Georgia recruits well, but does Georgia recruit well enough?

It may seem obvious to say this“Having more raw talent than a particular team only matters if you actually play that team, and it only really matters if you play that team frequently.”

But it doesn’t make it any less true.

Georgia had another solid year recruiting – top ten finish, maybe moving higher if Roquan Smith decides to come on board – but when you analyze it in the context of how the rest of the programs in the SEC did, the Dawgs only enjoy the 37th-best class.  Four SEC teams rank higher.

Perhaps that explains some of the good, but not great, results we keep experiencing.  Just something to consider.

42 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Recruiting, Stats Geek!

42 responses to “Georgia recruits well, but does Georgia recruit well enough?

  1. mp

    I don’t know how “5th” became “37th”, but that’s another data point supporting my bias of not trusting lawyers to do math!

    Like

    • 37th nationally; 5th in the SEC. I thought that was apparent from the chart at the linked article.

      I guess you’re playing into my bias about non-lawyers. 😉

      Like

    • mp, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. The correlation in that table is a bit muddled if you ask me. Its like if all the conferences had a conference specific quiz. Each conference quiz varies in difficulty. Then they ranked the grades on the quiz for ALL schools. Georgia’s score is ranked 37th when you compare all the schools, but if you just compare Georgia’s grade to SEC schools who took the identical quiz, it ranked 5th (ugh, I was SO sure we would do better than that this year).

      I take that back that’s a terrible analogy. Anyone got something better?

      Like

  2. Go Dawgs!!

    You buried the lead here, Bluto. Slive expanded the SEC to 37 teams?!

    Like

  3. Scorpio Jones, III

    Ok, here’s the analysis from my accountant…I see three teams on that list ahead of us, we regularly play two of them…this should worry me, right? The other team, Bama, always worries me anyway, but ah….Tennessee…uh oh.

    Like

    • JCDAWG83

      We play Georgia Southern this year and, according to the list, they are ahead of us, so is UCF. I guess we can feel better about losing to them now.

      Like

  4. brcdavis

    I just question how much one can really differentiate the top 10 or 15 classes until you get a couple years removed. Granted, Alabama recruits better than everyone else. Otherwise, though, can someone really equivocally say that AU, TENN, or LSU actually had a better class than UGA because a recruiting service gave them 5 or 6 more points? I understand the logic, though, and agree that it really only matters how you recruit versus the teams you compete against. Doesn’t matter how we recruit relative to Oregon or even Ohio State really. I don’t know that I could buy that recruiting is our problem, even vs the competition for the most part, though. I think our recruiting has been as good or better than anyone in the SEC the last 10 years save Bama and LSU. It’s what happens when they get here that is different than the other schools we continue to lag behind in the championships dept. Whether that’s kicking more talent off the roster, not developing well enough, or failing to foster a winning culture…debatable.

    Like

  5. JCDAWG83

    I’m sure there’s lots of math and statistics and stuff that would make that chart appear to be somewhat realistic but I really don’t believe Alabama had the #12 class and UCF and Georgia Southern out recruited Georgia. If our recruiting classes really are ranked in the low 30s, it really is time for a coaching change. This seems like a silly article that reinforces the old saying “a tortured number will say anything”.

    Like

    • Bulldawg165

      It’s how well you recruited relative to your competition. If you recruited ten times better than everyone else in your conference, you’ll get a very high ranking, even if you’re Boise State and didn’t even have a top 50 class. In other words, 36 teams in the country have a talent advantage over their conference competition that is better than Georgia’s.

      Like

  6. I see USC at 65, Tech at 72 and Florida at 75.

    Like

  7. I mean, I get it, but this just seems like a really confusing way of saying UGA had the 5th best recruiting class in the conference, i.e. amongst our actual peers that we are likely to see during a season. Saying you’re trying to rank how teams did compared to their conference, then putting them in a chart with all the other teams regardless of conference…….just seems like you’re trying to find a really hard way to say something that is really simple. When Alabama’s all-world recruiting class only ranks 12th on a chart of recruiting performance, I think that’s when you know you’re trying a little TOO hard with statistics. Much love to Jason Kirk though, he churns out a lot of good stuff.

    Like

    • Kershdawg

      ^This. I thought the point was, “Having more raw talent than a particular team only matters if you actually play that team, and it only really matters if you play that team frequently.” So we’re still 4th best in the SEC right?

      Like

  8. DawgFaithful

    Georgia finished with a 274.98 rating on 247 vs. Ohio State 279.93 who were 6th. Thats only 5 points Of a measurement that is anything but exact. They just won the NC. You really think that 5 points translates on the field? I dont. Adding Roquan would only bump us up higher. I’d say we’re recruiting well enough. LSU and Tennessee are at 285-286. 10-11 more recruiting points. In reality that’s nothing.

    Like

  9. sectionzalum

    It may seem obvious to say this: “Having more raw talent than a particular team only matters if you actually play that team, and it only really matters if you play that team frequently.”

    in that list, Alabama ranks 12th???? i think that metric demonstrates the relative strength or weakness of the conferences more than anything else. if Alabama hauls in the #1 class every year, but relative to margin of superiority over their conference foes drops them to 12th in the rankings, it would seem to demonstrate SEC strength rather than the success of an individual team in recruiting. and the further down the list you go, it would seem the metric would have less and less relevance.

    Like

  10. ACM

    This seems like a pretty pointless metric as a way of marking national teams against each other. The way it is set up, the conference with the highest recruting rankings (SEC) will necessarily have lower deviations for its top teams, which is why Alabama is 12 and four out of the top-ten are from outside the power five conferences. It does, however, do a good job of showing why the likes of Ohio State and FSU can beat up on everyone else in their conference.

    I would take issue, though, with the statement “Having more raw talent than a particular team only matters if you actually play that team, and it only really matters if you play that team frequently.” College football is a sport that has always been, and continues to be (even in the era of a CFB playoff) a sport based on perceptions. It is the perceived talent differential (based partially on recruting rankings) which keeps a three loss SEC West team in the top-15, while a three-loss Big Ten team isn’t even in the top-25.

    Like

  11. DawgPhan

    Obviously the chart is great for looking at Boise State, FSU, OSU, and Clemson. Those teams should be able to out talent everyone in their conference.

    The chart is terrible for looking at the SEC where half the league recruits at a top 10 level.

    Like

  12. Russ

    We recruit just fine. When our “middlin'” class of 4 stars includes players like Gurley, Chubb and Moreno, I’m not worried about recruiting.

    Alabama will always have a top 5 recruiting class until someone else starts winning the MNC. Before Bama, UF always had top 5 classes because they were winning. These kids magically get that 5th star as soon as they get heavy attraction by the current top program. As soon as we win a couple of “Natties”, we’ll have top 5 classes. It’s all a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Talent isn’t a problem in Athens, no moreso than anywhere else in the SEC. Despite what some bored statistician may think.

    Like

  13. Red88

    This “analysis” is extremely flawed….outliers were allowed to remain in the equation. What’s an outlier? Well, it’s an outcome that is statistically improbable and is generally diregarded when comparing it to it’s cohorts. You can identify an outlier based on the number of standard deviations it lies from its assigned mean (3 SDs is usually the rule of thumb for an outlier). Because, by definition, an outlier is NOT a cohort. In layman’s terms, Ohio State and Vanderbilt performed SO differently from their supposed peers that they should be completely disregarded as statistical anomalies.

    Getting to the data, this sample size is very small when considering what this type of statistical analyis is typically used for (i.e. 10,000+ data points). To account for this lack of largesse (which is abominably obvious and it makes sense that an Ohio State blogger would ignore relevant data as a means to , which is only compounded when you realize that the data pools being looked at are actually between 10 and 16 for each conference, you must adjust the acceptable standard deviations for determining outliers. In this case, any data point (school) that has a standard deviation greater than 0.88 or less than -0.88) should be completely disregarded when analyzing this type of statistical chicanery.

    The above adjustments leave us with only 86 schools to compare, as seen in the chart below. THESE are the teams that can legitimately be considered to be ‘among peers’ when it comes to recruiting rankings (which is already extremely objective).

    Memphis AAC
    Georgia Southern Sun Belt
    Oregon Pac-12
    Ohio MAC
    Auburn SEC
    Southern Miss Conference USA
    Arizona State Pac-12
    Texas State Sun Belt
    Georgia SEC
    Temple AAC
    Miami ACC
    Nebraska Big Ten
    Fresno State Mountain West
    North Carolina ACC
    Virginia Tech ACC
    Texas A&M SEC
    NC State ACC
    Central Michigan MAC
    Stanford Pac-12
    Wisconsin Big Ten
    SMU AAC
    Texas Tech Big 12
    Louisville ACC
    Washington Pac-12
    Kent State MAC
    West Virginia Big 12
    Baylor Big 12
    Michigan Big Ten
    FIU Conference USA
    Old Dominion Conference USA
    Ole Miss SEC
    Oklahoma State Big 12
    TCU Big 12
    Mississippi State SEC
    North Texas Conference USA
    Utah State Mountain West
    South Carolina SEC
    California Pac-12
    UMass MAC
    Louisiana-Monroe Sun Belt
    UTSA Conference USA
    Troy Sun Belt
    Middle Tennessee Conference USA
    Georgia Tech ACC
    Wyoming Mountain West
    Florida SEC
    Houston AAC
    Illinois Big Ten
    Maryland Big Ten
    East Carolina AAC
    Rice Conference USA
    Arkansas SEC
    Bowling Green MAC
    Tulane AAC
    UNLV Mountain West
    Arizona Pac-12
    Indiana Big Ten
    Utah Pac-12
    Virginia ACC
    Missouri SEC
    Northwestern Big Ten
    Duke ACC
    Kansas State Big 12
    Washington State Pac-12
    Ball State MAC
    Appalachian State Sun Belt
    Nevada Mountain West
    Rutgers Big Ten
    New Mexico Mountain West
    Wake Forest ACC
    Eastern Michigan MAC
    Colorado State Mountain West
    UConn AAC
    Western Kentucky Conference USA

    You might ask yourself what the good of comparing only 60% of the teams is. Well, the answer is none whatsoever. But if you’re going to use this type of analyis to try and examine trends or ranking, you need to do it correctly and carry it to the end. As this clearly show, this method preffered by our Big10 friends is not an acceptable form of analyis due to it’s severe limitations.

    Like

  14. W Cobb Dawg

    Meh. Our problem has been roster management: undersigning and attrition. Considering this years signing numbers, it looks like we’ve finally, finally wised up and filled all the scollys. Now I’m eager to see how many we keep in the fold til the games begin.

    I have no doubt that solving the self-made roster management mess will be a major leap forward for this program.

    Like

  15. Irwin R Fletcher

    Can I raise my hand and say that using the ‘team ranking’ for your data set is borderline insane when you have the raw composite score from 247sports that you could use instead?

    Drop Kentucky and Vandy…
    The average composite score of the top 12 teams in the SEC is 258.44
    The standard deviation is 29.46,
    Here is the breakdown…
    Bama-1.79
    Tennesse-.94
    LSU-.93
    UGA-.80
    Auburn-.66
    TAMU-.41
    Ole Miss–.45
    MSU- -.66
    Carolina- -.74
    UF- -1.02
    Arky- -1.27
    Mizzou- -1.41

    The message is that it’s Bama’s world and the rest are just trying to keep up.

    Like

    • Cojones

      Yes, the message is in the std dev comparisons. Georgia, nearly a half Std Dev above the ave and Mizzzou is nearly a half std dev below the ave. You could compare their recruiting against each other using this chart and the dev doesn’t amount to a hill of beans when you play each other or how you recruit.

      Like

  16. Cojones

    What’s the std dev for “snakebit”?

    Like