FiveThirtyEight: NU Top Ten "Getting Most Out of Recruits"

[gocatsgo2003]

Whether our coaching staff is able to wring results out of lesser talent is often a point of discussion on these boards. On that topic, this is a pretty fascinating article from FiveThirtyEight. In it, the author looks at the relative over- and under-performance of programs based on Rivals' recruiting rankings and a statistical model of program success.

The most interesting takeaway is that Northwestern is ranked #9 in "getting the most out of recruits" for the period covering 2005-2014. The conclusion may be skewed because that covers some of Walker's more successful years, but interesting nonetheless. Our single-season rating for 2014 was a slight under-performance, but the longer-term results are more interesting to me in any event.

Wisconsin is the top performer over the longer period and is the only B1G school rated higher than us. I also just can't help but directly quote this section:

"The worst of the underachievers are Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. And unsurprisingly, several years of coaching changes, off-field distractions and underwhelming on-field performance have left the football powerhouses of Michigan, Miami and Tennessee among the underachievers."


Behind Ohio State and Michigan State, the B1G is almost always about who is able to do more with less talent. Northwestern has been able to do more while other programs have done worse with more talent (at least insofar as recruiting rankings are to be believed).

 

[Hungry Jack]

But our coaches suck!

Seriously, 538 publishes some really cool stuff.

 

[corbi296]

Interesting. The long term trend is consistent with my perception of some of the schools that are best at identifying diamonds in the rough. Besides NU, Oregon State, Wisconsin, Missouri, Georgia Tech and TCU have always been schools that seem to do that. From the perspective of an NU fan, it would be interesting to see a trend line by year over that same period. 2014 seems to indicate a regression but I'd be curious if the data indicates that it is a one year outlier or part of a longer term declining trend. If it is the latter, that may support some of the frustration of late amongst fans (including myself) regarding lack of player development among some key position groups.

This post was edited on 2/13 5:36 AM by corbi296

This post was edited on 2/13 5:37 AM by corbi296

 

[villox]

Usually I'm quite impressed with 538 analysis, but this one seems extremely simple to me. For one, we all suspect that some recruits actually become higher-rated because they are recruited by the big boys. I'm not saying the conclusion here is wrong, but anytime I see "simple statistical model" applied to something as complex as sports and recruiting my skeptic alert goes off.

I remember a much more detailed analysis that showed something similar from a few years back on some blog, and at least dove into the methodology a bit and how they came to the conclusion.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I think it is "simple" from a methodology perspective in that you are comparing two data sets (recruiting rankings, team rankings) where one expects a fairly strong correlation and then identifying instances where the relationship is violated. I am no statistician, but that seems to be the gist of it.

Most of Silver's work is based on Bayesian methods, and perhaps they could be applied to this type of analysis too. But they opted for something much simpler, I think. So it is certainly not Silver's team's most sophisticated work, not even close. But it's a fun piece that gives us some pie to throw into the face of those who continually rag on our coaching staff's development skills, game-day skills, and use of Jerry Brown.

 

[MRCat95]

I find it more likely that schools like Wisconsin and Oregon have simply done a better job evaluating talent and potential for the kids they recruit and land than Rivals.

The fundamental flaw with this analysis is the assumption that the rankings from a talent scouting service (with highly limitted personnel resources and skill) are anything close to reality when they evaluate thousands of kids across the country and over 100 different recruiting classes.

There are a small handful of perhaps a dozen recruiting classes every year that easily dubbed highly talented (by Rivals or anyone with functioning eyes). There are perhaps a dozen or so that are clearly not very talented. However, Rivals has no special insight on the ~80% of recruiting classes in the fat middle. That's pretty much what this data quite clearly indicates to me.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[hdhntr1]

Not sure that2014 is really a regression. Tremendous number (beyond normal) of injuries at specific positions that we were already thin. QB, CB and DT to mention a few. Anyone not think that with a healthy TS we would not have won another game or two more and if we had, we would have still been above the line?