So recruiting rankings mean something, just not what you think...

[horshack.sixpack]

Long article here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...0204/recruiting-rankings-predictive-accuracy/

Summary:

• Using a regression model to determine the actual on field impact of a class 4 years down the road, recruiting rankings are "...equally good or more accurate predictor than the preseason AP Poll only 46% of the time...".
• Possibly more interesting is that recruiting rankings from the year in question (2013 rankings vs 2013 season) are a better predictor of the season than the pre-season AP poll. Their reasoning is that recruiting is tied most directly to the prior season's success, which indicates that a team is likely to be strong the next season as well.

So, Ole Miss may clean our clock this year because they are on an upward swing, but there is no reason to panic that we are doomed to suffer for years because statistics say that this year's recruiting class has a less than 50% chance of helping the team be that highly ranked in 4 years. That, plus attrition, tons of other variables, and actual on field results historically should be enough to ward off recruiting chicken little syndrome, but it won't...

 

[Philly Dawg]

This lines up with our experience. Our best recruiting years were during the time that Sherrill's tenure was winding down, and led directly into an awful period of performance. This is one reason I've lost interest in it.

 

[Wizard.sixpack]

Grasping straws are we?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I feel like I'm in the car commercial where there was no drama so they brought the actor in...

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I'm only interested in that it is a key recurring message board meltdown theme but there is no merit to the despair that people post about recruiting "losses". Kind of like a car wreck. I don't WANT to slow down, but I can't help it.

 

[jacksonreb]

good to know. ya'll should follow saban's lead...he read this article and immeadiately pulled the sholly offers of everybody over a 3*....oh wait, maybe not. any idiot knows its not just signing the kids. its weeding out the head cases and then coaching them and keeping them around. a lot of coaches can recruit lights out but not coach so much, some can't recruit that well but coach very well, but anybody who would trade top rated classes every yr for "coachin' um up" is nuts.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Way to go off topic. But Brassell agrees as does Singleton as does...

 

[jacksonreb]

let's see...your post basically pitched the nonsense that

quality recruiting doesn't matter to which i said "that's a dumbass statement" but in a much nicer way. and i guess you didn't read the part where i mentioned weeding out the head cases and keeping them....so you brought up a academic casualty and a head case.......

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Re-read. Find where it is wrong. Point out the incorrect facts. You could even go the easy route and just say you disagree with the authors assumptions and statistical methods. You could point out that he only used Rivals in his analysis. There are a number of reasonable arguments that could be made about the guy's analysis without personalizing it just because Ole Miss did have a good class last year. I thought it was interesting. It wasn't anti-Ole Miss. It was anti-message board rant about not being high enough in recruiting. The data says that in general recruiting rankings are a less reliable way of determining the output on the field (at year 4) due to one specific recruiting class than the flip of a coin. It's just data and data analysis. You get that, right?