“If you’re going to miss, miss fast.”

This Moneyball-comes-to-football-recruiting piece is one of the more interesting things I’ve read of late.

If there’s really something to it, I can’t wait to watch the funding wars heat up as P5 football programs across the country dramatically increase their analytics staffs.


Filed under Recruiting, Stats Geek!

4 responses to ““If you’re going to miss, miss fast.”

  1. Biggus Rickus

    On the PAI thing, what does it tell us exactly? There are 13 teams listed with scores ranging from 3.4 to 4. I’d love to see a listing of all 130 teams to see exactly how different they are. How many actually rate below 3.0?

    I also find Rhule’s approach to personnel interesting in that he clearly values defense over offense for his guys capable of playing at multiple spots. Of those 11 draft picks from Temple mentioned, 9 were on defense (one Guard and one RB were drafted). Temple’s statistical profile under Rhule also heavily favored the defense. The offense never ranked higher than 52nd in S&P+, while the defense was around 20th from his second year on. I’m not sure a defense first approach can work with the modern offensive game, especially in the Big 12. In fairness, their turnaround last year, such as it was, was primarily driven by an improved offense. So maybe he’s already recognized that.


    • Union Jack

      Isn’t Rhule’s approach similar to what Patterson was doing at TCU a few years ago? He was taking big, fast, raw athletes who were not the blue chip recruits at RB, WR etc and turning them into LB’s, DB’s, and DE’s – right?

      Not surprised that analytics are the next big spending point for collegiate staffs. Seems like the natural progression of things.

      Very interesting article.


      • Biggus Rickus

        On Pattersn, maybe? It would make some sense, seeing as their offense has more wild swings than their defense. I just don’t remember reading about it.


  2. Russ

    Interesting article, but I figured mid majors were doing this already, albeit without the actual analysis guys to back it up. If you take some place like a Temple that isn’t looking for a “win now” coach, that coach can build up his roster with potential and in the 3rd and 4th year those players likely do well. That was the blueprint Bill Snyder followed at K State, while sprinkling in the key JUCOs like Michael Bishop.

    While the analytics is trendy and probably helps, I think just having a comprehensive approach to what you want the team to look like, and building to that blueprint should be fairly straightforward, assuming the AD gives the coach 4-5 years to show improvement and a clear direction. Most schools don’t do that, though.