football

USING RIVALS’ STAR RATINGS TO LOOK AT BIG TEN RECRUITING: 2002-2013 CLASSES

I decided to take a look at Rivals.com and the star ratings that they give recruits to come up with an approximation of relative recruiting success over twelve classes (2002-2013) in the Big Ten. To see where Nebraska may have fit in (we can’t really know how different it would be if they’d been in the conference for the whole period studied), I included them as well.

So, including Nebraska, Rivals had ratings on 3,160 recruits from the period 2002 to 2013. Here is what the relative distribution looks like:

So, as you will note, 5-stars and to a lesser extent 4-stars are something of a rare commodity in the Big Ten historically, accounting for only about 1/5^thof all recruits by their data. One thing that is interesting, and you can see this in more detail later, is just how far above the conference norm Michigan and Ohio State tend to sit.

The one thing that should jump out here is the percentage of five and four-star recruits that go to the traditional “Big Two”, if you will. In fact, about 44% of all players ranked four and higher end up at either Michigan or Ohio State. You can also see how sparse those same rosters tend to be when it comes to two-star recruits – by Rivals’ system, Big Ten teams not in Ann Arbor or Columbus attract nearly 98% of the two-star talent.

For all 3,160 players whose ratings I dumped from Rivals’ database, the grand mean star rating is 2.93, but individual teams obviously have had varied success. Here are the team means for the period from 2002 to 2013.

Including Nebraska as a point of some comparison, they would have been quite competitive in Big Ten recruiting circles regardless, so it seems. Here, they are in possession of the third-highest average. In fact, four teams have managed to recruit at or above a “three-star” in those twelve classes. Five teams have managed to stay above the grand mean of 2.93 – Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska (had they been part of the Big Ten for the whole period), Penn State and Michigan State. Michigan State’s numbers spike with the Dantonio years, as you might expect, or otherwise this doesn’t happen, I think.

Here is the conference mean for each year as well:

So, the trend is actually upwards, ever so slightly. The net increase in the average star rating over this period is about 7%, which doesn’t seem like much. It would be interesting to compare this to other conferences in a further diary. I suspect some of this – as it is subjective – has to do with perhaps a steady-state perception of the Big Ten.  I really don’t know – that’s speculation on my part.

A more meaningful comparison between each team and the conference mean for a given year will appear shortly, but this now allows us to look at another intriguing phenomenon.

So, here again we see the relative inequities in where the talent tends to go in the Big Ten, with two schools having never experienced a year above the conference mean rating, one school having managed this feat only once and three schools having achieved this only twice. Of course, on-the-field success is a different story from year to year with some of these teams too, but it seems to illustrate that several teams in the conference do indeed get along with less, if these ratings are any indication. Obviously, there is overlooked or underrated talent, so it is ultimately subjective and not 100% accurate by any means.

So, how did each team fare against the conference mean each year? Here’s what that looks like for each team:

Here’s the whole conference on a rather non-descriptive but somewhat telling chart. You can see Michigan and Ohio State flying comfortably above the rest of the conference for the most part:

Here are some comparisons with select teams. Why Indiana? I was inspired somehow:

TL;DR CONCLUSION:

Like many of these diaries that I do, the driver is for the reader to draw their own conclusion about what they see. Rivals’ data was the easiest to categorize, which is why I used it here, but they aren’t the only ranking service, nor are stars the sole measure of who is in fact the better overall player. What was intriguing to me is how these ratings make the Big Ten appear when you dig into them a little, and the trends seem reasonably accurate to me.

OBLIGATORY:

I've twice posted spreadsheets with information on UM and the NFL draft. I decided to do it at least once more this year.

In 2012 I looked at four-year intervals; this year I extended them to five years. My thinking: In any year the team could have players from five classes playing ... true freshmen up through 5th-year seniors. Here are the extremes that are captured in the most recent five-year interval:

* 2004 recruits who played a fifth year, like Morgan Trent ('09 draft)
* 2009 recruits who did not redshirt, like Denard ('13 draft)

So, part of the '04 class, part of the '09 class, and everything between them ...

In the most recent ('09 to '13) five-year interval, UM had twelve picks. That's the lowest number since '83 to '87 (also twelve). No other interval was worse in the modern era.

Taking a closer look at the high (rounds one to three) end, there were three such picks from '09 to '13. This has never happened in the modern era. In all other five-year intervals there were at least _twice_ that many. The '07 and '06 drafts (four apiece) had more high-end picks in single years.

Details: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkEbjH02DNzxdFlsWW4zWEZxSU9...

At least by one measure (a decent one, I think), the "program" has clearly been lacking NFL talent (especially at the upper end). It will be interesting to see what happens in '14 and beyond. Needless to say, a couple of lean recruiting years ('10 and '11) might not bring high numbers. '09 looks a little better.

Etc.:

- Data is from CBS Sportsline.
- Next to the first draftee for each year you'll see four columns: * Total number of picks for that year. * Total number of picks for that year and the five prior years. * Total number of "high" picks for that year. * Total number of "high" picks for that year and the five prior years.
- Because the draft is currently seven rounds, I ignored all picks past that round in old drafts.
- I did not account for expansion (Bucs and Seahawks in the mid-'70s, Panthers and Jags sometime after that), so the numbers from (say) the early '70s, which are already impressive, should be considered in that light. (Being drafted in the first round with fewer teams is a rarer achievement.)
- For obvious reasons, I didn't count Ryan Mallett (a "high" pick), Toney Clemons (7th-rounder), or Mike Cox (ditto) in the recent years.

I think these are dumb, but I cannot stand to see us lose, even in a poll about who has the best helmet in the B1G. Michigan is the #1 seed going against Nebraska in the second round.

http://btn.com/2013/05/18/2013-big-ten-helmet-bracket-round-2/ 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgLP7CjMNEo

No, not Florida State, Jack.  Marvin will be taking his talents to Big Rapids.  Another one for Tony & the boys.  Good Luck @ Ferris State Marvin!

No, this is not from the Onion:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9287952/eastern-michigan-...