OL recruiting - a big problem

[Wyo Buff]

stars correlate with success at ALL Positions. Fact.

Could stars mean less at OL? Perhaps. Haven't seen any studies on that though.

Snow, buddy. You are going to have to do better than this. You could be one of those BigFoot guys with a post like this. (ex. "Have you ever seen a 'Squatch?" "No?" "How do you know they don't exist, then?" OR "Europe is run by a Cabal of Nazi Bankers . . .FACT!) : )

 

[Darth Snow]

Snow, buddy. You are going to have to do better than this. You could be one of those BigFoot guys with a post like this. (ex. "Have you ever seen a 'Squatch?" "No?" "How do you know they don't exist, then?" OR "Europe is run by a Cabal of Nazi Bankers . . .FACT!) : )

Eh, I know it was lazy of me not to cite my evidence... but we've had this ****ing argument so many times that I'm tired of finding the various studies done by Dr. Saturday proving the correlation. Or the analyses of the NFL draft etc etc. It is FACT (allcaps) that stars correlate with success and that the more stars you have the more likely you are to be successful.

Now, as to the OL specifically, I don't know of any studies showing that correlation breaks down there.

 

[Wyo Buff]

Eh, I know it was lazy of me not to cite my evidence... but we've had this ****ing argument so many times that I'm tired of finding the various studies done by Dr. Saturday proving the correlation. Or the analyses of the NFL draft etc etc. It is FACT (allcaps) that stars correlate with success and that the more stars you have the more likely you are to be successful.

Now, as to the OL specifically, I don't know of any studies showing that correlation breaks down there.

Fair enough, brother. I don't doubt that overall collective stars tend to correllate to success. I think the point here is that, for the most part, these "experts" miss on a LOT of guys. That is especially true of OL of which I am convinced there are very, very few recruiting pretty boys who could find their ass with both hands.

 

[Darth Snow]

Fair enough, brother. I don't doubt that overall collective stars tend to correllate to success. I think the point here is that, for the most part, these "experts" miss on a LOT of guys. That is especially true of OL of which I am convinced there are very, very few recruiting pretty boys who could find their ass with both hands.

Curious as to your statement about "collective" stars. The studies I've seen show that an individual with 4 stars is significantly more likely to be all conference/starter/drafted into the NFL than a 3 star. Of course, 5 stars have an even higher likelihood of doing so and it is significantly higher than 4 stars.

It isn't just "collective" stars.

And again, misses/outliers happen for any number of reasons. I'm now hankering to find a study on if your theory that OL recruiting is much closer to a total crap shoot holds water.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

I have not yet seen any statistical evidence presented in this thread. Can you point out where I missed seeing it?

And I'm sorry if my post was taken as "Boise State/Petersen fellating". That was not my intention. My intention was to point out the fallibility of star rankings by showing that there is plenty of evidence that the correlation, while certainly there to some extent, is imperfect. Certainly, some programs have success at roughly the same level of the recruiting classes that they pull in. But there are others that dramatically over or underachieve based on how their recruiting classes are ranked.

Pointing this out is NOT an attempt to be a braggart. I sincerely apologize if that is how it comes across. I know that I'm a guest on your board and I'm thankful to allowed to post here. I'm merely trying to argue a particular point and presenting evidence to support it. Look at the first link I provided. Look at the ranking of the classes vs. the winning percentage. That's not what I would call anecdotal evidence. That's results-based analysis.

To take a few examples:

Notre Dame: Average Class Rank 14th, Average Winning Percentage 46th
North Carolina: Average Class Rank 23rd, Average Winning Percentage 80th (Overall losing record)
Ole Miss: Average Class Rank 21st, Average Winning Percentage 70th (Overall losing record)
UCLA: Average Class Rank 17th, Average Winning Percentage 61st (Basically a little over a .500 record)
Texas A&M: Average Class Rank 16th, Average Winning Percentage 59th (Again, pretty much a .500 team)

As you said, this IS your board and I AM worried about how I come across on it. So I want to make clear that I'm not trying to do any of the things you said. I'm trying to make a very narrow point that star rankings are an imperfect indicator of on-field success.

 

[dio]

You're fine nocool - we're just a sensitive bunch sometimes :lol:

 

[96 Buff]

Why do we get so many ****ing boise ****wads here? Jesus ****, go troll some sites of schools in your ****** conference.

 

[Darth Snow]

I have not yet seen any statistical evidence presented in this thread. Can you point out where I missed seeing it?


As you said, this IS your board and I AM worried about how I come across on it. So I want to make clear that I'm not trying to do any of the things you said. I'm trying to make a very narrow point that star rankings are an imperfect indicator of on-field success.

1. goddamit. You asshole. You refuse to take my statements as fact? :lol: You really haven't looked into this and are pontificating on it from a point of ignorance? AND you are going to make me look up the ****ing studies.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what%E2%80%99s-5-star-really-worth-predicting-future-team-success-recruiting-rankings

most recent study done by Mgoblog, and it relates only to TEAM success, not individual. Mountain, note that your theory holds some water as to team success (only "moderate" correlation between OL recruiting and success)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...ense-of-recruiting-rankings?urn=ncaaf,wp13648

showing that recruiting stars correlate with individual success.

2. Who the **** said they were perfect? Why are you spending all this energy making a point that no one has disputed? Do you know what correlation means as opposed to causation?

3. (not related to bolded but post in general): Thank you for being cognizant of where you are and how you come off. Just be careful about that Boise ****, the HaLk has left me with a very angry response to that button.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Fair enough, brother. I don't doubt that overall collective stars tend to correllate to success. I think the point here is that, for the most part, these "experts" miss on a LOT of guys. That is especially true of OL of which I am convinced there are very, very few recruiting pretty boys who could find their ass with both hands.

I think Wyo's right on this one. If you're looking for offensive lineman to come in as a freshman or sophmore and start, the star rating system probably holds up pretty well. However, there are a lot of guys who are athletic big frames that need 3 years of coaching, eating, and lifting to develop into good lineman. There aren't many guys you can get to 6-4+ 270+ by the end of their junior year. That's probably where you need to be evaluated seriously. CU's own Tom Ashworth and Nate Solder were good example of good lieneman prospects that just weren't big enough in highschool to be taken seriously. I backed up Tom Ashworth in HS, and he was probably only 6-5 240 at the end of this junior year.

 

[Darth Snow]

Seriously? More anecdotal evidence? .

I think people are trying to drive me insane. INSANE.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Seriously? More anecdotal evidence? .

I think people are trying to drive me insane. INSANE.

Looks like somebody didn't get their Spam today.

 

[Ruckus]

Fun Friday morning.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

2. Who the **** said they were perfect? Why are you spending all this energy making a point that no one has disputed? Do you know what correlation means as opposed to causation? 3. (not related to bolded but post in general): Thank you for being cognizant of where you are and how you come off. Just be careful about that Boise ****, the HaLk has left me with a very angry response to that button.

Thank you for the links! They're very interesting reads. Some heavy lifting there to sort through so I'm going to take my time studying up on them. And yes, I know the very basic point that correlation does not imply causation. Thunder and lightning happen together. Doesn't mean that one causes the other.

But...same question in reverse. I haven't disputed the correlation. In fact, I agreed with it a couple of times. Why are you spending all the energy making a point that isn't being disputed?

 

[Ruckus]

Thank you for the links! They're very interesting reads. Some heavy lifting there to sort through so I'm going to take my time studying up on them. And yes, I know the very basic point that correlation does not imply causation. Thunder and lightning happen together. Doesn't mean that one causes the other.

But...same question in reverse. I haven't disputed the correlation. In fact, I agreed with it a couple of times. Why are you spending all the energy making a point that isn't being disputed?

Lightning does cause thunder. Bad example.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Lightning does cause thunder. Bad example.

True. Here's a better one. Dan Hawkins coached at Boise State. They won a lot while he was there. Does that mean he caused them to win while he was there? (Joke, I joke! Please don't hurt me!)

 

[Quattro]

True. Here's a better one. Dan Hawkins coached at Boise State. They won a lot while he was there. Does that mean he caused them to win while he was there? (Joke, I joke! Please don't hurt me!)

Prepare your anus

 

[Swish]

1. goddamit. You asshole. You refuse to take my statements as fact? :lol: You really haven't looked into this and are pontificating on it from a point of ignorance? AND you are going to make me look up the ****ing studies.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what’s-5-star-really-worth-predicting-future-team-success-recruiting-rankings

most recent study done by Mgoblog, and it relates only to TEAM success, not individual. Mountain, note that your theory holds some water as to team success (only "moderate" correlation between OL recruiting and success)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...ense-of-recruiting-rankings?urn=ncaaf,wp13648

showing that recruiting stars correlate with individual success.

2. Who the **** said they were perfect? Why are you spending all this energy making a point that no one has disputed? Do you know what correlation means as opposed to causation?

3. (not related to bolded but post in general): Thank you for being cognizant of where you are and how you come off. Just be careful about that Boise ****, the HaLk has left me with a very angry response to that button.

This :nod:

 

[Darth Snow]

Thank you for the links! They're very interesting reads. Some heavy lifting there to sort through so I'm going to take my time studying up on them. And yes, I know the very basic point that correlation does not imply causation. Thunder and lightning happen together. Doesn't mean that one causes the other.

But...same question in reverse. I haven't disputed the correlation. In fact, I agreed with it a couple of times. Why are you spending all the energy making a point that isn't being disputed?

Because, through your continued argument, you suggested you didn't understand the point. And then, of course, you asked for evidence to back up my statements, suggesting once again that you didn't understand.

There is nothing that means less than the "I agree with what you say, BUT" type of sentence. Which is what you were doing.

 

[Duff Man]

I do think there is something to the idea that OL recruiting is a different animal than most positions. I think the recruiting boards for OL probably vary quite a bit from team to team. None of that really explains why this staff is having some difficulty in closing on OL prospects they clearly have pretty high interest in (early offers, unofficial visitors, official visitors, etc.) and no, the "we did not focus on OL in the 2012 class" does not explain it away because they brought in several OL visitors after they received the second OL commit of the class.

Getting Sutton in the fold is a nice start, but it is almost offset by the fact we lost Crane, to a conference foe no less. We are losing guys the staff clearly likes, so that should concern any Buff fan.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Because, through your continued argument, you suggested you didn't understand the point. And then, of course, you asked for evidence to back up my statements, suggesting once again that you didn't understand. There is nothing that means less than the "I agree with what you say, BUT" type of sentence. Which is what you were doing.

No, I indicated I understood the point.

What I was discussing (not even debating, just discussing) was HOW MUCH more likely a team is to be very successful with higher ranked classes. Nobody doubts that a 5* commit is MORE LIKELY to be a success than an unranked 1* and so on and so forth. What I was finding to be a fun thing to chat about was the extent of the impact, not only at the OL position specifically, but in general. I'm getting the impression that this is a subject that's been discussed to death here in the past and for that I apologize.

One of the reasons why it is fun to visit boards of fanbases beside your own is that you get a different perspective than the "officially blessed" one of your own fanbase. Most Boise State fans would give you the usual, "Star rankings are bull. All of our best players over the years have been low ranked recruits and we routinely outperform nearly everyone else." Blah, blah, blah, yank, yank, yank. I don't agree that they are meaningless, but I wonder HOW MUCH meaning they have.

On the flip side, having fans of other teams on your board brings in an outside perspective that might be a little different and welcome. (I hope!

On a side note, why do none of my posts have paragraph breaks unless I remember to put in HTML into them? Is there a way to be able to have paragraph breaks here without needing to put in the appropriate tags?

 

[Quattro]

Boise State is a bad example to use for stars and rankings given their conference, and so are the top 10 teams for that class to an extent because then you have the USC's, Bama, tOSU, etc who just win as it is. I used to think stars were bull****, but now I firmly believe that stars are a very good indicator of future success and as with everything else, there are exceptions.

 

[Wyo Buff]

I think Wyo's right on this one. If you're looking for offensive lineman to come in as a freshman or sophmore and start, the star rating system probably holds up pretty well. However, there are a lot of guys who are athletic big frames that need 3 years of coaching, eating, and lifting to develop into good lineman. There aren't many guys you can get to 6-4+ 270+ by the end of their junior year. That's probably where you need to be evaluated seriously. CU's own Tom Ashworth and Nate Solder were good example of good lieneman prospects that just weren't big enough in highschool to be taken seriously. I backed up Tom Ashworth in HS, and he was probably only 6-5 240 at the end of this junior year.

I agree that I am right on this one! : ) Snow, I see your anecdote and raise you on my own unfounded anecdote. : ) By the way, HOU, Ashworth backed me up at CU! There is some spiritual symmetry to this thread!

 

[J.R. Ewing]

I agree that I am right on this one! : ) Snow, I see your anecdote and raise you on my own unfounded anecdote. : ) By the way, HOU, Ashworth backed me up at CU! There is some spiritual symmetry to this thread!

WOW, I was Wyo's back up's back up! Sort of....

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Boise State is a bad example to use for stars and rankings given their conference, and so are the top 10 teams for that class to an extent because then you have the USC's, Bama, tOSU, etc who just win as it is. I used to think stars were bull****, but now I firmly believe that stars are a very good indicator of future success and as with everything else, there are exceptions.

Actually, Alabama is an interesting case study.

Alabama Regular Season Records: (Factoring out wins against FCS opponents.)

2003: 4-9
2004: 5-5
2005: 8-2
2006: 6-6
2007: 5-6

Coach Saban Hired

2008: 12-1 (Lone loss against #2 ranked Florida)
2009: 12-0
2010: 9-3
2011: 10-1 (National Champion)

Recruiting Rankings (Scout) by year:

2003: 45
2004: 19
2005: 16
2006: 18
2007: 22
2008: 1
2009: 2
2010: 4
2011: 7

My analysis of this is that Alabama's recruiting rankings definitely took a jump after Saban came on board, but they were already pretty elite recruiting classes BEFORE Saban and Alabama was a completely mediocre team. My takeways when I look at this (and yes, this is purely anecdotal) are:

1. Improved recruiting rankings can certainly impact bottom-line results
2. Having an elite coach can impact that bottom-line way more
3. There's a correlation between having a good/prestige coach and getting even better recruits

 

[Quattro]

Sorry but the 2003-2007 classes are no where elite based on those rankings, not even close. The 2008-2012 classes are elite.

And Saban was hired in January of 2007 by the way and his first season was 2007 where they beat CU in the Independence Bowl (****in Hawkins) 30-24.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Fair enough Tini. I guess it depends on your definition of what qualifies as "elite".

Factoring out 2003, which looks like an outlier to me, the average ranking of recruiting classes between 2004 and 2007 was 19th. They averaged 6 wins a year during that stretch. To me, I think that's underachieving relative to the classes they were bringing in which I would argue that, even if you wouldn't call them "elite", you should be able to call them "great" or at a minimum "very good".

So at worst they were bringing in "very good" classes and were basically a .500 club on the field. Then they bring in Saban. Certainly, recruiting jumped. But using his predecessor's classes at least the first year or two, he immediately took that team's on-field results from mediocre to elite in year one.

 

[Darth Snow]

Fair enough Tini. I guess it depends on your definition of what qualifies as "elite".

Factoring out 2003, which looks like an outlier to me, the average ranking of recruiting classes between 2004 and 2007 was 19th. They averaged 6 wins a year during that stretch. To me, I think that's underachieving relative to the classes they were bringing in which I would argue that, even if you wouldn't call them "elite", you should be able to call them "great" or at a minimum "very good".

So at worst they were bringing in "very good" classes and were basically a .500 club on the field. Then they bring in Saban. Certainly, recruiting jumped. But using his predecessor's classes at least the first year or two, he immediately took that team's on-field results from mediocre to elite in year one.

In Year one, they were 7-6, beating COLORADO in some ****** bowl in Independence. He lost to a few really ****** teams too.

Many of his recruits were in the two deep in year 2 when he won it all.

 

[Duff Man]

Nocool, Alabama was not really close to elite in recruiting before Saban arrived. Franchione's sudden departure while they were on probation and their subsequent hire of Mike Shula really prevented them from doing much. Those rankings look pretty good on the surface until you realize that they were middle of the pack most years in the SEC when it came to recruiting, and were running third in their division most years to LSU and Auburn. Not surprisingly, both LSU and Auburn pretty much owned them there for about a five year stretch.

Not only has Saban taken them to the top of the SEC in recruiting, he has taken them to the top of the whole country in recruiting. Huge difference in talent they are getting now versus the Shula years.

A top 30 recruiting ranking (especially if heavily influenced by numbers, which some of those were) means very little if you are in the middle of the pack in your conference. One of the reasons why teams like Boise and TCU have been winning is while their rankings might be low on a national scale, they certainly are not low compared to their fellow conference members. You know that Boise is talented than 95% of the teams on their schedule (and usually it is a decided talent advantage).

 

[Quattro]

Fair enough Tini. I guess it depends on your definition of what qualifies as "elite".

Factoring out 2003, which looks like an outlier to me, the average ranking of recruiting classes between 2004 and 2007 was 19th. They averaged 6 wins a year during that stretch. To me, I think that's underachieving relative to the classes they were bringing in which I would argue that, even if you wouldn't call them "elite", you should be able to call them "great" or at a minimum "very good".

So at worst they were bringing in "very good" classes and were basically a .500 club on the field. Then they bring in Saban. Certainly, recruiting jumped. But using his predecessor's classes at least the first year or two, he immediately took that team's on-field results from mediocre to elite in year one.

Alabama's recruiting jumped from them going from 7-6 to 12-2 and losing the Sugar Bowl and him winning a few coaching awards, and then you add that onto Alabama's prestige. For Alabama, those first years you listed were not elite. If CU had those rankings, outside of 2003, us fans would be very happy with the recruiting. You also can't really use the 2003 recruiting ranking as a judge of the 2003 season, and maybe even the 2004 season. The 2007 class had a part in winning the 2009 national title so you need to use a five year period of W/L IMO to get a true gauge of the success of the class, just my $0.02.

And FWIW, Alabama had sanctions imposed upon them where they lost 21 scholarships over three years and were on probation form 2002-2006.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Please call me Jim if you don't mind folks. Easier than anything else. Thanks for the replies and discussion. I'm really enjoying this on a slower than normal Friday work day. Apologies if I can't reply to everyone.

Tini makes some really interesting points about the 2007 class and using a 5 year period to evaluate. If you have to look at a class over a five year window to see how good they are, then wouldn't it mean that the biggest factor in Alabama becoming a multiple time national champion since Saban came on board would be Saban himself and not the jump in his class rankings?

The 2006/2007 classes for instance were 18 and 22 respectively, but Saban won titles in 2009 and 2011. How much of an impact did the 2006/2007 classes, supposedly not "elite" classes, have on making Alabama the best team in college football between 2008-today? I would assume that the 2006 and 2007 classes represented the majority of the starters for the two title teams. Was the difference the jump in recruiting after Saban took over or Saban's coaching since the titles he's won have been heavily contributed to by the kids on roster when he took over?

Put another way, I'd find it easier to credit the great recruiting for Bama's skyrocking success since Saban's arrival if there was more of a gap between when Saban came onboard and the immediate results using prior classes. (And thank you, Snow, for the correction on the first year. I had thought Saban took over AFTER the 2007 season not before. I should have looked that up first.)