Resurrecting a tired argument for the millionth time, but this article at fivethirtyeight.com today has some interesting tidbits.
-First thing you have to look at is the methodology. FPI for the last two years was the measure of success, so programs that are on small upswings or downswings during those years are probably a little out of whack. Coaching changes are certain to lower a team's rating. Teams that achieve in smaller conferences tend to be favored by this methodology. Colorado would probably rank higher if only last season was considered, but would certainly rank lower if they went back into the late-Hawkins and Embree eras.
-The Texas rating backs up everyone's impression of them. USC and UCLA are also predictably low. And Kansas? Oof.
-The biggest takeaway is the application of real math (coeffecient of determination, for the nerds) to determine the relationship between recruiting and success on the field. That number is 65%. In other words, recruiting is responsible for 65% of a team's success. So, argument settled. (Not likely.)
-First thing you have to look at is the methodology. FPI for the last two years was the measure of success, so programs that are on small upswings or downswings during those years are probably a little out of whack. Coaching changes are certain to lower a team's rating. Teams that achieve in smaller conferences tend to be favored by this methodology. Colorado would probably rank higher if only last season was considered, but would certainly rank lower if they went back into the late-Hawkins and Embree eras.
-The Texas rating backs up everyone's impression of them. USC and UCLA are also predictably low. And Kansas? Oof.
-The biggest takeaway is the application of real math (coeffecient of determination, for the nerds) to determine the relationship between recruiting and success on the field. That number is 65%. In other words, recruiting is responsible for 65% of a team's success. So, argument settled. (Not likely.)
