Programs Under/Overachieving Their Recruiting Rankings

[YaketySax]

Via a Banner Society newsletter...edited to focus on UK opponents.


The underachievers

• Louisville has a four year recruiting average ranked at 39th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 63rd.
• Vanderbilt has a four year recruiting average of 54th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 103rd.
• South Carolina has a four year recruiting average of 20th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 49th.
• Tennessee has a four year recruiting average of 16th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 32nd.

The overachievers

• No SEC teams but...
• Western Kentucky has a four year recruiting average of 85th, but their 2019 SP+ ranking is 62nd (one spot ahead of UofL).

They are who we thought they were

• Kentucky has a four year recruiting average of 32nd, but their 2019 SP+ is 37th.
• UGA has a four year recruiting average of 2nd, and their 2019 SP+ is 5th.
• Florida has a four year recruiting of 12th, and their 2019 SP+ is 7th.
• Missouri has a four year recruiting average of 42nd, and their 2019 SP+ is 36th.

What can we learn from this exercise?

That’s somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but I think it’s a good starting point toward evaluating coaching staffs’ player development abilities. SP+ is an opponent-adjusted stat, and if you rank much better there than you typically are in recruiting, it at least suggests your coaches are doing a good job identifying and improving under-the-radar players.

It’s not perfect, though. This exercise doesn’t account on its own for transfers, injuries, and general chaos around a program.

 

[WildCard]

Good stuff! As noted in another thread I suspect WI is the "leader" in low recruiting rankings but high poll/performance rankings.

Peace

 

[KingsportKat]

Good points. Of course, recruiting is a major responsibility of coaches, but it’s easier at some places than others. I would have thought that we would be in the overachiever category but apparently we’re not.

 

[vhcat70]

Via a Banner Society newsletter...edited to focus on UK opponents.


The underachievers

• Louisville has a four year recruiting average ranked at 39th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 63rd.
• Vanderbilt has a four year recruiting average of 54th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 103rd.
• South Carolina has a four year recruiting average of 20th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 49th.
• Tennessee has a four year recruiting average of 16th. Their 2019 SP+ ranking is 32nd.

The overachievers

• No SEC teams but...
• Western Kentucky has a four year recruiting average of 85th, but their 2019 SP+ ranking is 62nd (one spot ahead of UofL).

They are who we thought they were

• Kentucky has a four year recruiting average of 32nd, but their 2019 SP+ is 37th.
• UGA has a four year recruiting average of 2nd, and their 2019 SP+ is 5th.
• Florida has a four year recruiting of 12th, and their 2019 SP+ is 7th.
• Missouri has a four year recruiting average of 42nd, and their 2019 SP+ is 36th.

What can we learn from this exercise?

That’s somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but I think it’s a good starting point toward evaluating coaching staffs’ player development abilities. SP+ is an opponent-adjusted stat, and if you rank much better there than you typically are in recruiting, it at least suggests your coaches are doing a good job identifying and improving under-the-radar players.

It’s not perfect, though. This exercise doesn’t account on its own for transfers, injuries, and general chaos around a program.

So this says UK underperformed (37) it's recruiting (32) & thus our coaches aren't doing a hot job? Or am I miss-understanding this?

 

[AR15CATWARRIOR]

So this says UK underperformed (37) it's recruiting (32) & thus our coaches aren't doing a hot job? Or am I miss-understanding this?

To not list UK as over achiever is plain idiocy! I must be misunderstanding as well. When UK has a top 5 D-LINE and DB class it's a fact they overachieved! That doesn't makes sense and Stoops is recruiting way over an average of 37. 37 might be his lowest ranked class while he has been here. Stoops Recruiting average I would say closer to 22-26 I would guess with 2 classes in the teens.

 

[gobigblue812]

Most of these computer based rankings are just bullshit.

 

[GYERater]

They are saying that an average recruiting ranking of 32 and a performance of 37 is in the same ballpark thus we have performed about like one would expect. The over/underachievers had wide discrepancies and when you get a difference of 5 spots and a ranking in the 30s you are just splitting hairs to say we underperformed.

 

[YaketySax]

So this says UK underperformed (37) it's recruiting (32) & thus our coaches aren't doing a hot job? Or am I miss-understanding this?

They explain if you are within 10 spots (plus or minus) then you are meeting expectations.

 

[YaketySax]

To not list UK as over achiever is plain idiocy! I must be misunderstanding as well. When UK has a top 5 D-LINE and DB class it's a fact they overachieved! That doesn't makes sense and Stoops is recruiting way over an average of 37. 37 might be his lowest ranked class while he has been here. Stoops Recruiting average I would say closer to 22-26 I would guess with 2 classes in the teens.

It’s a four year average.

 

[The-Hack]

Is the “SP” limited to 2019, or is it a 4 year average?

 

[kritikalcat]

Is the “SP” limited to 2019, or is it a 4 year average?

SP+ is for 2019 only. I believe the idea is that your performance this year is related to how you recruited the past 4 years. It would make sense to go several years back on SP+ but you’d have to take a rolling average of recruiting rankings.

 

[NCPurplecat]

UK wins Dec 31 and expectations will be met. Building for the future is always part of the goal. While 7-5 may not be great, the two deep is stacked for next year. Team is competing now but building for the future. That is not easily quantified yet. Now the expectations for the class just signed this week exceed being a top 30 program. Time will tell but the program is headed in the the right direction.

 

[The-Hack]

SP+ is for 2019 only.

OK. These numbers looked a lot better with a finish of 11/12, last year, then.

 

[Deeeefense]

The problem with this analysis is they are apparently comparing the last 4 years of recruiting with the last four years of rankings year to year. But each recruiting class has a marginal if not negligible effect on the team performance ranking of the same year.

For example they include 2016 class and ranking which is the teams performance but the 2016 team is based on classes that came in 2011-2015 similarly the 2017 team ranking is dependent not upon the 2017 recruiting class but the classes that came in from 2012-2016.

A more accurate way of doing this IMO would be to compare the rankings to the recruiting classes of the juniors and seniors which compose the bulk of the depth chart. If you do that Kentucky has definitely outperform it's recruiting rankings.

 

[kritikalcat]

The problem with this analysis is they are apparently comparing the last 4 years of recruiting with the last four years of rankings year to year. But each recruiting class has a marginal if not negligible effect on the team performance ranking of the same year.

For example they include 2016 class and ranking which is the teams performance but the 2016 team is based on classes that came in 2011-2015 similarly the 2017 team ranking is dependent not upon the 2017 recruiting class but the classes that came in from 2012-2016.

A more accurate way of doing this IMO would be to compare the rankings to the recruiting classes of the juniors and seniors which compose the bulk of the depth chart. If you do that Kentucky has definitely outperform it's recruiting rankings.

If this is correct I have The Hack bad info, and I agree with you; but this isn't how I read it. That said, I still say they are looking at how 2019 performance related to the 2016-2019 recruiting.

Though I also agree that your more experienced classes have a greater impact. I've read that a recruiting class has it's biggest impact 3 years in (juniors and redshirt sophomores). This doesn't mean that players don't get better as 4th or 5th year, but that the contributors usually show out by year 3 and attrition has offset some of the benefits of experience.

 

[cat888]

If you just do conference average it would change a lot.

 

[conradthevol]

That is complete nonsense