A little perspective on recruiting

[Bishop2b5]

Go to the ESPN 150 page and look at each of the classes for the last few years.

ESPN Football Recruiting - Player Rankings - ESPN

I know that 5-star recruits develop into college stars a lot more often than 4-star ones do, who are more likely to do so than 3-star recruits, but it's still a crap shoot to a great degree. It's pretty interesting to look through the ESPN 150 for the past several years and see how many of the top recruits in each class - guys that were can't-miss program saviors - never did jack in college... and how many recruits who were way down the list (or not even on it at all) won Heismans or became major stars. A few of note:

Cam Newton #58
Mark Ingram #108
Andrew Luck #61
Robert Griffin Not in the ESPN 150
Eddie Lacy #143
Louis Nix #64
CJ Mosely #99
Johnny Manziel Not in the ESPN 150
Braxton Miller #80
Marquise Lee #96
Teddy Bridgewater #143

 

[stlnd01]

Go to the ESPN 150 page and look at each of the classes for the last few years.

ESPN Football Recruiting - Player Rankings - ESPN

I know that 5-star recruits develop into college stars a lot more often than 4-star ones do, who are more likely to do so than 3-star recruits, but it's still a crap shoot to a great degree. It's pretty interesting to look through the ESPN 150 for the past several years and see how many of the top recruits in each class - guys that were can't-miss program saviors - never did jack in college... and how many recruits who were way down the list (or not even on it at all) won Heisman's or became major stars. A few of note:

Cam Newton #58
Mark Ingram #108
Andrew Luck #61
Robert Griffin Not in the ESPN 150
Eddie Lacy #143
Louis Nix #64
CJ Mosely #99
Johnny Manziel Not in the ESPN 150
Braxton Miller #80
Marquise Lee #96
Teddy Bridgewater #143

Sure. Some five-stars don't pan out. And rare is the true "program savior" no matter how many stars. But none of those guys (except the last two Heisman winners, of course) were anything close to "way down the list."
I know what you're getting at, but if you're in the ESPN 150, we'll gladly take you around here.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Sure. Some five-stars don't pan out. And rare is the true "program savior" no matter how many stars. But none of those guys (except the last two Heisman winners, of course) were anything close to "way down the list."
I know what you're getting at, but if you're in the ESPN 150, we'll gladly take you around here.

Absolutely, we'd all take just about any ESPN 150 player, but I just find it interesting how many of the top ones never end up accomplishing much and how often a guy from the middle or even bottom half of the list (or not even on it at all) turns into a superstar. None of the last four Heisman winners were even in the top 50.

 

[stlnd01]

Absolutely, we'd all take just about any ESPN 150 player, but I just find it interesting how many of the top ones never end up accomplishing much and how often a guy from the middle or even bottom half of the list (or not even on it at all) turns into a superstar. None of the last four Heisman winners were even in the top 50.

True. Of the 12 five-stars in the 2010 class (current seniors), Robert Woods and Jackson Jeffcoat might qualify as stars. Matt Elam was a two-year starter and 1st round draft pick. Dyer's pretty good, just not for Auburn.
Some injuries among the rest, and a couple of flameouts/transfers to lesser programs. Of course it doesn't help that half of them wound up at Florida or Texas, two of the most disappointing programs in football lately...
ESPN Football Recruiting - Player Rankings - ESPN

It's a tough business, recruiting.

 

[aubeirish]

It's pretty simple. Recruiting is somewhat a gamble. Most of these guys sign letters of intent at 17 or 18 years old. They have not fully grown physically and mentally. Some guys peak early, others blossom late on and some never do. It's the same with every sports...

 

[irish1958]

It's pretty simple. Recruiting is somewhat a gamble. Most of these guys sign letters of intent at 17 or 18 years old. They have not fully grown physically and mentally. Some guys peak early, others blossom late on and some never do. It's the same with every sports...

And everything else in life.

 

[BGIF]

It's pretty simple. Recruiting is somewhat a gamble. Most of these guys sign letters of intent at 17 or 18 years old. They have not fully grown physically and mentally. Some guys peak early, others blossom late on and some never do. It's the same with every sports...

It's less of a gamble if you sign 125-135 recruits in a 4 year period while others are signing 80-100.

 

[woolybug25]

Thats also a very small subset of the biggest pool of players. The pool of 3 star players is immense. Some are not evaluated enough, some are underrated and some just beat expectations. Regardless, the percentage of players that pan out go up in correlation with the stars.

 

[woolybug25]

It's less of a gamble if you sign 125-135 recruits in a 4 year period while others are signing 80-100.

and signing JuCo players, whom rarely are rated above 3 stars, if at all.

Cam Newton as a 3 star is hilarious. No one in the country thought he was anything but a game changing player. He got in trouble and teams had to decide whether they wanted to risk the trouble.

 

[Irish#1]

Thats also a very small subset of the biggest pool of players. The pool of 3 star players is immense. Some are not evaluated enough, some are underrated and some just beat expectations. Regardless, the percentage of players that pan out go up in correlation with the stars.

IMO it's the three star players that were overlooked or underrated that can have the biggest impact.

 

[woolybug25]

IMO it's the three star players that were overlooked or underrated that can have the biggest impact.

Yeah... if you can evaluate them differently than they already have. There is a misconception that all of the 3star kids aren't evaluated. While that is true on a lot of them, a great deal of them have been evaluated and deemed a mediocre prospect.

People act like the percentage of success for 3 star kids is just as high as 4 star kids. That isn't the case at all. For every coached up Tommy Rees or Cam McDaniel, there are 50 kids that never make a meaningful impact.

Even the teams that have great success with 3 stars, Bama for instance. Have to sign A LOT of them in order to weed out the guys that they couldnt "coach up". Also, the level of success is also warped when you consider that a lot of the kids we deem "3 stars" are actually highly talented JuCo players like Cam Newton.

Since ND doesn't oversign or accept JuCo's, if we miss on a 3 star, we are stuck with them.

 

[tussin]

Alabama has had the top recruiting class almost every year on a consistent basis. They have also won 3 of the past 4 national championships.

That's all you need to know about recruiting.

 

[woolybug25]

Alabama has had the top recruiting class almost every year on a consistent basis. They have also won 3 of the past 4 national championships.

That's all you need to know about recruiting.

I cant think of any title team that didn't have several top 10 classes to build their team.

That's what I keep saying about MSU. Everybody is slobbering over their #1 ranked defense filled with 3 stars, but I keep saying.... when was the last time they competed for a National Title?

People keep saying recruiting doesn't matter and I keep watching teams with top classes competing with eachother for titles. That's not a coicidence.

 

[phork]

And then you have the topic of coaching up. When you look at MSU and just their defense, there is a bunch of nobodies on it. And yet its one of the better defenses year in and year out.

 

[tussin]

I cant think of any title team that didn't have several top 10 classes to build their team.

That's what I keep saying about MSU. Everybody is slobbering over their #1 ranked defense filled with 3 stars, but I keep saying.... when was the last time they competed for a National Title?

People keep saying recruiting doesn't matter and I keep watching teams with top classes competing with eachother for titles. That's not a coicidence.

I think it's easy for ND fans to look at other teams' seasons in a vacuum and not consider the program as a whole. Sure MSU has a great team / season this year, but they have also never been to a BCS bowl and have a 6 win season for every 10+ win season.

I think most people here expect more than that. Great teams built from 3-stars are like catching lightning in a bottle. They are the exception, not the norm.

 

[Bishop2b5]

and signing JuCo players, whom rarely are rated above 3 stars, if at all.

Cam Newton as a 3 star is hilarious. No one in the country thought he was anything but a game changing player. He got in trouble and teams had to decide whether they wanted to risk the trouble.

Newton was #58 in the 2007 ESPN 150 when he was a HS recruit. I don't think they include JUCO's in the ESPN 150, just HS players.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Someone (I think Sports Illustrated) did a piece a couple of years ago that showed the percentage of recruits from each star level who went on to be picked in the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft:

5-stars - 50%
4-stars - 10%
3-stars - 3%
2-stars and below - 1%

 

[GowerND11]

Someone (I think Sports Illustrated) did a piece a couple of years ago that showed the percentage of recruits from each star level who went on to be picked in the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft:

5-stars - 50%
4-stars - 10%
3-stars - 3%
2-stars and below - 1%

50+10+3+1=100

Edit: Stupid joke....

 

[tussin]

50+10+3+1=100

....wut

 

[woolybug25]

50+10+3+1=100

100% of the recruits don't make the NFL, GowND. lol

 

[IrishJayhawk]

50+10+3+1=100

Um...I know you're making a joke.

But this is the percentage of each ranking that ends up in Round 1-3, not the percentage of Round 1-3 that is made up of each ranking. It doesn't have to add up to 100.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think it's easy for ND fans to look at other teams' seasons in a vacuum and not consider the program as a whole. Sure MSU has a great team / season this year, but they have also never been to a BCS bowl and have a 6 win season for every 10+ win season.

Over the last 5 years, 3 recruits have made up 64% of Stanford's classes. Their record over that period is 51-12. Then there's Oregon, Baylor, MSU's defense, etc.

I think most people here expect more than that. Great teams built from 3-stars are like catching lightning in a bottle. They are the exception, not the norm.

Absolutely, but they're not as rare as you make it sound. If your program has a coaching staff that can legitimately scout and develop talent, the correlation between recruiting rankings and success weakens considerably.

 

[tussin]

Over the last 5 years, 3 recruits have made up 64% of Stanford's classes. Their record over that period is 51-12. Then there's Oregon, Baylor, MSU's defense, etc.



Absolutely, but they're not as rare as you make it sound. If your program has a coaching staff that can legitimately scout and develop talent, the correlation between recruiting rankings and success weakens considerably.

I think Stanford is the best counter-example. I don't consider MSU to be an elite program. I also think Oregon and Baylor are unique cases when you look at their style of play and the type of recruits they need to succeed.

My point is pointed more towards national championship winners. You see a lot of recruiting success if you look at highly successful, dynasty-type, programs in recent history (Bama, USC, Florida, maybe Oklahoma). What's the last national champion that consisted of classes that weren't highly rated?

 

[Grahambo]

I'd like to add that its also about adding players that fit the system you're trying to run both offensively and defensively.

ND not only has to deal with tough admissions but a tough location as well. Stanford benefits from being in California.

BK has arguably a tougher job then Shaw IMO.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think Stanford is the best counter-example. I don't consider MSU to be an elite program. I also think Oregon and Baylor are unique cases when you look at their style of play and the type of recruits they need to succeed.

My point is pointed more towards national championship winners. You see a lot of recruiting success if you look at highly successful, dynasty-type, programs in recent history (Bama, USC, Florida, maybe Oklahoma). What's the last national champion that consisted of classes that weren't highly rated?

You'd probably have to go back a ways, long before the recruiting services came into existence (Colorado in '90?) Oregon also took Auburn down to the wire for a title in 2010.

If you set the bar at "national championships", then yes, you're probably right. But if you lower it just a bit, there are several notable examples of programs winning at a very high level without elite talent. It's not common, but it can definitely be done.

 

[woolybug25]

Over the last 5 years, 3 recruits have made up 64% of Stanford's classes. Their record over that period is 51-12. Then there's Oregon, Baylor, MSU's defense, etc.

You know I love, ya homie. But I must interject here.

None of those teams have won a title in recent years and the only one that played for one, Oregon, has averaged a composite class ranking of 14.5 (per 247 composite) over the last 4 cycles. They also sign juco's on the regular.

The question we should ask is do we want lightening in a bottle type success like these programs have had in recent years. Or do we want to compete for Championships? Because Bama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, Texas and USC all had their success while having 4+ years of top 5-10 classes. No championships have been won by mediocre recruiting teams in many, many years.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

. The question we should ask is do we want lightening in a bottle type success like these programs have had in recent years. Or do we want to compete for Championships? Because Bama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, Texas and USC all had their success while having 4+ years of top 5-10 classes. No championships have been won by mediocre recruiting teams in many, many years.

That's a fair point, but as we've discussed here many times, those programs all: (1) oversign/ grayshirt; (2) accept JuCos; (3) have lower admissions standards; etc. ND can't adopt their recruiting practices without becoming just another football factory.

At this point, it looks like Stanford's model is the only one that could potentially lead us back to another title without compromising our values. So we'd better hope you guys are wrong, and that Stanford is capable of breaking through with its largely 3-driven machine.

 

[autry_denson]

Go to the ESPN 150 page and look at each of the classes for the last few years.

ESPN Football Recruiting - Player Rankings - ESPN

I know that 5-star recruits develop into college stars a lot more often than 4-star ones do, who are more likely to do so than 3-star recruits, but it's still a crap shoot to a great degree. It's pretty interesting to look through the ESPN 150 for the past several years and see how many of the top recruits in each class - guys that were can't-miss program saviors - never did jack in college... and how many recruits who were way down the list (or not even on it at all) won Heismans or became major stars. A few of note:

Cam Newton #58
Mark Ingram #108
Andrew Luck #61
Robert Griffin Not in the ESPN 150
Eddie Lacy #143
Louis Nix #64
CJ Mosely #99
Johnny Manziel Not in the ESPN 150
Braxton Miller #80
Marquise Lee #96
Teddy Bridgewater #143

So the correlation between high school rankings and college/pro success is not 1. And it's not 0. I think everybody's clear on that.

There's lots of noise in individual-level data in any domain. There's less noise in aggregated data. The more interesting question is the correlation between class rankings and team success. As several have noted, my bet would be that this correlation is extremely high.

 

[aubeirish]

It's less of a gamble if you sign 125-135 recruits in a 4 year period while others are signing 80-100.

Indeed. That is why we are so frustrated with grey shirting. It's such an enormous advantage. The NCAA needs to make every scholarship count. It's the only way to make it fair for everyone.

 

[woolybug25]

That's a fair point, but as we've discussed here many times, those programs all: (1) oversign/ grayshirt; (2) accept JuCos; (3) have lower admissions standards; etc. ND can't adopt their recruiting practices without becoming just another football factory.

At this point, it looks like Stanford's model is the only one that could potentially lead us back to another title without compromising our values. So we'd better hope you guys are wrong, and that Stanford is capable of breaking through with its largely 3-driven machine.

Why should we assume that a process that hasn't worked for any team in possibly our entire lifetime, would bare different results for us?

See, I see it differently. We can recruit at a very high level where Stanford cannot. If they could land consistent top 5 classes, they wouldn't be using the approach they currently are. My point, is that because we cannot do what you mentioned above, we cannot miss on 3 star kids. We need to be more diligent about "filling bodies", as its a four year commitment.

If we use the Stanford/MSU model, we will get the same results. We need to play bigger than that. There are plenty of talented kids, like Schmidt, that will come play on a preferred walk on basis. We need to utulize that more for "project" kids.