Comparative Recruiting - A Pac-12 Grid
by Ash Jackson on Feb 7, 2011 3:04 PM MST
in Buffaloes Football Recruiting
Email
PrintI've never really considered myself a stats type of guy; I'm not the one rattling off batting averages or inventing some slugging percentage equivalent for football.
That said, I was interested in seeing how our recruiting class matched up against the rest of the Pac-12 in a way that actually made sense: with percentages instead of raw numbers. So I made a grid...
In the grid you have the total class size on the top row, and each subsequent line is the percent of the total recruiting class that some sub-group consists of (i.e. Oregon St's 10 Defensive Line recruits are 40% of their whole stinkin' class, or hardly a third (35.7%) of Wazzu's class was ranked 3 or more stars).
All the raw numbers came from scout, mostly because I could get what I wanted in under 5 minutes.
| School | UA | ASU | Cal | CU | Ore. | t.o.OSU | Stan. | UCLA | SC | Utah | U-Dub | Wazzu |
| Total | 20 | 14 | 22 | 19 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 16 | 30 | 19 | 23 | 28 |
| QB | 5.0 | 21.4 | 4.5 | 10.5 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 10.5 | 12.5 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 8.7 | 3.6 |
| RB | 10.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 10.5 | 4.2 | 8.0 | 15.8 | 6.3 | 10.0 | 15.8 | 8.7 | 3.6 |
| WR | 5.0 | 7.1 | 9.1 | 10.5 | 16.7 | 20.0 | 10.5 | 6.3 | 6.7 | 26.3 | 17.4 | 10.7 |
| TE | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 8.7 | 3.6 |
| OL | 15.0 | 21.4 | 9.1 | 21.1 | 20.8 | 12.0 | 10.5 | 31.3 | 16.7 | 21.1 | 8.7 | 17.9 |
| Off% | 40.0 | 50.0 | 40.9 | 52.6 | 54.2 | 48.0 | 52.6 | 62.5 | 43.3 | 63.2 | 52.2 | 39.3 |
| DL | 20.0 | 21.4 | 27.3 | 5.3 | 12.5 | 40.0 | 26.3 | 18.8 | 23.3 | 10.5 | 13.0 | 25.0 |
| LB | 10.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 26.3 | 16.7 | 12.0 | 5.3 | 18.8 | 13.3 | 10.5 | 13.0 | 21.4 |
| S | 10.0 | 14.3 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 15.8 | 13.0 | 3.6 |
| CB | 10.0 | 7.1 | 13.6 | 10.5 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 7.1 |
| Def% | 50.0 | 42.9 | 59.1 | 42.1 | 45.8 | 52.0 | 47.4 | 37.5 | 46.7 | 36.8 | 47.8 | 60.7 |
| ST | 10.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
3 |
45.0 | 71.4 | 59.1 | 47.4 | 41.7 | 60.0 | 63.2 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 73.7 | 65.2 | 32.1 |
| 4 |
0.0 | 7.1 | 36.4 | 5.3 | 50.0 | 4.0 | 36.8 | 6.3 | 46.7 | 10.5 | 13.0 | 3.6 |
| 5 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 8.7 | 0.0 |
I think the numbers show some interesting things about the Buff's recruiting class: I think we're better than the D rating that ESPN gave us: Over half of our recruits were 3 or 4 star, compared to Arizona's 45% or Wazzu's 36%. That said, it also reinforces what we already knew; that some of our guys truly were "under the radar."
Other things I found interesting:
- Utah and UCLA's heavy emphasis on offensive recruits (60%+)
- Wazzu and Cal's heavy emphasis on defensive recruits (60%+)
- The afore-mentioned Oregon State's 30 DL recruits
- Oregon's class (ranked 10th) looks better here than SC's class (ranked 5th)
- UCLA's other quarterback recruit? Some kid named Neuheisal
What do y'all say? Go Buffs!
52 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
did you classify Washington as a WR?
Embree said he’s be playing DB at the press conference
(I also very much appreciate your Oregon State abbreviation)
+1
As my professors at the University of Chicago used to preach: What do the data say?
A good highlevel look. Thanks for putting it together.
Pretty surprised by the strength of Cal’s class.
Agree, but...
I’d expect that from the #2 team in the country. Success begets success. Where the hell did Cal come from is my question?
I'm sure it's the Kiesau/ Ambrose juggernaut!
I wonder if they’re actually seeing some success from the new facilities I’m sure it also helps that Neuheisel fell flat on his dumb face this year. They also got a bunch of highly ranked DL prospects, and that DL coach is considered a top flight recruiter. But that does strike me as a pretty big anomoly. I’d like to see an analysis of how 2010 records correlate with 2011 recruiting rankings. I’d be willing to bet that Cal’s a pretty big outlier. Get on it, Ash!
That's where I thought this would ultimately lead
I’d like to see an analysis of how 2010 records correlate with 2011 recruiting rankings.
That’s exactly where my thinking was going with this. That said, it’ll probably mirror what those dr. football articles told us and what we intuitively know to be true: consistently good recruiting usually makes consistently more wins.
Nice work bub
It’ll be interesting to see how UW does. Sarkisian pulled off a pretty good class we’ll see if it pays off.
Shoulder to Shoulder
I was very surprised at the strength of their class
Though much of it seems like them defending their in-state talent well
Imagine how solid it would have been if we hadn't....
taken Asiata, Creer (not really) and (was it?) Nembot.
I completely agree with you
UW had a killer class until we came along.
I had that in the rough draft… I don’t know why it didn’t make the post.
They were ranked 23 by Rivals
I think they either end up right under or over Cal at 17
Shoulder to Shoulder
Good work
this is much better than the way the recruiting sites do it, where quanity trumps quality most of the time, especially outside the top 10.
Walter Sobchak: "Also, let's not forget - let's *not* forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either. "
I agree
It seemed foolish to say that oregon state’s class was automatically better than Arizona state’s just because there’re more butts in seats.
Progress
It’s hard to critisize when they had a shortened recruiting period, but it still looks like we have a bottom 3 class in the conference. Should improve in the coming years, but the D rating seems fitting.
Brilliant work, Ash!
I hope you don’t mind if I steal your idea when I do a roster breakdown using percentages to see how well the staff addressed holes across the team, and predict who we’ll be after next year.
DAG
Email: David.Gerhardt@gmail.com
great analysis, thanks.....
I’m fairly satisfied with the class….especially since this staff had so little time. Real progress over prior regime…at least this year we seemed to be competing with BCS programs for our recruits. A big improvement over 2010 class.
by HBbuff on Feb 7, 2011 8:13 PM MST via mobile reply actions
Very interesting
While percentages are nice in comparing in a more equal manner, but the more recruits a team signs the better chance of those prospects beting better (or worse). This is a new and different way to look at recruiting.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
Follow me on twitter!
I disagree completely...
The number of recruits you have in no way effects the chances of each individual recruits ability to get better or worse. It simply increases the number of chances you have to have a great recruit. Further, the NCAA addresses this via the scholarship cap it imposes on all institutions. Accordingly, you might have different size classes in any given period, but across the programs the number of chances are equal to have a star recruit. As a result, one would assume that the better programs (better being a nebulous term encompassing all aspects of a program; not just its win/loss record) would attract the more talented recruits.
" Accordingly, you might have different size classes in any given period, but across the programs the number of chances are equal to have a star recruit."
Unfortunately, that’s not true. Alabama, Auburn, etc. all sign 5+ more players per year because they have creative ways of getting rid of the guys who don’t pan out on the field so they don’t count against hte 85 scholarship limit.
Sour Grapes?
Sounds more like you are complaining about their cunningness/strategy/creativity than you are with my point? Do you disagree that there is a cap on the total number of scholarships? You certainly can’t hold it against them if they are making a more effective use of their total scholarship alotment… so long as they are doing it within the rules.
but it is sold to everyone involved as a chance to get an education
Understably, this is a (NON PROFIT) business, but one where the employees aren’t fairly compensated, don’t have any other options, and have zero leverage. If Nick Saban pulls a scholarship, that kid still has to sit out a year at another school, plus his credits might not all transfer. I would be mildly more accepting if everyone cut remained on scholarship, like with medical hardships, but that’s not the case. so we’re left with a system where there are no repurcussions if a coach makes a mistake recruiting, he still gets his millions of dollars, the rich boosters still get to write off their millions of dollars in “donations” on their taxes, and a kid loses his chance at a college degree. yeah- that’s utter horseshit.
I agree it's disgusting. I agree it shouldn't be allowed.
But it is. If those athletes that are on the cusp choose to put themselves at that risk then so be it. They have every opportunity in the world to commit to a different school. If they are being recruited by “Alabama, Auburn, etc.” then they have total leverage and a multitude of options prior to sending in their letter on National Signing Day. They need to make an educated decision on where they decide to commit. They need to make that choice. If they get burned by their choice then so be it.
I agree it shouldn’t happen. But, if it does, and it is known that the heads of those programs act that way, then the recruits are subjecting themselves to that risk with their eyes wide open.
The reprecussions should come from recruits choosing not commit to that type of program. If they decide to proceed at their own risk, then they get what they deserve.
Not Sour Grapes.
I just agree with Florida’s athletic director that these tactics are disgusting.
Sour grapes makes it seem like I wish schools I follow did it too, which I certainly do not.
Ash you made the big time
Ted Miller has a link to your grid on his blog
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/19034/pac-12-lunch-links-is-cal-going-all-stanford-y
Shoulder to Shoulder
that is totally baller!
so we should probably batten down the hatches and wait for the invasion, no?
Thanks, but
He linked a number of other SBNation sites (for Utah and Washington St. at least)
It’s as much him as it is me.
But thanks, anyways!
Thanks for the summary
Good, interesting data here. As a Husky fan I’m excited by this years recruiting turn out. Also, welcome to the Pac-12 Buffs, excited to have you with us. As we have both suffered through Rick Neu-weasel as a Coach I feel a special brand of comraderie with you guys :)
Likewise, and thanks for the welcome!
No hard feelings about those ‘poached’ recruits, right?
…right?
The Utes frequently flip offensive players to the defensive side
Utah and UCLA’s heavy emphasis on offensive recruits (60%+)
The Utah staff operates under the theory that in most high schools, the coaches put the best athletes on offense. The Ute staff frequently recruits offensive players fully intending that they will play defense. So far, the strategy has worked pretty well; many of the best players on defense last year and in years past were offensive players in high school.
Just looked at the list of CU's 2012 targets and it pretty impressive
http://colorado.scout.com/a.z?s=148&p=9&c=4&yr=2012
We are up against some big time programs which is encouraging.
Shoulder to Shoulder
I like that we're covering more of the country
to the tune of IL, LA, IN, NJ, FL in addition to the standard CO, CA, TX, HI, AZ, UT
Hawk's list started out looking like that too
And I’ve found that Scout leaves guys “interested” long after they’ve dropped a school. This past year, Troy Niklas had trimmed his list to USC, Notre Dame, and Stanford, but Scout had him with like 8 names (including CU) for months.
I’ll be interested to see if we can start securing commitments early. It’d be nice to play defense for once
I think serious recruiting early is the key
I wasn’t a fan of waiting till the 11th hour to put the full court press on recruits. There is one drawback with the increasing effectiveness by schools to get kids to flip commitments. John and Co. had success flipping 9 recruits to CU.
Shoulder to Shoulder
yeah, I think a big part of that was Hawk's Boise mentality
He even said that he didn’t like kids commiting early at Boise because then bigger schools would swoop in. Well, just like coaching, recruiting is no place for a BCS team to be timid. No one likes to be the first one in the pool. If a 5* kid sees more 5* kids commiting, they’re more likely to notice and take interest. Sure, you have to keep them, but I’ll take that problem every day of the week over scrambling to flip 2* kids at the last minute.
Agreed
I was also impressed with the way Embo was able to use committed recruits to convince other kids to jump on. Not sure if John encouraged this or recruits took it upon themselves to be aggresive. As far as I know committed recruits don’t have the restrictions when it comes to texting etc. that a staff member would.
Shoulder to Shoulder
I don't think the current players do, either
Frankly, the best “competition” carrot we can offer to current players is hosting recruits, because it’s legal to pay them (not much- like 30 bucks per, but still). Whichever players get the most recruits to commit get to host more, and thus earn more money. Easy Peasy
A quick show of hands...
Who would want to see a grid similar to this for all of D-I for this year’s recruiting class? Probably wouldn’t be broken down by position, but at least by star ranking.
I’ll post this in the other thread in case this one’s too dead.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Welcome to The Ralphie Report, an unofficial blog for fans of the Colorado Buffaloes. Established April 24th, 2008.
Winner - Best Sports Blog In Colorado - 2011 Westword Web Awards
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
SHOP THE RALPHIE REPORT STORE
Facebook and Google+
The Ralphie Report Google+ Page
