Recruiting ranking/ Win correlation

[Ewooc]

I have calculated the average recruiting ranking of the BIG10 over the last 20 years. I wanted to try and see how that correlated to wins. Basically does having a higher recruiting ranking equal more wins. Which team is best at developing players and getting wins. Another way to view it, which team does more with less. Having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Anyone help me out I'm drawing a blank? Here is what I have so far

Average recruiting ranking & win total (20 year period)
Michigan 12.95/ 167
Ohio St 18.45/ 212
Penn St 22.55/163
Nebraska 25.80/166
Mich St 32.25/155
Maryland 34.65/123
Wisc 38.45/ 188
Iowa 41.65/ 152
Illinois 45.88/ 93
Rutgers 46.65/ 106
Minnesota 51.50 /125
Purdue 52.25/ 113
Northwestern 57.20/ 133
Indiana 59.25/ 84

Just the eyeball test it looks like Wisc does the most with the least talent. Indiana the least with the most. Was looking for a way to rank all teams more officially

 

[inWV]

Decent apples to apples approach. Michigan does no better than NU despite having a 13 spot lead in the rankings. Wisconsin has been almost like NU before the 90s, but may see a tougher slog going forward. Purdue and NU are no longer penciled in as wins and eventually Barry will leave the scene.

 

[red scowl]

I have calculated the average recruiting ranking of the BIG10 over the last 20 years. I wanted to try and see how that correlated to wins. Basically does having a higher recruiting ranking equal more wins. Which team is best at developing players and getting wins. Another way to view it, which team does more with less. Having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Anyone help me out I'm drawing a blank? Here is what I have so far

Average recruiting ranking & win total (20 year period)
Michigan 12.95/ 167
Ohio St 18.45/ 212
Penn St 22.55/163
Nebraska 25.80/166
Mich St 32.25/155
Maryland 34.65/123
Wisc 38.45/ 188
Iowa 41.65/ 152
Illinois 45.88/ 93
Rutgers 46.65/ 106
Minnesota 51.50 /125
Purdue 52.25/ 113
Northwestern 57.20/ 133
Indiana 59.25/ 84

Just the eyeball test it looks like Wisc does the most with the least talent. Indiana the least with the most. Was looking for a way to rank all teams more officially

Your careful approach and detailed analysis has led me to believe that Iowa sucks.

Edit: @TruHusker Iowa really does suck. The Huskers have just been very bad at football.

 

[SWIowahawks_rivals44758]

There are graphs that show the correlation between recruiting classes and wins three years later for Iowa. The ups and downs match almost perfectly. I don’t believe recruiting rankings are the end all/be all, but they definitely have merit.

 

[Cornicator]

One major reason Wisconsin recruiting rankings are consistently low is their offensive linemen evaluations. The Badgers Coaching staff is frankly better at projecting offensive linemen.

When Rivals sees a 5.5 Three Star tight end at 6'6 245 lbs, Wisconsin sees an All American offensive tackle five years down the road. And by the time he leaves Madison, he's 6'6 320 and heading to the NFL draft.

 

[inWV]

One major reason Wisconsin recruiting rankings are consistently low is their offensive linemen evaluations. The Badgers Coaching staff is frankly better at projecting offensive linemen.

When Rivals sees a 5.5 Three Star tight end at 6'6 245 lbs, Wisconsin sees an All American offensive tackle five years down the road. And by the time he leaves Madison, he's 6'6 320 and heading to the NFL draft.

Fritzsche and Anderson played TE in HS. We will see if Austin has the developmental chops wrt these two.

 

[RedCap_rivals330392]

I have calculated the average recruiting ranking of the BIG10 over the last 20 years. I wanted to try and see how that correlated to wins. Basically does having a higher recruiting ranking equal more wins. Which team is best at developing players and getting wins. Another way to view it, which team does more with less. Having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Anyone help me out I'm drawing a blank? Here is what I have so far

Average recruiting ranking & win total (20 year period)
Michigan 12.95/ 167
Ohio St 18.45/ 212
Penn St 22.55/163
Nebraska 25.80/166
Mich St 32.25/155
Maryland 34.65/123
Wisc 38.45/ 188
Iowa 41.65/ 152
Illinois 45.88/ 93
Rutgers 46.65/ 106
Minnesota 51.50 /125
Purdue 52.25/ 113
Northwestern 57.20/ 133
Indiana 59.25/ 84

Just the eyeball test it looks like Wisc does the most with the least talent. Indiana the least with the most. Was looking for a way to rank all teams more officially

I like this approach but unfortunately 20 years is too long of a time span because it covers multiple head coaches. Now what would be more meaningful to me would be to do this comparison by head coach.

 

[Ewooc]

I like this approach but unfortunately 20 years is too long of a time span because it covers multiple head coaches. Now what would be more meaningful to me would be to do this comparison by head coach.

Agree and I looked into that a bit. I wanted to see if longevity leads to better results long term. However from what I found most schools had very similar HC change so figured it was a wash. Here is the number of HC by school. Maybe there is a bit of correlation with HC stability and doing more with less. ( Iowa and NW)
With a team like Ohio St and Wisc it shows HC longevity doesn't necessarily matter they seem to have systems in place that let them keep on as norm no matter who the coach is.
Indian 6
Min 5
Illinois 5
Wisc 5
Maryland 5
Neb 5
Ohio St 5
Mich 4
Mich St 4
Rutgers 4
Purdue 4
Penn St 3
NW 2
Iowa 1

 

[RedCap_rivals330392]

Agree and I looked into that a bit. I wanted to see if longevity leads to better results long term. However from what I found most schools had very similar HC change so figured it was a wash. Here is the number of HC by school. Maybe there is a bit of correlation with HC stability and doing more with less. ( Iowa and NW)
Indian 6
Min 5
Illinois 5
Wisc 5
Maryland 5
Neb 5
Ohio St 5
Mich 4
Mich St 4
Rutgers 4
Purdue 4
Penn St 3
NW 2
Iowa 1

FWIW, as most people likely know, Osborne was the master of doing more with less. His team rankings consistently showed the biggest favorable gap vs. recruiting rankings during his day. That to me is the ultimate evaluation of a head coach.

 

[Ewooc]

I have calculated the average recruiting ranking of the BIG10 over the last 20 years. I wanted to try and see how that correlated to wins. Basically does having a higher recruiting ranking equal more wins. Which team is best at developing players and getting wins. Another way to view it, which team does more with less. Having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Anyone help me out I'm drawing a blank? Here is what I have so far

Average recruiting ranking & win total (20 year period)
Michigan 12.95/ 167
Ohio St 18.45/ 212
Penn St 22.55/163
Nebraska 25.80/166
Mich St 32.25/155
Maryland 34.65/123
Wisc 38.45/ 188
Iowa 41.65/ 152
Illinois 45.88/ 93
Rutgers 46.65/ 106
Minnesota 51.50 /125
Purdue 52.25/ 113
Northwestern 57.20/ 133
Indiana 59.25/ 84

Just the eyeball test it looks like Wisc does the most with the least talent. Indiana the least with the most. Was looking for a way to rank all teams more officially

Not as official as I would like but. Best I can think of to try and get some sort of comparison of which teams do the most with less. I ended up ranking teams 1-14 according to best recruiting ranking and best win total. I then subtracted to see how many spots better each team was. example Michigan is 1st in recruiting rankings and 3rd win total. So they would get a -2. Here is the breakdown.

NW 5
Wisc 5
MN 2
Purdue 1
Iowa 1
Ohio St 1
Neb 0
Indiana 0
Mich St -1
Mich -2
Rutgers -2
Pen -2
Illinois -4

 

[HominidHusker]

Because we’re not the recruiting hot bed we’d like to be, it is absolutely critical that Frost excel in player development. He believes in his scheme to help accomplish that.

Even if it’s a small example I really thought the UCF vs Auburn bowl game was the most telling of what Frost’s staff is capable of.

I do get the impression Frost and Austin are taking. the Wisconsin approach to OL which has been undeniably successful.

 

[big red23]

I have calculated the average recruiting ranking of the BIG10 over the last 20 years. I wanted to try and see how that correlated to wins. Basically does having a higher recruiting ranking equal more wins. Which team is best at developing players and getting wins. Another way to view it, which team does more with less. Having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Anyone help me out I'm drawing a blank? Here is what I have so far

Average recruiting ranking & win total (20 year period)
Michigan 12.95/ 167
Ohio St 18.45/ 212
Penn St 22.55/163
Nebraska 25.80/166
Mich St 32.25/155
Maryland 34.65/123
Wisc 38.45/ 188
Iowa 41.65/ 152
Illinois 45.88/ 93
Rutgers 46.65/ 106
Minnesota 51.50 /125
Purdue 52.25/ 113
Northwestern 57.20/ 133
Indiana 59.25/ 84

Just the eyeball test it looks like Wisc does the most with the least talent. Indiana the least with the most. Was looking for a way to rank all teams more officially

You have to give the recruiting ranking a point system. Here is how I did it...

There are 128 teams in college football (Not sure if this is right anymore, but in the end it is kind of irrelevant.)... So take 128 - (Average Recruiting Ranking) and multiply that number by the win total. Then divide that number by 20 and multiply it by the Average Recruiting Ranking again

For example...

Michigan

128 - 12.95 = 115.05
115.05 x 167 = 19213.35
19218.35 / 20 = 960.67
960.67 x 12.95 = 12440.68

Michigan gets rounded to 124.4 points = Really Bad

With that said the teams ranked by doing more with less...

1. Wisconsin = 323.66
2. Iowa = 273.33
3. Northwestern = 269.30
4. Minnesota = 246.23
5. Michigan State = 239.31
6. Purdue = 223.62
7. Nebraska = 218.85
8. Ohio State = 214.24
9. Rutgers = 201.13
10. Maryland = 198.92
11. Penn State = 193.79
12. Illinois = 175.19
13. Indiana = 171.08
14. Michigan = 124.40

The only flaw with this system is that teams like Ohio State and Michigan can't even catch a team like Wisconsin. If Ohio State won every game or 13 per year they would only get 262.75, but it does give a good indication of what teams are coaching their teams above their recruiting.

 

[big red23]

I have calculated the average recruiting ranking of the BIG10 over the last 20 years. I wanted to try and see how that correlated to wins. Basically does having a higher recruiting ranking equal more wins. Which team is best at developing players and getting wins. Another way to view it, which team does more with less. Having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Anyone help me out I'm drawing a blank? Here is what I have so far

Average recruiting ranking & win total (20 year period)
Michigan 12.95/ 167
Ohio St 18.45/ 212
Penn St 22.55/163
Nebraska 25.80/166
Mich St 32.25/155
Maryland 34.65/123
Wisc 38.45/ 188
Iowa 41.65/ 152
Illinois 45.88/ 93
Rutgers 46.65/ 106
Minnesota 51.50 /125
Purdue 52.25/ 113
Northwestern 57.20/ 133
Indiana 59.25/ 84

Just the eyeball test it looks like Wisc does the most with the least talent. Indiana the least with the most. Was looking for a way to rank all teams more officially

Last 20 years have been the worst since before Devaney, and we only have 1 more lose than Michigan and 14 more wins than Iowa!

Iowa Sucks!

 

[Ewooc]

You have to give the recruiting ranking a point system. Here is how I did it...

There are 128 teams in college football (Not sure if this is right anymore, but in the end it is kind of irrelevant.)... So take 128 - (Average Recruiting Ranking) and multiply that number by the win total. Then divide that number by 20 and multiply it by the Average Recruiting Ranking again

For example...

Michigan

128 - 12.95 = 115.05
115.05 x 167 = 19213.35
19218.35 / 20 = 960.67
960.67 x 12.95 = 12440.68

Michigan gets rounded to 124.4 points = Really Bad

With that said the teams ranked by doing more with less...

1. Wisconsin = 323.66
2. Iowa = 273.33
3. Northwestern = 269.30
4. Minnesota = 246.23
5. Michigan State = 239.31
6. Purdue = 223.62
7. Nebraska = 218.85
8. Ohio State = 214.24
9. Rutgers = 201.13
10. Maryland = 198.92
11. Penn State = 193.79
12. Illinois = 175.19
13. Indiana = 171.08
14. Michigan = 124.40

The only flaw with this system is that teams like Ohio State and Michigan can't even catch a team like Wisconsin. If Ohio State won every game or 13 per year they would only get 262.75, but it does give a good indication of what teams are coaching their teams above their recruiting.

Thank you that is what I was looking for.

 

[Ewooc]

Last 20 years have been the worst since before Devaney, and we only have 1 more lose than Michigan and 14 more wins than Iowa!

Iowa Sucks!

Yes, All things considered we have not been too bad. Only goes up from here