Sports Bob Smizik's Blog Re-ranking 2009 recruiting classes
RSS: Bob's Q&A
| Have a question for me on sports? This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ... I'll answer as many as I can in future blog posts. |
Blog Roll
Sports blogsSteelers: Blog 'n' Gold
Penguins: Empty Netters
Pirates: PBC Blog
College Sports: Redshirt Diaries
High School: Varsity Blog
Fantasy Sports: The Fantasy Factor
Sports onlineussportspages.combaseball-reference.com pro-football-reference.com |
Lots of people follow the rankings of recruiting classes closely. Not many watch to see how accurate those rankings become. That's what Andy Staples has done. He takes a look at the class of 2009 and re-ranks it.
By Andy Staples, SI.com
When a coach stands up on National Signing Day and says he doesn't care where Rivals.com or Scout.com ranked his recruiting class, he's probably lying. Coaches across the country are obsessed with these rankings. Heck, some assistants -- Maryland's Mike Locksley, for example -- even have monetary bonuses tied to how well their teams perform in rankings most head coaches will publicly decry as meaningless.
Recruiting rankings mean something, and at the top, they're fairly accurate. They tend to become less accurate near the bottom because of the business model that drives the industry. Teams with large, passionate fan bases sell more subscriptions, and sites that cover popular teams employ more recruiting writers. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, players who sign with popular schools tend to get ranked higher. But even that may be changing. Stanford finished No. 5 in the 2012 Rivals.com team rankings. A few years ago, the Cardinal wouldn't have cracked the top 15, but a team that beats out USC, Michigan and Notre Dame for players will earn a high ranking.
Every year, Yahoo! blogger Matt Hinton does a fascinating study on the accuracy of individual player rankings. Team rankings are less consistent. I have re-ranked three-year-old classes every year since 2009, and the average number of teams that appeared in the top 10 of the original Rivals.com ranking and the top 10 of the re-rank is 4.25. I realize the re-rank is solely based on my opinion, but since my opinion is based on actual on-field production, few of my choices are controversial.
Read the rest of the story
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by pghsportsfan, February 12, 2012 - 12:16 PM
-
- -6
-
-
written by Mr. Pitt, February 12, 2012 - 12:26 PM
-
- +1
-
-
written by Meathead, February 12, 2012 - 12:33 PM
written by pghsportsfan, February 12, 2012 - 01:16 PM
Bob, as you, and all who post on your blog can see below, Richard Jarzynka, aka ByePoler Man is still advertising,
Get over it already. I thought you said you had a life? Clearly you don't.
-
- +5
-
-
written by pghsportsfan, February 12, 2012 - 12:43 PM
Meathead, obviously you don't either!!!
-
- -4
-
-
written by Richard Jarzynka www.BIPOLARMAN.org, February 12, 2012 - 12:51 PM
I don't get excited aobut college recruiting, but it is good to know that somebody is going back and trying to quantify how effective past recruiting has been. It's far more instructive than than the evaluations of current recruiting classes.
There should also be some studies to help determine why players who were believed to be quality recruits did not work out. Something like college football Sabrmetrics.
-
- -4
-
-
written by PiratesFanSince1960, February 12, 2012 - 01:00 PM
1) They win year in and year out NCAA Directors Cup for the best winning sports program encompassing all the D1 sports. Mens and Womens!!!
2) They have privately funded almost every team including scholarships for the next 10-20 yrs.
3) Facilities are incredible. Their Rugby field is one of the best in the USA. Even Wrestling is now a top 25 ranked team.
4)Stanford just announced has raised $6.5 BILLION dollars in private funding for the University over the past 5 years.
5) They have invested their assets with quality money manager programs.
All the while the past 25 years. University of California programs have dropped D1 teams, raised tuition, fired professors and more because they relied on the never ending free money from the State of California which has now dried up.
AND the top recruiter for Cal just left for University of Washington two weeks before signing day, for the money of course, taking with him 3 of the top 10 recruits. Cal was ranked in top 15 and now I think is somewhere near 25-35.....
Did I mention Cal dropped BASEBALL last year for the 2012 season, although was saved as they raised $3mm the baseball team itself and former players. They placed top 6 teams in NCAA Baseball in 2011. AND the 28 over past 31 seasons NCAA D1 winning Championship Cal Rugby Team was dropped to a club sport instead of Varsity....Going Forward.....
Some universities get it on the Private side it seems.
David
-
- -5
-
-
written by ericSS, February 12, 2012 - 02:43 PM
Early pre-season pools have them in the top 10 for next year - the B12 schedule will be harder than the BE
-
- +0
-
-
written by PittofDreams, February 12, 2012 - 03:08 PM
Re-Ranking Jamie Dixon's status as an Icon.
After watching the Seton Hall debacle, it is obvoius that players on this year's Pitt team are either uncoachable or badly coached.
It has to be one or the other.
Maybe these players really are that bad compared to prevous Dixon teams?
Or maybe just maybe Pitt has lost a vital part of its coaching staff that unbeknownst to the rest of us made the difference in how Dixon teams have performed in the past?
Notice these are questions and not conclusions.
But something is amiss with Pitt Basketball.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|