Recruiting rankings and such...

Buzzilla

Buzzilla

I'm all out of bubblegum
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
991
Here is the current 2023 247 composite transfer and H.S. recruiting rankings: https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/OverallTeamRankings/

Items of note:
Georgia Tech is currently ranked 56th in overall recruiting (20 H.S. players and 6 transfers)
Colorado is ranked 47th
Tulane is ranked 71st
Liberty is ranked 107th

Current rankings will change I'm sure as recruits are added.

As an aside, I think the discussion of the correlation between recruiting rankings and Win/Loss records is an interesting topic. FWIW, here is an article from 2019 that crunches some data, discusses correlations and points out some interesting outliers to the expected win/loss records given their recruiting rankings. It's a bit dated but it's interesting none the less.

watchstadium.com

Stadium

Your Daily Fan Network
watchstadium.com watchstadium.com

Thoughts?
 
I'm glad recruiting services are reacting to the portal, since it's increasingly obvious that a larger percentage of each signing class and roster is going to be made up of transfers going forward. Does anybody know if they are yet re-rating the transfer players in any way, or if they are just going on high school ratings?

I've always thought there should be some kind of "developmental" rating, but there was never any incentive for the services to spend the effort on it.
 
They do “re-rank” for transfers. I think they might allow the HS rating to be the default but they re-rate if they think the player has moved up or down during their playing time. It doesn’t seem very scientific at all though. (Is any of it?)
 
GT rivals recruiting rankings by year 2002 to 2019....2022 = 52nd, 2021 = 48th, and 2020 = 25th....

1671655088778.png
 
Milwaukee said:
56th is pretty damn bad isn’t it?
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty consistent with 247 historical rankings:
2022 #44
2021 #47
2020 #27
2019 #50
2018 #44
2017 #48

The outlier of course being 2020. Average for 2017-2022 is #43. Throw out the outlier and the average is #47.

#56 isn't great and is the low for the last 7 years but not egregiously out of line with trend. I don't think the difference between single year rankings of #27 in 2020 and #56 in 2023 is enough to make a statistical difference in overall wins/losses. I think player development and coaching plays a bigger role. This argument could be supported by the results of this season under TFG and CBK.

The difference in rankings in my opinion show up in wins and losses when you can consistently put together top 20 classes or better. #56 isn't a great result but considering the coaching change and disruptions it isn't terrible. Like I said, it's within a reasonable range from trend. I would expect next years class to be considerably better though I think Tech will forever be range bound by academics and conditions.

To be successful, Tech is going to have to find ways to consistently outperform the recruiting rankings IMHO. It's not impossible, especially in a fairly weak conference. KState, Boise State, Utah, Wisconsin, Iowa, Wake Forest and others have found ways to do it. Tech can too.
 
Buzzilla said:
Here is the current 2023 247 composite transfer and H.S. recruiting rankings: https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/OverallTeamRankings/

Items of note:
Georgia Tech is currently ranked 56th in overall recruiting (20 H.S. players and 6 transfers)
Colorado is ranked 47th
Tulane is ranked 71st
Liberty is ranked 107th

Current rankings will change I'm sure as recruits are added.

As an aside, I think the discussion of the correlation between recruiting rankings and Win/Loss records is an interesting topic. FWIW, here is an article from 2019 that crunches some data, discusses correlations and points out some interesting outliers to the expected win/loss records given their recruiting rankings. It's a bit dated but it's interesting none the less.

watchstadium.com

Stadium

Your Daily Fan Network
watchstadium.com watchstadium.com

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think this shows that the ones who habitually recruit the top 15 or so classes annually will have better on-field results, the ones who recruit the bottom 15 or so annually will have much worse on-field results. There's a big bubble in the middle with only a slight negative correlation showing the middle is hard to predict.
 
stinger78 said:
I think this shows that the ones who habitually recruit the top 15 or so classes annually will have better on-field results, the ones who recruit the bottom 15 or so annually will have much worse on-field results. There's a big bubble in the middle with only a slight negative correlation showing the middle is hard to predict.
Click to expand...
The middle schools are all 3-star plus unrated like us. The only way to tell the difference is to start classifying "high" and "low" 3 stars. That's like finding differences in average performers on any Bell Curve.
 
Holy shit, aren't there like 65 P5 teams. Please tell me we are out recruiting Kansas or at least Vandy.
 
stinger78 said:
I think this shows that the ones who habitually recruit the top 15 or so classes annually will have better on-field results, the ones who recruit the bottom 15 or so annually will have much worse on-field results. There's a big bubble in the middle with only a slight negative correlation showing the middle is hard to predict.
Click to expand...
RoanokeJacket said:
The middle schools are all 3-star plus unrated like us. The only way to tell the difference is to start classifying "high" and "low" 3 stars. That's like finding differences in average performers on any Bell Curve.
Click to expand...

The correlations are high with programs that consistently rank in the top 10 or so. Bama, UGA, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. But even this isn't an automatic correlation. Texas and Miami have consistently been highly rated in recruiting and their results in recent history have been garbage.

Outside of the consistently top 10 or so ranked programs in recruiting the results are much more mixed. I don't have the data but I would speculate confidently that the differences between wins and losses of programs that average between 20th to 60th in recruiting rankings over the last 10 years or so is statistically very little to negligible.

Assessments of a 20th ranked class versus a 30th versus a 40th is so subjective and the differences and needs of the individual programs so different that it renders these rankings nearly insignificant. Get consistently ranked in the top 20 or so and things start to look different. Outside of that, it's mostly noise between 20 thru 60. Conversely, consistently rank below 60th and you are more likely to be running into problems.
 
Buzzilla said:
The correlations are high with programs that consistently rank in the top 10 or so. Bama, UGA, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. But even this isn't an automatic correlation. Texas and Miami have consistently been highly rated in recruiting and their results in recent history have been garbage.

Outside of the consistently top 10 or so ranked programs in recruiting the results are much more mixed. I don't have the data but I would speculate confidently that the differences between wins and losses of programs that average between 20th to 60th in recruiting rankings over the last 10 years or so is statistically very little to negligible.

Assessments of a 20th ranked class versus a 30th versus a 40th is so subjective and the differences and needs of the individual programs so different that it renders these rankings nearly insignificant. Get consistently ranked in the top 20 or so and things start to look different. Outside of that, it's mostly noise between 20 thru 60. Conversely, consistently rank below 60th and you are more likely to be running into problems.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think outside the top 15 teams or so, at both ends, there would be weak predictive power.
 
The past few years had took it's toll on the program and then with much of the same toward the beginning of season. We really didn't have any weight in people's living room. It took most of the season for Key and staff to basically right the ship retaining most of potential transfers and making headway with good transfers and alot of already recruited kids. We were not gonna be able to swing any big recruits this season unless we came out and won 8-9 games.

We have a several new staff now with strong local ties and also a chance to go out and for the team to put out a more consistent and better product ever Saturday next season. A little bit of winning and looking like a healthy program will go along way to helping our recruiting kick back up. We have the ability to be a stay in top 35 in recruiting but it will require several years of consistent winning and just overall positive impressions.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
I'm glad recruiting services are reacting to the portal, since it's increasingly obvious that a larger percentage of each signing class and roster is going to be made up of transfers going forward. Does anybody know if they are yet re-rating the transfer players in any way, or if they are just going on high school ratings?

I've always thought there should be some kind of "developmental" rating, but there was never any incentive for the services to spend the effort on it.
Click to expand...
Yeah they rerank...
If you transfer into a major program they add stars.
If you transfer out of said programs they reduce stars
 
Walton said:
They do “re-rank” for transfers. I think they might allow the HS rating to be the default but they re-rate if they think the player has moved up or down during their playing time. It doesn’t seem very scientific at all though. (Is any of it?)
Click to expand...
They rerank them, but it's TP ranking for previous HS guys and HS ranking for the new guys, and you have to guesstimate the overall number. That's my meager understanding at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top