Deep Dive on Recruit "Hit Rate" at Different Schools

[IrishLax]

Very interesting piece by The Athletic. They talk about it from a "development" standpoint but really it's more about hit rate... they also aren't differentiating between someone getting drafted in the 1st round or 7th round, so there is a lot of gray area.

But here are some really interesting takeaways with regard to Notre Dame and some peers:
1. Approximately 57% of 5 star recruits for ND don't even get drafted, which is 5th worst in the country. Only schools worse? Texas, Oklahoma, Auburn, Tennessee.
2. ND was 6th best in the country in turning 4-star players into eventual NFL draft picks. LSU, Ohio State, and Alabama were the only schools with a better hit rate and at least 100 4-star players signed.
3. Given #1 and #2, the story seems to be that the bulk of ND's roster is quality recruits that are eventual pros without a lot of "overrated" players... but they don't sign a lot of 5-stars and the ones they do seem to be mostly busts for one reason or another. This seems to confirm the narrative that ND fans have had for the entirety of the Kelly era.
4. The best schools at turning 3-star players into pros are Ohio State, LSU, Bama, Florida. Basically if one of those football factories is after you hard chances are they see something that the recruiting services missed. Otherwise, they wouldn't be offering you a roster spot.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

I posted this in the NFL Draft thread. This was really good.

4. The best schools at turning 3-star players into pros are Ohio State, LSU, Bama, Florida. Basically if one of those football factories is after you hard chances are they see something that the recruiting services missed. Otherwise, they wouldn't be offering you a roster spot.

This is really all that matters to me, and while it might not matter to the high school kids who are recruits and recruiting each other, at the end of the day I'm going to trust the intuition of most of these coaching staffs based on what I know about how these stars are given out and how the rankings are compiled.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That is interesting. On the flip side, I am curious about the hit rate on the 3/4/5 stars based on where they come from, geographically.

At least in baseball as of 15 years ago, the prospects who tended to be systematically underrated were prospects away from scouting hotbeds. Specifically, the great lakes region.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I posted this in the NFL Draft thread. This was really good.



This is really all that matters to me, and while it might not matter to the high school kids who are recruits and recruiting each other, at the end of the day I'm going to trust the intuition of most of these coaching staffs based on what I know about how these stars are given out and how the rankings are compiled.

The data is a little muddy there, however.

Are these schools better at scouting or are they good at recruiting? Ohio State isn't often moving onto plan E because they missed out on A through D.

So if there's a three star that schools see as a good prospect, Ohio State is just better at bringing them into the fold.

OTOH, they probably also have more scouting resources than other programs.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

The data is a little muddy there, however.

Are these schools better at scouting or are they good at recruiting? Ohio State isn't often moving onto plan E because they missed out on A through D.

So if there's a three star that schools see as a good prospect, Ohio State is just better at bringing them into the fold.

OTOH, they probably also have more scouting resources than other programs.

They know more than the people working at Rivals and 247 who seem to get so much reverence. However we arrive to this conclusion, that's ultimately what it boils down to.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Tl/Dr summary is cohort of commitable offers probably remains the superior metric for fans to consider for recruits. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[clashmore_mike]

any mention of how RKGs fit into the equation?

 

[NumbersGuy0520]

Correlation also doesn’t imply causation.

Higher percentage of three stars getting drafted from Bama, OSU, etc doesn’t necessarily mean that they are necessarily finding the diamonds in the rough/the best 3-stars (though, it could); rather, this could also be a signal on NFL teams’ tendencies to bias themselves toward drafting from these football factories.

 

[DONTH8]

So I should no longer be looking for the Michigan State offer to determine if a player is a want?

 

[NorthDakota]

That is interesting. On the flip side, I am curious about the hit rate on the 3/4/5 stars based on where they come from, geographically.

At least in baseball as of 15 years ago, the prospects who tended to be systematically underrated were prospects away from scouting hotbeds. Specifically, the great lakes region.

We run into that a bit here with football. People wonder how NDSU/SDSU get guys that are drafted high with some regularity. The answer is simple, the likelihood of getting scouted here is slim/none.

Guys who would be P5 recruits in any reasonably well populated area are not on anyone's radar.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

We run into that a bit here with football. People wonder how NDSU/SDSU get guys that are drafted high with some regularity. The answer is simple, the likelihood of getting scouted here is slim/none.

Guys who would be P5 recruits in any reasonably well populated area are not on anyone's radar.

That's definitely the first place I think of.

I just wonder if that's kind of a special case or whether the principle still holds when talking about P5 recruits.

 

[Irish#1]

They know more than the people working at Rivals and 247 who seem to get so much reverence. However we arrive to this conclusion, that's ultimately what it boils down to.

I'll take a coaches opinion over recruiting services all day long.

 

[NDPhilly]

There’s a big difference between a high 3 star, top 300ish player and a top 1000, low star player. Need to add some more nuance here.

 

[Armyirish47]

There’s a big difference between a high 3 star, top 300ish player and a top 1000, low star player. Need to add some more nuance here.

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The whole study is skewed because the best recruiting schools get the top choice of everyone.

- 3-stars: I agree with people above that the football factories likely only take the diamonds in the rough that were arguably underrated, so that changes their odds tremendously.
- 4-stars: There can be a huge difference between the top 4-stars (Blake Fisher) and the bottom (Caleb Johnson), so I think that really favors the best recruiting schools again.
- 5-stars is the most interesting, because they are all apparently elite. But it may not be a coincidence that every once in a while ND lands a Jordan Johnson, but not a Julio Jones. In other words, it seems like we've done fine with the sure-fire 5-stars who were just undeniably huge or fast.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

It was an interesting article that probably took a lot of work and time. It puts things into a certain perspective and context but it obviously isn't infallible.

 

[ryno 24]

Great research. if this is the case. Notre Dame should do the villanova basketball approach to football. Which seems like what Freeman is approaching. Top 100 4 star guys.

 

[NorthDakota]

That's definitely the first place I think of.

I just wonder if that's kind of a special case or whether the principle still holds when talking about P5 recruits.

I think it still sorta applies, but is an extreme example. QB from Pierre, SD was originally gonna be choosing between the local FCS schools and Wyoming I believe. Then he got a Wisconsin offer, then a Washington offer (UW's coach is from South Dakota). He ultimately chose Washington. Then, last minute, Ohio State made a run at him and flipped him.

Did OSU settle for a 3-star QB or did OSU just go grab a dude who was severely underrated by recruiting services? Again, extreme example due to geography, but seems like an example of a P5 recruit slipping through the cracks only to get snatched up by a blue blood who can recruit anyone.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

This isn’t the 80’s

Scouting is still important, but with the plethora of film available online, and a multitude of recruiting services providing rankings, the gap between the “smartest guy in the room” and “serviceable recruiter” has significantly closed.

It’s a numbers game lottery when looking at “hit rate”

For example:

5 star = 10 tickets
4 star= 4 tickets
3 star = 2 tickets

The more tickets you have, the higher your chance of winning. I skew 5 star to have a higher number of tickets since they are the absolute cream of the crop. Option A, with no Option B that could replace their skill level.

It would be completely unreasonable to assume even the best scout and recruiter would do more with:

5 three stars instead 2 five stars

Whoever is holding the most tickets has the higher probability of winning. If Bama took 7 guys this cycle, and they were all 5 stars, you would be insane to think that Iowa who took 25 will have a higher hit rate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NDMatt91]

Right around the time this article came out I went back and did some research on the number of blue-chip recruits from each year that were either drafted or have played in the NFL (at least 1 game). I used the 247 composite, and here is the data from the 2013-2017 classes. I ended at 2017 because that was the most recent class to no longer have a COVID year. Although it's worth mentioning that there will certainly be some 6th year players from the 2017 class who went undrafted and will play in the NFL this year.

2013 (338)-119 (35.2%)
2014 (333)-116 (34.8%)
2015 (344)-121 (35.2%)
2016 (342)-120 (35.1%)
2017 (339)-122 (36.0%)

Total Blue Chip Recruits: 1,696
Blue Chip Recruits that were drafted or played in the NFL: 598
Success Rate: 35.3%

I also expanded this to include the top 500 players in each recruiting class and did a breakdown on the total number of players per 50 spots (1-50, 51-100, 101-150, etc.).

2013-143 (28.6%)
2014-154 (30.8%)
2015-147 (29.4%)
2016-148 (29.6%)
2017-161 (32.2%)

Total: 753 (30.1%)

1-50: 176 (70.4%)
51-100: 104 (41.6%)
101-150: 84 (33.6%)
151-200: 69 (27.6%)
201-250: 61 (24.4%)
251-300: 65 (26.0%)
301-350: 52 (20.8%)
351-400: 49 (19.6%)
401-450: 46 (18.4%)
451-500: 47 (18.8%)

 

[notredomer23]

Right around the time this article came out I went back and did some research on the number of blue-chip recruits from each year that were either drafted or have played in the NFL (at least 1 game). I used the 247 composite, and here is the data from the 2013-2017 classes. I ended at 2017 because that was the most recent class to no longer have a COVID year. Although it's worth mentioning that there will certainly be some 6th year players from the 2017 class who went undrafted and will play in the NFL this year.

2013 (338)-119 (35.2%)
2014 (333)-116 (34.8%)
2015 (344)-121 (35.2%)
2016 (342)-120 (35.1%)
2017 (339)-122 (36.0%)

Total Blue Chip Recruits: 1,696
Blue Chip Recruits that were drafted or played in the NFL: 598
Success Rate: 35.3%

I also expanded this to include the top 500 players in each recruiting class and did a breakdown on the total number of players per 50 spots (1-50, 51-100, 101-150, etc.).

2013-143 (28.6%)
2014-154 (30.8%)
2015-147 (29.4%)
2016-148 (29.6%)
2017-161 (32.2%)

Total: 753 (30.1%)

1-50: 176 (70.4%)
51-100: 104 (41.6%)
101-150: 84 (33.6%)
151-200: 69 (27.6%)
201-250: 61 (24.4%)
251-300: 65 (26.0%)
301-350: 52 (20.8%)
351-400: 49 (19.6%)
401-450: 46 (18.4%)
451-500: 47 (18.8%)

Great post. I don't have too much to add but this deserves praise for the work that went into it.

 

[fightingirish26]

Right around the time this article came out I went back and did some research on the number of blue-chip recruits from each year that were either drafted or have played in the NFL (at least 1 game). I used the 247 composite, and here is the data from the 2013-2017 classes. I ended at 2017 because that was the most recent class to no longer have a COVID year. Although it's worth mentioning that there will certainly be some 6th year players from the 2017 class who went undrafted and will play in the NFL this year.

2013 (338)-119 (35.2%)
2014 (333)-116 (34.8%)
2015 (344)-121 (35.2%)
2016 (342)-120 (35.1%)
2017 (339)-122 (36.0%)

Total Blue Chip Recruits: 1,696
Blue Chip Recruits that were drafted or played in the NFL: 598
Success Rate: 35.3%

I also expanded this to include the top 500 players in each recruiting class and did a breakdown on the total number of players per 50 spots (1-50, 51-100, 101-150, etc.).

2013-143 (28.6%)
2014-154 (30.8%)
2015-147 (29.4%)
2016-148 (29.6%)
2017-161 (32.2%)

Total: 753 (30.1%)

1-50: 176 (70.4%)
51-100: 104 (41.6%)
101-150: 84 (33.6%)
151-200: 69 (27.6%)
201-250: 61 (24.4%)
251-300: 65 (26.0%)
301-350: 52 (20.8%)
351-400: 49 (19.6%)
401-450: 46 (18.4%)
451-500: 47 (18.8%)

Aside from the more obvious numbers such as top 50 guys being likely to hit, interesting to see the percentage fall off a bit after top 300 and then stay around the same through 500.

 

[NDMatt91]

So I noticed that 247 had updates to their composites from previous classes on 5/30, about a month after I did my research. For example, Durham Smythe previously had a .9056 rating on the composite but the update on 5/30 bumped him up to a .9087 rating. No clue what that's about. Either their composite was incorrect or they wanted to give a slight bump to some players who ended up panning out. Regardless of what the reason is, the percentage is roughly the same. The number of blue-chip recruits in each class from 2013-2017 slightly increased. Very strange. Anyways, I went back and here is the updated number of blue-chip recruits in each class:

2013 (344)-121 (35.2%)
2014 (344)-122 (35.5%)
2015 (351)-127 (36.2%)
2016 (347)-125 (36.0%)
2017 (353)-131 (37.1%)

Total Blue Chip Recruits: 1,739 (+43)
Blue Chip Recruits that were drafted or played in the NFL: 626 (+28)
Success Rate: 36.0% (+0.7%)

Here is the success rate for the top 500 recruits in each class:

2013: 148 (29.6%)
2014: 158 (31.6%)
2015: 151 (30.2%)
2016: 152 (30.4%)
2017: 168 (33.6%)

Total: 777 (+24)
Success Rate: 31.1% (+1.0%)

Here is the total number of hits and success rate per 50 spots:

1-50: 177 (70.8%)
51-100: 110 (44.0%)
101-150: 85 (34.0%)
151-200: 77 (30.8%)
201-250: 61 (24.4%)
251-300: 63 (25.2%)
301-350: 52 (20.8%)
351-400: 50 (20.0%)
401-450: 52 (20.8%)
451-500: 50 (20.0%)