Conference Recruiting/Player Development

[gnati]

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2011 ... #storyjump

posted without comment - for now.

[danwismar]

Really interesting...and fairly surprising in spots. How 'bout the Bearcats in the Top Ten? I need to spend some more time on this. Thanks for posting.

[furls]

I love the article, very interesting and some pretty cool conclusions. The first thing I do when I read a report with surprising conclusions or outrageous results is I look at the underlying assumptions for faults and there are some here. Essentially, his underlying assumption is that players are rated for talent correctly. Each player does not actually have to be rated correctly because of the large sample size, you would expect some cancellation in error and so on.

But what really hurts this analysis is regional recruiting bias. Basically, if kids from the midwest are routinely underrated and kids from the southeast are routinely overrated it would explain these results in a much more likely manner. I don't think the bias is that bad, but it is significant in this case. Generally, I think borderline guys in the heavily recruited south get more attention and get rounded up to the next higher star, borderline guys in the midwest don't get as much hype and get rounded down. The bias doesn't affect every player, but may affect as many as 1/2. Think about it, did anyone in OH really think AJ Hawk was a 3*? Had he been from FL, he would have been a 4*. Since recruiting is largely regional, a regional bias would skew these numbers pretty badly.

THis would also explain the poor SEC showing in all categories and the strong Cincy showing. Cincy feasts on underrated 3* OH kids that just missed OSU offers. This study may actually more accurately show that Tressel and Ferentz are better than the recruiting services at assessing talent!