Happy signing day, everyone! Did you college football fans enjoy the equivalent of a coke addict desperately licking the inside of his empty plastic baggie last week?
College football recruiting is the most obsessive following of high school boys that isn't prosecutable by federal law. We want to know how big these kids are, how fast they can get 40 yards away from where they stand, and if they can get a high enough score on their SATs to matriculate (read: have the reading and math skills of an average 10-year-old).
But mostly, we want to know what school has had the most success hitting on 18-year-olds. I don't blame the college football addict completely. If you don't have a hockey or basketball team and your NFL team is out of the playoffs, January and February are meager times. We live on our computers and crave constant updates on the sports we care most about.
Yet it all reeks of kind of a pathetic desperation, largely because there is not as much of a direct correlation between top recruiting classes and results on the field as some seem to think. I don't have the time or resources for a relevant statistical analysis, so I will differ to this assemblage of data, stories and studies from the Wall Street Journal blog last week.
Basically, the data shows that there is a connection between recruit rankings and successful players. As the article notes, one in 15 five-star recruits becomes an All-American, compared to 1-in-54 and 1-in-147 for four- and three-star recruits. These are obviously substantial differences, but hardly definitive; there are plenty of examples that run counter and plenty of factors that are just as important, probably more so. This is the NFL draft, only even less of an exact science. Right, JaMarcus Russell?
To fully understand the relation between recruiting rankings and success, we have to look at the anatomy of judging these recruits. First, anyone who knows anything about high school football knows that these kids are competing on completely different levels. These kids are being given all-encompassing, two-digit prospect scores while one plays 5A ball and others play 2A. It's like judging a spelling aptitude by giving one kid "telekinesis" while the other gets "cheese."
Actually, they all kind of get one-syllable words because another complicating factor is that most D1 evaluation have the same weakness as those of college players heading to the pros: big fish in smaller pond syndrome. Most frequently, they are used to dominating much weaker talent, and haven't been exposed to a full season of practicing, playing, and competing with a bunch of kids that were also the best players in their school ... for the third spot on the depth chart. Who adjusts to that environment? Who has the mentality and the skills to rise to the challenge? Good luck figuring that out as they play on completely different levels in high school. That stop-watch and bench press bar isn't going to tell you, mister scout man.
For familiarity sake, let's look at my alma mater, USC. Chronically in the top 10 and usually in the top three, almost all of USC's recruits have four- and five- star ratings. (For simplicity, I'll stick to Rivals; the difference between sites is trivial at best.) Sure, Rey Maualuga and Reggie Bush, among others, were five-star recruits. So were Patrick Turner, Marc Tyler, Vidal Hazelton, and Jeff Schweiger. Meanwhile, Ryan Kalil was a three-star recruit. This year, USC has just one recruit rated that low. Kalil, of course, tore it up at USC and now starts at center for the Carolina Panthers.
Let's look at a fellow Pac-10 school. Oregon State is not in the top 25 in recruiting this year. In fact, it pretty much never is. Oregon State also was a win against Oregon away from winning the Pac-10, finished ahead of USC, and hasn't lost to the Trojans in Corvallis since 2004. They also just might be favored to win the Pac-10 this year. Somehow, they find talent without recruiting website approval.
So it's the system and not the talent, right? Try again. In the 2009 draft alone, Oregon State saw seven players drafted. Guard Andy Levite went in round two ... the number of stars he and teammates Keenan Lewis (DB, third round) and Al Afalava (DB, sixth round) were given by Rivals. They didn't even rate Victor Butler (recruited as DE, drafted fifth round as a LB).
Sure, no one would mistake Oregon State's decade with USC's. But there is a ton of talent outside of the four- and five-star recruits. NFL talent. And Oregon State has been nothing if not very competitive in a Pac-10 where they rarely finish in the top five in recruiting, even in the conference. Obviously, the talent gap indicated by the rankings isn't as sheer as is often suggested.
You could, in the meantime, compare Oregon State's recent seasons (very favorably) to teams like Florida State and Notre Dame. Notre Dame has recruited three top-10 classes and two more ranked in the top 21 in the last five years under Charlie Weis. Last year, they won six games, and in a year they played just one team that lost fewer than four. (Pittsburgh lost three.)
Of course, conventional wisdom states Charlie Weis knows as much about coaching as he does about Slim-Fast and exuding a vibrant personality. Florida State, meanwhile, just had its living legend of a coach retire. It hasn't finished outside the top-25 in the recruiting rankings as far back as Rivals' archives go (2002). Only twice were they outside the top 10, and in 2004-2006, they had three consecutive top-three classes. The harvest from those top classes? One top-25 finish since 2004, zero in the top 20.
Of course, I could go around cherry-picking anecdotal evidence all day. And I mean all day. And you could counter that dominant programs like USC, Texas, Florida, and more recently Alabama have coupled top-five recruiting classes with BCS bowl success. And no doubt, seeing projected talent slip does not help a dynasty, and recruiting analysis might have more to it than drawing a number out of a hat.
But looking closer at USC, the recruiting gold came after the initial successes under Carroll. The classes did not truly stand out before USC started to dominate (the latter two-thirds of 2002). And there was no drop-off in recruiting to derail them during a four-loss 2009. In fact, one could argue that such classes and perceived talent levels can lead to a sense of complacency counter to the natural driving, motivational forces resulting in players reaching a potential threshold.
Foundations for great success are surely laid in the recruiting process. No one doubts that there is some truth in that nor that talent wins. But you can't measure intangibles, aptitude to develop, or the size of chips on shoulders. And all of that doesn't even take into account coaching and training. So the next time you celebrate a 10-slot gap between your team's recruiting class rank and that of your rival, try to keep some perspective and remember that these rankings are barely more than a poorly-educated guess. And really, it's just a game of 20 questions on a long road trip to occupy the time during the long journey to the next college football season.
Leave a Comment