Football recruiting analysis

jumbopackage · 02-09-2008, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by isugcs

I disagree with most everything you just said simply because there's no perfect way to analyze a class before they hit the field. That said, this is a pretty good analysis.

A comparison to other schools would be useful, in that it would be a good indication of a "offer inflation rate", of sorts, year over year. However, an increase is an increase and that's a trend. The trend is positive that indicates we're getting better and I think the results reflect that.

I like the use of this data because an offer indicates that a school feels confident enough in the ability of the player that they would rather have that guy on the team, as much or more so than someone else. You make a valid point if it is true that schools cannot release information about who they offer, however, it would be awfully ballzy for a recruit (or recruiting service) to claim an offer from a school when in fact they do not. If anything offers are probably under reported. That's my opinion.

The fact that you don't know if offers are actually there or not is my point. It makes the data invalid, and that makes the analysis invalid.

A single increase is NOT a trend. It's a data point. And it's maybe not even a valid data point because you don't trust the source data. On top of that, there's no way to determine if it's statistically relevant without looking at other classes, or at least more than 2 other years of our own data.

My point is that there is NO real way to analyze a class before they hit the field. There's no point getting worried or excited about a class of kids before they hit the field. That's why the whole recruiting world is so pointless. It's like breaking down the technical ability of a race car that's never turned a lap on the track while it's sitting on blocks in the pits.

Look at Notre Dame, or Miami (FL), or Nebraska, or TAMU. All have had awesome classes in the recent past that really haven't turned into much success. People obviously care about recruiting, and I admit that it's interesting to keep an eye on the future of the program, but reading anything into these kids other than they are going to be part of our program in the future is really sort of pointless.

psychlone99 · 02-09-2008, 07:57 PM

I think you're splitting hairs here for the sake of being argumentative. If you understood how this information is collected and confirmed by the Rivals publishers before being put in the database, you would know that it is very reliable. Not perfect, but reliable. Sure, there could be a few bogus offers here in there in a class, but out of 55-65 total offers it's really an inconsequential number.

I will admit there is no perfect way to evaluate the quality of a recruit before he actually steps on the field. Anyone that claims to have a perfect method would be lying. But an offer represents a school's belief that a certain player is a quality player. The more schools that believe a player is a quality player, the more likely I am to believe he is as well.

It's the best tool we have available to us as fans.

Bobber · 02-09-2008, 08:23 PM

It's not fair comparsion for McCarney's last two years to Chiziks first two. You should compare McCarnery's first two years at ISU(when he was the new stud coach). That will be the more telling stat.

Wesley · 02-09-2008, 08:33 PM

Whatever happens, we need to win more than 3 or 4 games next year to make more recruiting headway.

psychlone99 · 02-09-2008, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bobber

It's not fair comparsion for McCarney's last two years to Chiziks first two. You should compare McCarnery's first two years at ISU(when he was the new stud coach). That will be the more telling stat.

You probably wouldn't want to see those classes. Iowa State didn't set the world on fire with recruiting just because they had a new coach.

If anything the comparison should favor McCarney. Afterall, it's comparing his final two classes, after he had almost 12 years to establish himself on the recruiting trail, to the first full class of a rookie head coach. The fact that the average 2008 recruit has more offers than those in 2005 and 2006 speaks volumes, in my opinion.

Wesley · 02-09-2008, 09:02 PM

When Dan was let go, he lost about half of the potential class that Clones looked like it might have. Gene was hired quickly. He ran the month before signing day/ He talkd to bates succesfully. All in all, Gene's class from last year was not bad. People had high expectations when Gene came in until that first game against Kent State. Then reality set in that it could be a 4-5 year rebuilding procss. By winning only three games, it made it more difficult to move on up in Recruiting Wars. Then Kansas and Missouri had breakout seasons. And Nebraska began to recruit heavily in Texas including twins from Garland Texas. Colorado gets the top rated running back. Prince settles for 19-21 jucos for a quick fix and probably Hawkeye-like we have someone in trouble again season. Yet in my book he had a better recruiting class than Dan has had. Yet it needs to be even better because the North is headed to better times.

Therefore, any recruits we take from Florida (as opposed to Texas) is great as it does not appear the North schools are recruiting in Florida as much. Nebraska might be the easiest North school on our schedule for next year.