Quantcast

«

»

Jan
28
2012

Which ACC football program is the most efficient at recruiting?

National Signing Day is this Wednesday. You bring in a new recruiting class, everything and anything is possible because you don’t know who might be an All-American and who might be bust. We all know recruiting is an inexact science. Kids looking great in HS doesn’t always translate to collegiate success. Coaches coach players up or maybe down. Each school is not the same either, academics, majors, location, tradition on and on.

At the end of the day all that matters is wins. In my informal little analysis I want to see which ACC school got the most out their recruiting classes the last 3 years. The 2009-2011 seasons will include players if they were redshirt seniors all they back to 2005. I’m going to use the scout.com as my resoure for rankings of the recruiting class. I’m not going to use class rank though. I’m going to use the average stars. Too much emphasis goes into class size when giving the recruiting rankings. The star rankings are a better reflection of the initial quality of a class.

Here’s how we rank the recruiting classes.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Avg Stars
FSU 3.82 3.26 3.15 3.27 3.43 3.54 3.71 3.45
Miami 3.76 3.41 3.72 3.33 3.37 3.03 2.86 3.35
Clemson 2.96 3.2 3.13 3.35 3.58 3 3.24 3.21
UNC 2.5 2.68 3.08 3.37 3.21 3.14 3.04 3.00
VT 2.92 2.68 3 2.81 2.77 3.05 2.9 2.88
GT 2.53 2.57 3.35 2.9 2.95 3 2.73 2.86
MD 2.67 2.82 2.6 2.67 2.85 2.81 2.67 2.73
UVA 3.18 2.3 2.78 2.39 2.5 2.56 3.04 2.68
NC State 2.88 2.47 2.32 3 2.63 2.89 2.5 2.67
BC 2.38 2.4 2.72 2.59 2.29 2.71 2.78 2.55
Duke 2.65 2.5 2.33 2.53 2.44 2.4 2.6 2.49
WF 2.14 2.33 2.33 2.41 2.43 2.56 2.56 2.39

Now let’s take a look at the average number wins for each ACC team over the last 3 years.

 

2009 2010 2011 Avg Wins
VT 10 11 11 10.67
FSU 7 10 9 8.67
Clemson 9 6 10 8.33
GT 11 6 8 8.33
UNC 8 8 7 7.67
Miami 9 7 6 7.33
NC State 5 9 8 7.33
BC 8 7 4 6.33
UVA 3 4 8 5.00
WF 5 3 6 4.67
MD 2 9 2 4.33
Duke 5 3 3 3.67

Wouldn’t it make sense that the team with the best recruiting classes should win the most games? Certainly, but we know it’s not as simple as that. Injuries, schedule and coaching are among several factors, but I think we do get an idea of which team has been the most efficient with their recruiting. That would be Virginia Tech, and by quite a large margin. I still wonder what Frank Beamer and company could do if they recruited at an elite level.

Avg Stars Avg Wins Recruiting Efficency
VT 2.88 10.67 3.70
GT 2.86 8.33 2.91
NC State 2.67 7.33 2.75
Clemson 3.21 8.33 2.60
UNC 3 7.67 2.56
FSU 3.45 8.67 2.51
BC 2.55 6.33 2.48
Miami 3.35 7.33 2.19
WF 2.39 4.67 1.95
UVA 2.68 5.00 1.87
MD 2.73 4.33 1.59
Duke 2.49 3.67 1.47

What conclusion can we draw? The 6 best recruiting teams, well they are also your 6 winningest teams. That’s a fact… NC State is the only bottom 6 recruiting team to make the top 6 in average wins, as they tied Miami for 6th place in that category. Virginia Tech as we said maximizes their recruiting better than anyone in the ACC, but as you can also see if you recruit poorly you also aren’t going to win a lot of games. So don’t let the bad recruiting apologists fool you, if you aren’t putting together some of the better classes in the ACC, don’t expect to be contending for any ACC titles.



1 comment

2 pings

  1. George James says:

    5-year Composite Class Rankings
    The 2011 Team consisted of an average 5-year Composite Class Ranking of tied
    for 9th best (8.6) in the conference (12th ranked class in the ACC from 2011,
    6th ranked class in the ACC from 2010, 10th ranked class in the ACC from 2009,
    5th ranked class in the ACC from 2008 , 10th ranked class in the ACC from 2007)
    and finished with 7th best conference record in the ACC (4-4).
    The 2010 Team consisted of the 8th best 5-year CCR (8.0) in the
    conference (6th in 2010, 10th in 2009, 5th in 2008, 10th in 2007, 9th in 2006)
    and finished tied for the 3rd best conference record in the ACC (5-3) with two
    other teams.
    The 2009 Team consisted of the 8th best 5-year CCR (8.2) in the
    conference (10th in 2009, 5th in 2008, 10th in 2007, 9th in 2006, 7th in 2005)
    and finished tied for the 9th best conference record in the ACC (2-6) with one
    other team.
    The 2008 Team consisted of the 7th best 5-year CCR (7.2) in the
    conference (5th in 2008, 10th in 2007, 9th in 2006, 7th in 2005, 5th in 2004)
    and finished tied for the 5th best conference record in the ACC (4-4) with four
    other teams.
    The 2007 Team consisted of the 8th best 5-year CCR (6.6) in
    the conference (10th in 2007, 9th in 2006, 7th in 2005, 5th in 2004, 2nd in
    2003) and finished tied for the 8th best conference record in the ACC (3-5) with
    two other teams.
    You can spin stats a dozen ways, give just as many reasons, explanations, and
    excuses for win/loss records, and tout or deny the stars system or rankings and
    there isn’t necessarily a one for one correlation to the information provided
    above, but …

    The 2011 Team with the 9th best CCR in
    the conference (bottom 1/3) and finished 7th in the conference (middle 1/3).
    The 2010 Team with the 8th (middle 1/3) and finished tied for 3rd (top 1/3).
    The 2009 Team with the 8th (middle 1/3) and finished tied for 9th. (bottom 1/3).
    The 2008 Team with the 7th (middle 1/3) and finished tied for 5th.(middle 1/3).
    The 2007 Team with the 8th (middle 1/3) and finished tied for 8th (middle 1/3).
    So, over the past 5 years …
    We have never been in the top 1/3 of the league from a Composite 5-year Class
    Ranking perspective and we have only finished in the top 1/3 of the league once
    from a conference wins/loss perspective (3-way tie for 3rd with a 5-3 record in
    2010).
    We have been in the middle 1/3 of the league 4 out 5 years and we have finished
    in the middle 1/3 of the league 3 out 5 years.
    We have only been in the bottom 1/3 of the league once (in 2011) and we have
    only finished in the bottom 1/3 once (tied for 10th with a 2-6 record in 2009)
    Just for comparison sake ...
    Clemson, Florida State, Miami and UNC have finish in the Top 1/3 each of the
    past 5 years as far as Composite Class Rankings go …

    Clemson has finished in the Top 1/3 in the Conference three times, middle
    1/3 two times, bottom 1/3 zero times from a wins/loss perspective
    Florida State has finished in the Top 1/3 three times, middle 1/3 two times,
    bottom 1/3 zero times.
    Miami has finished in the Top 1/3 two times, middle 1/3 two times, bottom
    1/3 one time.
    UNC has finished in the Top 1/3 zero times, middle 1/3 five times, bottom
    1/3 zero times.

    Neither BC, GT or UVa has finished in the top 1/3 over the past 5 years as
    far as Composite Class Rankings goes, but each of them have over achieved their
    “Recruiting Rankings” …

    BC has finished in the bottom 1/3 each 4 out the past 5 years and the
    once in the middle 1/3 as far as Composite Class Rankings go and they have
    finished in the Top 1/3 three times, middle 1/3 two times, bottom 1/3 zero
    times from a wins/loss perspective.GT has finished in the bottom 1/3 each 3
    out the past 5 years and the twice in the middle 1/3 and they have finished
    in the Top 1/3 three times, middle 1/3 two times, bottom 1/3 zero times from
    a wins/loss perspective.
    UVa has finished in the bottom 1/3 each 2 out the past 5 years and the
    middle 1/3 three times and they have finished in the Top 1/3 two times,
    middle 1/3 zero times, bottom 1/3 three times from a wins/loss perspective .

    Both Virginia Tech and Maryland have finished in the middle 1/3 each of the
    past 5 years as far as Composite Class Rankings go, but with dramatically
    different results…

    VT has finished in the Top 1/3 all five times.
    Maryland has finished in the Top 1/3 one time, middle 1/3 two times, bottom
    1/3 two times.

    Duke and Wake Forest have finished in the Bottom 1/3 each of the past 5 years
    as far as Composite Class Rankings go, also with dramatically different results

    Duke has finished in the Top 1/3 zero times, middle 1/3 one time, bottom
    1/3 four times.
    Wake Forest has finished in the Top 1/3 two times, middle 1/3 one time,
    bottom 1/3 two times.

    IMO …
    You are what you eat … e.g. your talent level is based on
    who you recruit and rankings do matter and the results on the field (wins/loss)
    will reflect that unless you are exceptional at coaching them up and/or you are
    truly and consistently better at evaluating talent then everyone else and/or you
    get lucky from time to time. It would appear that we have been middle of
    the conference team and that is all backed up by our middle of the league
    recruiting rankings, middle of the league wins, middle of the league losses … and since we
    have neither over achieved or underachieved in either of these measurable areas,
    I would surmise that we have done a middle of the league job recruiting and
    middle of the league coaching and a middle of the league job playing. We
    are who we are.FWIW, here is the adjusted 5-year CCR with the addition of the 2012 Class
    Rankings …

    Top 1/3 = FSU (1.2), Miami (2.8), Clemson (3.6), VT (4.2)
    Middle 1/3 = UNC (4.4), UVa (7.2), Maryland (7.2), NC State (8.4)
    Bottom 1/3 = GT (8.6), BC (9.0), Duke (10.4), WF (10.8)

  1. More proof of just how much recruiting matters or is it? » All Sports Discussion says:

    [...] couple of days ago I wrote, that the 6 winningest ACC programs over the last 3 years were also 6 best recruiting teams, with one exception NC State. The Wolfpack were 9th in recruiting [...]

  2. More proof of just how much recruiting matters or is it? | Sports Blog United says:

    [...] couple of days ago I wrote, that the 6 winningest ACC programs over the last 3 years were also 6 best recruiting teams, with one exception NC State. The Wolfpack were 9th in recruiting [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>