recruiting vs. results analysis

I agree, RP. Besides, the bottom line question is this: would we rather be known for 'doing more with less', or for winning conference championships and contending year in and year out for a national championship? I for one prefer the latter.
 
Well, actually the question was what doing more with less means.

Everyone would rather just win, what we were talking about was, given recruiting rankings and assuming they mean something, whether there is a way to determine how a team should do versus how they actually perform. It's not a Tech specific question really, it's about figuring out whether recruiting rankings really mean much.
 
Re: Does this

[ QUOTE ]
account for JUST the guys who got in school or does it list ALL the signees regardless of whether they really ever made it into that school?.Some schools have 3-7 guys EVERY yr after signing not actually get to school that next yr, or ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish I had numbers that included signees that didn't enroll, but that data wasn't available to me. IMO, that should count against a coaching staff/team. (In other words my feeling is the expectations should be based on who each school signs. Signing players who can actually get in and stay in school is another aspect of coaching, again IMO.)
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, RP. Besides, the bottom line question is this: would we rather be known for 'doing more with less', or for winning conference championships and contending year in and year out for a national championship? I for one prefer the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all want to win championships...
If you do more with less long enough and consistently enough, you should work your way to championships.
 
[ QUOTE ]

If you do more with less long enough and consistently enough, you should work your way to championships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that that would be one way to skin the cat. The other way would be to stop getting less, and instead get more, to work with.
 
And one way to get more talent is for more prospects to see our coaches are doing a great job with the talent we have gotten. That's what I was trying to convey in my previous comment. It should be a cycle of improvement, both with the talent we can get and the results.
 
I've updated this with the new post-bowl rankings, another set of historical recruiting rankings (still no 2001 rankings unfortunately) and a more accurate weighting for how much players from different recruiting years contribute:

recruiting vs. rankings web page
 
Thanks for putting together some numbers. It is nice to have some basis for the discussions on recruting rankings.

Another approach to analysing recruiting rankings might be to compare compare recruiting rankings to NFL draft status and non-draft free agent pick-ups. The problem would probably be that there are not enough players drafted or picked up as free agents by NFL teams to be statisically significant, but who knows.

The advantage of the NFL comparison is that it will tell you how well the recruiting rankings are able to rate talent rather than how well a coach is able to produce with talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top