Why recruiting matters, and the importance of signing day

Saunders

Saunders

Administrator
The first Wednesday in February -- Signing Day – invariably gets under the skin of certain college football curmudgeons. They can’t stand all the doting over 17-year-olds with overinflated egos. They hate the hat ceremonies. They’re probably furious that LSU this year plans to put up billboards in their honor.

That’s their prerogative.

But what annoys me to no end is the annual lazy narrative that the recruiting rankings at the center of Signing Day are meaningless. A favorite trick is to hold up someone like Houston Texansstar J.J. Watt (former two-star recruit) or 2014 Heisman winner Marcus Mariota (three stars) as an indictment of the entire system. Or a school like Boise State that’s won at a high level or without a host of blue-chippers. Or Texas, which has essentially done the opposite.

But what these critics hold up as “evidence,” anyone with a basic understanding of statistics calls “outliers.”

To the recruiting analysts’ credit, the rankings of both the recruits you’ll see sign Wednesday and the classes that schools assemble are highly accurate predictors of future success. That is, unless you’re holding the evaluators to some impossible standard where they should never miss on a single prospect. If that’s the case, former sixth-round pick Tom Brady is an indictment of the entire NFL draft process, and Vegas oddsmakers should never be taken seriously because sometimes the underdogs beat the favorites.

To truly understand why you should in fact play close attention to Wednesday’s results, you need to look at the bigger picture. Below, I’ve assembled some data that debunks the most common myths about recruiting.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116
Click to expand...


They expanded on this more in their most recent podcast. Basically, the numbers say you have to recruit at a top ten level, or you won't win a national championship. Recruit at a top 20 level, or you'll be hard pressed to win a conference championship.

 
saunders45 said:
The first Wednesday in February -- Signing Day invariably gets under the skin of certain college football curmudgeons. They cant stand all the doting over 17-year-olds with overinflated egos. They hate the hat ceremonies. Theyre probably furious that LSU this year plans to put up billboards in their honor.

Thats their prerogative.

But what annoys me to no end is the annual lazy narrative that the recruiting rankings at the center of Signing Day are meaningless. A favorite trick is to hold up someone like Houston Texansstar J.J. Watt (former two-star recruit) or 2014 Heisman winner Marcus Mariota (three stars) as an indictment of the entire system. Or a school like Boise State thats won at a high level or without a host of blue-chippers. Or Texas, which has essentially done the opposite.

But what these critics hold up as evidence, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics calls outliers.

To the recruiting analysts credit, the rankings of both the recruits youll see sign Wednesday and the classes that schools assemble are highly accurate predictors of future success. That is, unless youre holding the evaluators to some impossible standard where they should never miss on a single prospect. If thats the case, former sixth-round pick Tom Brady is an indictment of the entire NFL draft process, and Vegas oddsmakers should never be taken seriously because sometimes the underdogs beat the favorites.

To truly understand why you should in fact play close attention to Wednesdays results, you need to look at the bigger picture. Below, Ive assembled some data that debunks the most common myths about recruiting.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116
Click to expand...
They expanded on this more in their most recent podcast. Basically, the numbers say you have to recruit at a top ten level, or you won't win a national championship. Recruit at a top 20 level, or you'll be hard pressed to win a conference championship.
Click to expand...
It would appear that FLU has hacked Saunders account.. Jk.

 
I'd say that Mandel does a nice job knocking down strawmen... not myths that people actually believe. Recruiting has always mattered. This isn't a new trend.

But, this article doesn't make a compelling argument for why we should retain signing day, despite the title implying that "Signing Day" (and not more broadly, recruiting) is super important. I get why ESPN and Fox sports push for an offseason "super bowl" of college football. Tons of clicks. And that's the name of their game.

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

Finally, I hate signing day, but not because I'm a curmudgeon or begrudge a kid having some fun with a hat game (honestly don't care about that, just like I don't really care about that stupid "dabbing" dance).

I hate signing day because it's just another effort to monetize these players and because it is ultimately harmful to teams like Nebraska (we would benefit a lot from a true offer and acceptance scheme).

 
cm husker said:
I'd say that Mandel does a nice job knocking down strawmen... not myths that people actually believe. Recruiting has always mattered. This isn't a new trend.

But, this article doesn't make a compelling argument for why we should retain signing day, despite the title implying that "Signing Day" (and not more broadly, recruiting) is super important. I get why ESPN and Fox sports push for an offseason "super bowl" of college football. Tons of clicks. And that's the name of their game.

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

Finally, I hate signing day, but not because I'm a curmudgeon or begrudge a kid having some fun with a hat game (honestly don't care about that, just like I don't really care about that stupid "dabbing" dance).

I hate signing day because it's just another effort to monetize these players and because it is ultimately harmful to teams like Nebraska (we would benefit a lot from a true offer and acceptance scheme).
Click to expand...
They cover most of that in the podcast.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/national-signing-day-2016-what-you-need-to-know-michigan-alabam-lsu-podcast-020116

 
saunders45 said:
The first Wednesday in February -- Signing Day – invariably gets under the skin of certain college football curmudgeons. They can’t stand all the doting over 17-year-olds with overinflated egos. They hate the hat ceremonies. They’re probably furious that LSU this year plans to put up billboards in their honor.

That’s their prerogative.

But what annoys me to no end is the annual lazy narrative that the recruiting rankings at the center of Signing Day are meaningless. A favorite trick is to hold up someone like Houston Texansstar J.J. Watt (former two-star recruit) or 2014 Heisman winner Marcus Mariota (three stars) as an indictment of the entire system. Or a school like Boise State that’s won at a high level or without a host of blue-chippers. Or Texas, which has essentially done the opposite.

But what these critics hold up as “evidence,” anyone with a basic understanding of statistics calls “outliers.”

To the recruiting analysts’ credit, the rankings of both the recruits you’ll see sign Wednesday and the classes that schools assemble are highly accurate predictors of future success. That is, unless you’re holding the evaluators to some impossible standard where they should never miss on a single prospect. If that’s the case, former sixth-round pick Tom Brady is an indictment of the entire NFL draft process, and Vegas oddsmakers should never be taken seriously because sometimes the underdogs beat the favorites.

To truly understand why you should in fact play close attention to Wednesday’s results, you need to look at the bigger picture. Below, I’ve assembled some data that debunks the most common myths about recruiting.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116
Click to expand...
They expanded on this more in their most recent podcast. Basically, the numbers say you have to recruit at a top ten level, or you won't win a national championship. Recruit at a top 20 level, or you'll be hard pressed to win a conference championship.
Click to expand...
Saunders45... thank you for the honesty.

I'm of the Boyd Epley school of sports. Honesty and Accountability will bring success.

Fairy tale and make believe thinking is what has gotten us to where we're at now. That cant go on any longer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cm husker said:
However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And it appears that you don't understand logic. Or causation versus correlation. You don't seem to understand that your little "elite" metric stat does not mean a team has 0% chance of winning.

Look back at the last 30 years of champions and you probably find the same thing, with a couple of key exceptions (like Nebraska).

But let's just accept your premise for a moment. What does NU do to somehow elevate its historic average of around 25th in recruiting to sotbing like an average of 15th? Or more like 12th (meaning some years in top 10 and never outside the top 20.

Cheat?

 
What is our AD currently doing to advocate the lifting of recruiting restrictions put in place in 2000 that have disproportionately hurt Nebraska and ultimately hurt recruits in the process?

 
Was Nebraska suppose to have a top 10 class this year? I don't think so. I am not sure what everyone is upset about on this thread. Do teams with top 10 classes have a better chance of winning a NC than teams that are in the mid 20 sure of coarse they do. It is a building process. Nebraska and Mike Riley need to prove that they can win some games with what they have and then the recruits that take you into the top 10 will come.

Winning takes care of itself. It is that simple. But winning takes time.

Baylor and Art Bryles didn't just all of a sudden become good and start bringing in these great recruiting classes. He proved that they could win with what they had and with RG3 he hit a home run. The only reason they got him was that he was going to run track at Baylor. Oregon didn't all of a sudden get good. Neither did MSU it takes time to build to that.

Any team that starts all of a sudden getting great classes without winning first is most likely doing something wrong, see Ole Miss.

It takes time.

 
The people who say recruiting doesn't matter, well, they're the same ones who say size doesn't matter.

default_laugh.png


 
Back
Top