Miller: Recruiting Rankings vs Big Ten Wins

[JonDMiller]

I have made the appropriate changes to the data fields and commentary....actually Iowa's on field performance 2008-2011 is now at a +2 based upon their 2007-2010 recruiting class ranking, which is 7th

 

[STILLBUSTER]

By using straight rankings 1-2-3-4, Jon's approach obscures the significant gap most years between the Big 2 and the rest in overall recruiting rankings.

2012: UM 4, OSU 3, IA 39
2011: UM 29, OSU 6, IA 25
2010: UM 12, OSU 20, IA 45
2009: UM 14, OSU 1, IA 75
2008: UM 6, OSU 4, IA 44
2007: UM 10, OSU 16, IA 37
2006: UM 9, OSU 13, IA 40
2005: UM 2, OSU 7, IA 8
2004: UM 5, OSU 11, IA 41

PSU was also usually much higher, with several Top 10 rankings.

Using weighted recruiting scores you'll find Iowa and Northwestern overachieved even more than Jon states, and PSU significantly underachieved.

What you say makes sense in relationship to all 120 D-1 teams, but the straight ranking system is valid within conference, where it becomes relative. In other words, regardless of the disparity between raw national rankings, Iowa is still ranked 4th in the B1G, therefore, should be expected to finish 4th in the B1G, even though they might finish higher or lower in another conference or might be more or less competitive against national opponents. The only meaning the disparity in rankings has is supporting the claim of a B1G 2 / little 10, which, has historically been proven on the field, anyway.

This whole analysis is consistent with the general interpretation of "stars":
5* = obvious difference - elite talent;
4* = noticeable difference - standout;
2-3* = pretty much everyone else.
This is usually pretty accurate, on the whole.

 

[fufred]

there you go my friend. i thought for a minute you slid into the abyss.

you might want to coin a phrase like big 1, mediocre 1 and the little 10, or something like that. i'm sure you'd be able to come up with something catchier than i....i'm a checkers player....

Lol....I didn't want to disappoint you.

 

[Billso]

What you say makes sense in relationship to all 120 D-1 teams, but the straight ranking system is valid within conference, where it becomes relative. In other words, regardless of the disparity between raw national rankings, Iowa is still ranked 4th in the B1G, therefore, should be expected to finish 4th in the B1G, even though they might finish higher or lower in another conference or might be more or less competitive against national opponents. The only meaning the disparity in rankings has is supporting the claim of a B1G 2 / little 10, which, has historically been proven on the field, anyway.

This whole analysis is consistent with the general interpretation of "stars":
5* = obvious difference - elite talent;
4* = noticeable difference - standout;
2-3* = pretty much everyone else.
This is usually pretty accurate, on the whole.

Nope, it holds within conference as well. Those schools didn't recruit a little bit more talent, they recruited A LOT more. Yet Iowa had more wins than PSU and tied for 2nd in wins with Michigan, schools that most years pulled in 3x or 4x the number of elite players.

If it helps clarify, you can ignore the rankings entirely and just look at recruiting points, or number of 4*/5* per year.

EDIT: You can also illustrate weighting with an analogy, which I believe is the appropriate one for recruiting rankings: the analogy of a head start in a race. Doesn't guarantee you'll win, but improves your odds. Imagine 12 guys from Iowa, Michigan, PSU, OSU and the rest are running 40 yards, starting at the goal line. Which is more impressive:

a) Michigan starts at the 3, OSU at the 2, PSU at the 1, and the rest* on the goal line. Yet Iowa ties Michigan and beats PSU.

b) Michigan starts at the 10, OSU at the 9, PSU at the 8, and the rest on the goal line. Iowa still ties Michigan and beats PSU.

The latter better describes what Iowa has pulled off (also Wisky and Northwestern to varying degrees). Not an easy feat. And PSU has to be disappointed.

*Minnesota withdrew with a hangnail, and Indiana accidentally locked himself into the PortaPotty.

 

[JonDMiller]

Billso, it certain bears out when an Iowa and a Wisconsin are tied with Michigan in wins over an 11 year period, given the national and in conference ranking disparities, that Iowa and Wisconsin are performing above their predicted mean, while Michigan is performing below their predicted mean.

Should therefore not be surprising that Michigan fired a coach, and Iowa and Wisconsin have been stable. Wisconsin hasn't fired a head football coach since they hired Barry Alvarez and Iowa hasn't fired a head football coach since the late 1970's...even before you went there

 

[JonDMiller]

Data seems to invalidate the "Little ol' Iowa" argument. On average, Hawks are the 4th most talented team in the B1G.
This means 1 of 2 things:
1) The coaches are very good recruiters, able to overcome the "challenges" of recruiting to Iowa, or,
2) Those challenges are not nearly as great as many want to make them out to be.
.

Actually, this data set does not allow you to draw those conclusions, because it does not include the national rankings.

I think we all know where Michigan has recruited at nationally, and for an Iowa to have as many wins as they do over this time frame shows that Iowa is getting just as much production with lesser talent...the recruiting gap between an Iowa and a Michigan is very wide.

Iowa's challenges are very real, whether or not people want to admit it. Wishing something weren't the case doesn't change the reality of the situation.

 

[Billso]

Jon, I think you see this but just to be clear: the gist of my post is that once you weight the rankings, you get "what Jon said, but moreso". Great work.

 

[clim33]

Interesting stuff Jon. Data looks like this really take the emotion out of analysis. Many of our Iowa fans are "passionate" and while that is great during the 3 hour game.....it really shows some weakness during the sound off show and the rest of the season. This kind of shows that our results are predictable and when we have solid classes like this year we need to be supportive and not complaining and twitter stalking recruits.
I think this class is solid and if we can get 7-8 wins next year we can have a similar class and be really solid in a couple years. ESPN had our class ranked 3rd this year and given we came off a rough year thats good. We do need to work on keeping these guys on campus for at least 3 years to develop them though.........that may be the biggest issue with our program now........we must have less turnover.......hopefully some new coaches (Dline) and maybe some different focus on RBs will help us in some areas of high turnover the last few years.

 

[doclee]

For JM's article and the discussion on this topic: BRAVO to all of you! from a "stats guy" who admires common sense.

 

[hawkeyescott]

Hoke and his style fit the B10 well and he is recruiting well on defense unlike RRod. Michigan will be a threat for some time. I mean they wont be OSU good but good none the less.

So you're saying they won't have any 6-7 seasons?

 

[JonDMiller]

For JM's article and the discussion on this topic: BRAVO to all of you! from a "stats guy" who admires common sense.

You will love this guy then
College Football Matrix

 

[cfbmatrix]

r^2 is the coefficient of determination. Assuming the correlation coefficient of r=0.8 is correct, this means that r^2 is 0.64. This means that approximately 64% of the variation in win totals can be attributed to an approximate linear relationship between recruiting rankings and win totals.

When the classes are adjusted for actual rank and field (where the game is played) then the r value gets between .85 and .90 for pre-season predictions of all game outcomes. Improves slightly with coaching effect variable.

-Dave