some numbers that show (if memory serves) that .2 games a year is all that can be attributed to an experienced vs. Inexperienced qb.
Click to expand...

Your quote was in response to someone else commenting on the impact from the QB position being singularly greater than most (arguably any) other position on the field. (Their quote was "difference maker") In this context one is basically saying the same team is in fact a different team (even very different) by doing nothing more than changing the QB. This is what made me cite that '05 TN team where it seemed crazy they should have gone 5-6...until you looked at the QB play.

If we are going to make the talent argument then we're back to my citing this years FSU team where QB experience was a worthless metric but talent certainly wasn't.

Upshot, I'll take talent over experience for the most part but an elite QB (whatever their experience) can cover a lot of ills on a team and, conversely, poor QB play can kill a team that is otherwise quite talented.
 
#73
#73
Daj,

Congrats to you and the Mrs.!

General Jack had the same thought I did. Obviously this crop coming in skewed UT's number upward but it isn't necessarily fair because their contributions won't be fully felt for another year or 2.

Conversly, Bama simply moved up to #1 but they were already at #2. The impact of their incoming class has less weight compared to UT.

Now, I see where Utah St. is well into the 100's in recruiting. I don't know too much about their program but they did finish 9-5 with a bowl win over a ranked team. I can conclude they've seriously over-performed based on their recruiting rankings?
 
#74
#74
hndog609 said:
I was merely commenting on this:



Your quote was in response to someone else commenting on the impact from the QB position being singularly greater than most (arguably any) other position on the field. (Their quote was "difference maker") In this context one is basically saying the same team is in fact a different team (even very different) by doing nothing more than changing the QB. This is what made me cite that '05 TN team where it seemed crazy they should have gone 5-6...until you looked at the QB play.

If we are going to make the talent argument then we're back to my citing this years FSU team where QB experience was a worthless metric but talent certainly wasn't.

Upshot, I'll take talent over experience for the most part but an elite QB (whatever their experience) can cover a lot of ills on a team and, conversely, poor QB play can kill a team that is otherwise quite talented.
Click to expand...

I think we largely agree.The problem that I have with the "elite QB" statement that many make, is that whether you cite Winston, Tebow, or Newton (anyone but Vince young really), you are looking at a team that had a better four year recruiting average than 100% of their BCS championship opponents. Its just too difficult, for me, to distinguish that one player from the others.

For instance: many say that Manziel is the best QB they have ever seen. If you look at this evaluation you quickly see that ATM's hype was based on one over-performance against Bama. Otherwise they performed about as talent predicted. In fact, that lone win is explainable more by Saban's shortcomings defending specific schemes than Manziel's skill.
 
#75
#75
Boca Vol said:
Daj,

Congrats to you and the Mrs.!

General Jack had the same thought I did. Obviously this crop coming in skewed UT's number upward but it isn't necessarily fair because their contributions won't be fully felt for another year or 2.

Conversly, Bama simply moved up to #1 but they were already at #2. The impact of their incoming class has less weight compared to UT.

Now, I see where Utah St. is well into the 100's in recruiting. I don't know too much about their program but they did finish 9-5 with a bowl win over a ranked team. I can conclude they've seriously over-performed based on their recruiting rankings?
Click to expand...

As to Utah State, no. They beat Northwestern who averages below 50 recruiting. Teams below 50 tend to have a slightly lower correlation between these averages and wins. The reason is that the recruiting services do a great job of differentiating 3-5 star players. But, when you have a team that is made of largely lessor rated players the services get very muddy.

When you have a team rated in the top 25, playing against a bottom half team, the prediction rate falls above the averages (easier to predict). The spread, however, tends to be less predictable. It can be a very close game, but the outcome is almost set in stone.

The ranking and bowl systems are asinine. They basically ignore SoS and go for wins. The 8th best team in the land could hypothetically finish the season with 7 losses (if they played the top 7 teams). But, that team wouldn't be bowl eligible and would show up around 50 in our current polls. This then favors the perception of a mediocre team like Utah State. The way we look at football is a travesty to me.

Could Utah State win this game? Yup. Is it likely? Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top