Interesting Recruiting Rankings Analysis

[semicus]

I was bored this morning and with college football upon us I wanted to take a look a Rivals rankings since the 2012 classes. This will include most players on the current teams. I compiled this spreadsheet. It is kind of interesting.

I chose 9 teams. UK of course, 3 teams on the schedule, and 5 for obvious and non-obvious reasons. TCU is ranked #2, yet their recruiting has not been very good the last few years. Michigan State is probably the second best team in the BIG and they are below South Carolina per these rankings. Arizona and Arizona State are two rising programs in the PAC 12. North Carolina was included because they were beaten by South Carolina last night.

What does all this information mean? Anything?

What do you think?

Hope you can see the info included.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I was bored this morning and with college football upon us I wanted to take a look a Rivals rankings since the 2012 classes. This will include most players on the current teams. I compiled this spreadsheet. It is kind of interesting.

I chose 9 teams. UK of course, 3 teams on the schedule, and 5 for obvious and non-obvious reasons. TCU is ranked #2, yet their recruiting has not been very good the last few years. Michigan State is probably the second best team in the BIG and they are below South Carolina per these rankings. Arizona and Arizona State are two rising programs in the PAC 12. North Carolina was included because they were beaten by South Carolina last night.

What does all this information mean? Anything?

What do you think?

Hope you can see the info included.

Results from last year would obviously show rankings are the end all of who is going to have a lot of success. But the biggest thing it shows, I think, is that you recruit to your needs. TCU wants big fast guys who can catch the ball, their rankings don't seem to matter much. USC shows the importance of kids you signing being able to get into and stay in school.

Oddly, I did the same thing with the same years of the SEC teams, only I used the points instead of star ratings. The results were surprising to say the least, not that Bama had done the best recruiting over that time frame, but such a large margin. They had over 11,000 points over the 4 years, LSU was 2nd with 9600. Vandy who was last had 5578, basically half the talent Bama is putting on the field.

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

I think it was Spurriers 2013 class that had 9 guys not make it to campus. They're feeling the impact from that failed class now. That class would have to be reranked

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I think it was Spurriers 2013 class that had 9 guys not make it to campus. They're feeling the impact from that failed class now. That class would have to be reranked

It could have been the 13 class, I thought the 14 class but not sure about it. Anyway another left the team a couple days into fall camp, a disaster of a class for them.

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

It could have been the 13 class, I thought the 14 class but not sure about it. Anyway another left the team a couple days into fall camp, a disaster of a class for them.

I'm sure you're right 2014 seems like a long time ago

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Im sure you're right 2014 seems like a long time ago

I'm not sure, but whichever it was it killed that class. Then SOS came out with the comment about coaching for another year or two, and it killed any momentum for their 15 class they might have had going. If they have a bad season this year I think it's his last one there. I know he has personal goals he wants to reach, I think the window has closed on one of them, winning the SEC, But a poor season would mean he didn't make much progress towards his other which is becoming the all time winningest coach in the SEC. I think he needs about 16 give or take a couple to reach that. 3 or less wins in the SEC means another 3 years, 5 or more means he is within range with 2 more. His ego wants that one for himself.

 

[dorkmeister]

Thanks for the post and info. I don't expect you to do this but I would love to see, using the same spreadsheet you have, what the rating is for players still on the team and add in additions.

If UCSjr had a lot of high rated kids not make it then they would not really be as highly rated. If we pick up a top JUCO lineman then we are actually better than the data shows.

Again, I don't expect for you to do this and I know I'm not going to because I am lazy. Thanks for posting the info.

 

[Rhavicc]

Tells me that people can be very ignorant when they say that you need top 10 recruiting classes to compete in the SEC (and that is a thing here). TCU hasn't been as good as UK on the recruiting trail, overall, and they're sitting at #2 in the country right now.
As mentioned, you recruit to your needs, and I believe we've done a terrific job at that. Noticeable difference in talent level, and the type of athletes that we get now.

 

[hmt5000]

You have to have a dynamic offense too. You can't recruit in the 50's and expect to win playing smash mouth football. You need to do something different whether it's throw it around or going nhhu or maybe going old school with option or something.

It's why I like stoops. He knows we can't win big scoring 20ppg. We have to put pressure on teams with our O so our D can get more to's.

 

[Oak_Hill]

That list tells me we're making strides in recruiting. Far from elite but still very good. The difference is the coaching and player development within' the programs. This year will be a huge indicator on where we stand on that list coaching/development wise. I have a gut feeling we're going to like it!

 

[EclipsingYou]

Damn, that had to take you a ton of time to look up. I had to like your post just for that reason!

Being in the SEC is such a hard thing to overcome. As you have shown, our talent level is not much different than Arizona, ASU, Michigan St, UNC, TCU, or UL year after year. I have ZERO doubt that we would have similar success to those teams if we played their schedules either.

In order to win in the SEC, we have to adopt the Missouri model. Recruit players that will stay 5 seasons, redshirt 90%+ of incoming FR, & retain your coaching staff year after year to create continuity in your playbook & expectations. Experience can trump talent. Even in a conference as challenging as the SEC, as Missouri has proven. 5th year seniors are probably the most valuable asset on a college football roster these days when your school is not named Alabama, Ohio State, Florida St, etc.

I think Mark Stoops is EXACTLY the man for the job and we will begin to see dividends this year.

What hurt us the most during the Joker period, in my completely worthless opinion, was the extreme lack of continuity on our roster. The amount of players we lost due to transfers, discipline, and academics was STAGGERING. As we saw during Stoops first season, the cupboard was nearly bare. None of Joker's recruits had stuck around and our lack of depth was tremendously worse than a Sun Belt team like Western Kentucky.

 

[jauk11]

Tells me that people can be very ignorant when they say that you need top 10 recruiting classes to compete in the SEC (and that is a thing here). TCU hasn't been as good as UK on the recruiting trail, overall, and they're sitting at #2 in the country right now.
As mentioned, you recruit to your needs, and I believe we've done a terrific job at that. Noticeable difference in talent level, and the type of athletes that we get now.

And people have to be ignorant to think that Joker's first team in 2010 that had a senior class from 07 that had NINETEEN two star commits (averaging a mind boggling 5.15, including the ONE 5.4 that got injured) and that played an SEC schedule that AVERAGED having 38 four star commits the previous four years (minus Vandy but including the two Misses) with UK having TWO four stars (both JCs) playing had NEARLY the talent needed to compete in the SEC. But some folks thought we should have beat Florida ON THE ROAD when they had a two deep that AVERAGED over a 5.9 when we started more two stars than three stars (2nd team worse) with two walkons starting.

Joker was a failure as a head coach, but no one would win with that talent discrepancy, even Brooks, that did a marvelous job with what he had. Even Joker beat a top ten team in TOBC with 39 four stars and a five star committed the prior four years, AND only lost to the NC Auburn team by three points.

Individually the star ratings are often far off, but as a team they are VERY important, and UK's main problem for decades has been raw talent, not coaching, and the MAIN problem with the talent was the abysmal support from the athletic department. especially for the prior decade, piled on by the probation and decades of poor records.

What a fantastic turnaround by Stoops AND the athletic department, which had no choice really, plus piles of money rolling in.

 

[jauk11]

Results from last year would obviously show rankings are the end all of who is going to have a lot of success. But the biggest thing it shows, I think, is that you recruit to your needs. TCU wants big fast guys who can catch the ball, their rankings don't seem to matter much. USC shows the importance of kids you signing being able to get into and stay in school.

Oddly, I did the same thing with the same years of the SEC teams, only I used the points instead of star ratings. The results were surprising to say the least, not that Bama had done the best recruiting over that time frame, but such a large margin. They had over 11,000 points over the 4 years, LSU was 2nd with 9600. Vandy who was last had 5578, basically half the talent Bama is putting on the field.

I love your outside inputs and the work that goes in to them, but if I could impose I would really appreciate your full results of your work with the point ratings if you still have them available, or a summary from memory.

 

[Deeeefense]

To make a complete analysis you have to look at attrition. It's not who just you get, its also who you keep.
South Carolina's rankings were being discussed in a thread about a month or so ago and people were making the case that there talent was superior to ours based on their better rankings, but when I went back and looked at attrition I found that USCe had lost nearly 40% of their recruits over the last 4 years. Of course they replace most of them with other good recruits but the problem is when you are in that mode you are constantly behind the curve with development. Also they have had to fill some gaps with JUCOs and walk-ons.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I love your outside inputs and the work that goes in to them, but if I could impose I would really appreciate your full results of your work with the point ratings if you still have them available, or a summary from memory.

I ain't smart enough to do all that in my head, so its wrote down, I can't find your email or I would send it to you. I would post it here but I have learned not to cause too much controversy, or send me a conversation request, I can't figure that out either.

 

[dcspurlock]

It still blows my mind how quick Coach Stoops has turned around our talent level overall. Especially given the dumpster fire we were when he got here. Just done a fantastic job bringing players in and for the most part, keeping them around and keeping most eligible. Filled out our roster nicely with players and positions of need. And once we get wins and bowl games rolling it will pick up even more. No more question marks as in this years LB or OT for the 2 deep. Or praying that true freshman CB are upgrades. If we can hang on to Stoops for at least a decade we will make noise in the SEC more years than not.

 

[seccats04]

I love the recruiting that Stoops and staff have done. These are the types of classes that Missouri and Miss State have been signing for years and see how successful they've been in the SEC recently. You recruit to your needs, have a plan and a vision you can sell and now the Athletic Dept is showing it's support with all the upgrades and that is very important in recruiting.

Almost every single recruit Stoops has signed has had at least one other Power 5 offer. The only player I can think of off the top of my head that didn't was Josh Allen and so far he sounds like a steal. I remember looking at his tape and thinking he was perfect for the JACK LB. Long and athletic, just needs some seasoning. Think Missouri.

 

[SanAntonioCat]

This^^^^^

All good posts. Bottom line: facilities, coaching and recruiting are the foundation of a successful football program. This is the first time since Bear Bryant roamed the Stoll Field sidelines we have all the pieces to create a consistently competitive football organization.

BELIEVE

 

[gg4uk]

I used to do similar things for each D1A team in college football. But, instead of doing it for the past 4 years. I would do it for each player in the 2 deep. I would also provide a value for each year of experience. By doing this it is more about "live" on the field and current. It captures transferres etc. I would expect that for UK the numbers would be similar to those same teams. However, that experience factor is a major component. It is half the equations actually. I think next year UK's numbers will exceed the team's you have listed. Except for MSU, USC etc. But, that is the 2 tier category UK will be at next year. Basically, UK has been in that 4th level category just above the better non-power five teams. UL has been in that 3rd tier level for a few years.

Tier1 Top8
Tier2 9~20
Tier3 25~40
Tier4 41~70
Tier5 all the rest

Thanks for putting that together. It's very interesting stuff.

 

[Blue Decade]

Results from last year would obviously show rankings are the end all of who is going to have a lot of success. But the biggest thing it shows, I think, is that you recruit to your needs. TCU wants big fast guys who can catch the ball, their rankings don't seem to matter much. USC shows the importance of kids you signing being able to get into and stay in school.

There is a big flaw in your logic of recruiting to needs. Actually, that isn't how most successful teams recruit. With rare exceptions, it takes several years to develop a college football player. While some players contribute as freshmen, most need a redshirt year and maybe another year or 2 after that. That's why it is a more effective strategy to develop players and avoid shortages, than get behind the 8 ball and then be forced to recruit to fill needs. Rich Brooks used to recruit classes disproportionally heavy at a couple of need positions, and we invariably ended up needy at other positions a year or 2 later. The best recruiting strategy is to recruit balanced classes, covering all positions every year as best they can be covered. Stoops has recruited well enough to make this kind of balanced recruiting approach work, generally speaking.

 

[Deeeefense]

I used to do similar things for each D1A team in college football. But, instead of doing it for the past 4 years. I would do it for each player in the 2 deep. I would also provide a value for each year of experience. By doing this it is more about "live" on the field and current. It captures transferres etc. I would expect that for UK the numbers would be similar to those same teams. However, that experience factor is a major component. It is half the equations actually. I think next year UK's numbers will exceed the team's you have listed. Except for MSU, USC etc. But, that is the 2 tier category UK will be at next year. Basically, UK has been in that 4th level category just above the better non-power five teams. UL has been in that 3rd tier level for a few years.

Tier1 Top8
Tier2 9~20
Tier3 25~40
Tier4 41~70
Tier5 all the rest

Thanks for putting that together. It's very interesting stuff.

You probably know this already gg, but Phil Steele has an experience chart in his annual college football review that factors in 5 different data points and comes up with a composite score. Kentucky is ranked #2 in the SEC this year and of course one of the big reasons for this is the staff is very judicious about who they take, and then does a quality job of developing and retaining them.

 

[Deeeefense]

There is a big flaw in your logic of recruiting to needs. Actually, that isn't how most successful teams recruit. With rare exceptions, it takes several years to develop a college football player. While some players contribute as freshmen, most need a redshirt year and maybe another year or 2 after that. That's why it is a more effective strategy to develop players and avoid shortages, than get behind the 8 ball and then be forced to recruit to fill needs. Rich Brooks used to recruit classes disproportionally heavy at a couple of need positions, and we invariably ended up needy at other positions a year or 2 later. The best recruiting strategy is to recruit balanced classes, covering all positions every year as best they can be covered. Stoops has recruited well enough to make this kind of balanced recruiting approach work, generally speaking.

Most staffs that are not in a building or "catch-up" situation recruit based on anticipated losses to the junior class. JROW did an investigative piece on UK football recruiting on the premy board a while back and mentioned that this is the strategy that Stoop now uses.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

There is a big flaw in your logic of recruiting to needs. Actually, that isn't how most successful teams recruit. With rare exceptions, it takes several years to develop a college football player. While some players contribute as freshmen, most need a redshirt year and maybe another year or 2 after that. That's why it is a more effective strategy to develop players and avoid shortages, than get behind the 8 ball and then be forced to recruit to fill needs. Rich Brooks used to recruit classes disproportionally heavy at a couple of need positions, and we invariably ended up needy at other positions a year or 2 later. The best recruiting strategy is to recruit balanced classes, covering all positions every year as best they can be covered. Stoops has recruited well enough to make this kind of balanced recruiting approach work, generally speaking.

I understand the concept of redshirting and why it is done. But even if you are planing on redshriting a large group, you want kids who fit your scheme. If you run an offense like TCU or Baylor runs you aren't going to go out and sign 4-5 guys who run 4.6 40's because they don't fit their scheme which is to spread and threaten the defense vertically. If those guys they target need a redshirt so be it, if they are ready to play they play.

 

[Blue Decade]

Most staffs that are not in a building or "catch-up" situation recruit based on anticipated losses to the junior class. JROW did an investigative piece on UK football recruiting on the premy board a while back and mentioned that this is the strategy that Stoop now uses.

I agree that awareness of weaknesses in the junior class is important, but I disagree with any blanket statement claiming to know how most staffs recruit. Generalizations like this are misleading. Every program is a different culture, and every staff recruits its own way. Even an individual staff may change up aspects of the recruiting strategy from 1 year to the next. Rich Brooks definitely recruited differently each year, and I could describe yearly differences in Stoops' recruiting too. But getting back to the point, a demonstrated tendency of successful college football programs is to recruit balanced classes that do not leave desperate future needs. This is even more important when you have a program unlikely to pull in many 5 star types who can excel immediately as every down players.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I agree that awareness of weaknesses in the junior class is important, but I disagree with any blanket statement claiming to know how most staffs recruit. Generalizations like this are misleading. Every program is a different culture, and every staff recruits its own way. Even an individual staff may change up aspects of the recruiting strategy from 1 year to the next. Rich Brooks definitely recruited differently each year, and I could describe yearly differences in Stoops' recruiting too. But getting back to the point, a demonstrated tendency of successful college football programs is to recruit balanced classes that do not leave desperate future needs. This is even more important when you have a program unlikely to pull in many 5 star types who can excel immediately as every down players.

Even programs change tactics with the same head coach. In the last 2 seasons UGA has lost 6 assistants including 2 coordinators. Richt's policy had always been don't put out many offers and according to Rivals UGA put out less offers than anyone in the SEC. That tactic wasn't working for us, we would wait for guys who were committing signing day and they would sign somewhere else. one year, 2011 I think it was we had room to sign 7 more kids to reach 85, we missed on all of them on signing day. 3 days later we had 4 get dismissed for stealing from teammates, and then a couple more transferred, its why we played the season with 67 kids on scholarships and why we have been able to sign so many the last couple of years. That changed when Pruitt came as DC, we are putting plenty of offers out now, we are recruiting about 25 kids to fill 8-10 spots we have left. The staff we have now is much more active on the recruiting from than they guys they replaced, except Bobo who is an elite recruiter.

 

[gg4uk]

Yes, I'm familiar with it. But, despite me having every issue of his since 1997 ish. That is one area that I don't agree with him on. He has so many variables that he figures in that I think it takes away from a simple analysis of MATURITY of your two deep. Even two deep may not be enough, but using to project Team A vs. TeamB I think simple is better.

Regardless which system is better. There needs to be a factor in there somewhere. UK's numbers are going to be so Good the next two years. I'm really looking forward to this overall talent metric improving to levels I never thought I'd see.