recruiting is the lifeblood of any college program. always has and always will be. great graph though
Holy crap. Thank you. I'm so tired of hearing "stars don't matter."
Holy crap. Thank you. I'm so tired of hearing "stars don't matter."
It doesn't matter for TTech :D
Here's a response one could make:
I'll grant you the claim that significantly higher ranked recruiting classes almost always tend to yeild significantly higher win percentages. This claim, however, doesn't by itself entail something like the proposition that Prince should be making a better effort to land higher ranked recruits. In order to establish something like that, you would need to do a lot more work. You would need to show, for example, that it is not a case of Prince making its best effort and simply failing. Generally speaking, ought implies can. Right along those very same lines, lest we're too quick to find fault with Prince, you would also need to show that it is possible for any coach at KSU to land a significantly higher ranked recruiting class than the one we can reasonably expect for 2007. Snyder doesn't help to make that case. His classes were not ranked significantly higher. And isn't it reasonable to expect that there is a limit on how high KSU's recruiting classes are ranked, and that this limit is much higher for other schools like Notre Dame and Florida State? After all, people are always talking about the difficult task of recruiting to Manhattan, aren't they? The bottom line is that you have a lot more work to do in order to show that Prince should be approaching recruting in a different manner.
I'm sure there are better responses. I'll post any that come to mind.
Here’s a better response:
If you look at a different timespan, you get an entirely different result. From the mid-nineties through the late nineties, NU and KSU had the highest winning percentages in the conference yet their recruiting classes were not rated amongst the nation’s best. OU and UT, on the other hand, did have recruiting classes that were rated amongst the nation’s best but had very average winning percentages. Looking at this time period alone might make you think that recruiting rankings have little to do with winning percentage. Similarly, looking solely at the graph linked above might give you the opposite impression. In either case, the inference is a poor one.
Recruiting services were garbage back then. No one paid $$$ for those.
Here’s a better response:
If you look at a different timespan, you get an entirely different result. From the mid-nineties through the late nineties, NU and KSU had the highest winning percentages in the conference yet their recruiting classes were not rated amongst the nation’s best. OU and UT, on the other hand, did have recruiting classes that were rated amongst the nation’s best but had very average winning percentages. Looking at this time period alone might make you think that recruiting rankings have little to do with winning percentage. Similarly, looking solely at the graph linked above might give you the opposite impression. In either case, the inference is a poor one.
Recruiting services were garbage back then. No one paid $$$ for those.
You can't argue with the correlation. You just can't. And it will only get better.
It's a &*$@!ing coincidence? :confused:
r. The recruits that were used in that time period had LITTLE impact on the wins by the teams listed.
Then why is the correlation nearly perfect?
:confused:
It's not perfect, but class of 2002 was significant in 2004 and 2005.
As you know, rivals doesn't past 2002, thus this is the best one can do.
And the correlation is incredible. It's statistically impossible to conclude "irrelevant"
If you knew ANYTHING about statistics, concludingQuoteIt's statistically, irrelevant.after seeing a r value of .95, will get you instantly failed.
I'm sure your professor would wonder why you chose two pieces of data that are not contextual.
Obviously, they are.
I think MJ's point is that the chart should compare recruiting rankings from '99-'02 vs. Big 12 winning percentage from '02-'05 or something close to that.
MJ, do you think that the schools' recruiting rankings would be so different if you adjusted the time periods that the correlation wouldn't work anymore?
Rivals doesn't go past 2002.
The only piece of data we have is the graph above.
It shows near perfect correlation. Most people who accept science know what to conclude. Others just need help.
Answer the question, does the 2002 class have an impact on the winning percentage of 2002 campaign?
Apparently so. I don't argue with concrete facts.