Football underachievement in the Kellybrick era (with chart)
by mikeybates (2017-06-29 13:00:03)
Edited on 2017-06-29 13:06:27
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Cartier Field ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]


The following is a chart that I made that ranks all P5 programs and a couple of others by their success on the field relative to their recruiting. I did this by calculating a rolling 4 year recruiting average for their teams for the seasons starting 2010-2016, to create a "talent level" figure for their team that season. I then ranked teams by this number. I also looked at teams' winning % in those seasons and ranked teams by that number. The number you see is the average difference between a team's talent rank and winning % between 2010-2016.

Teams with a difference of -5 or more are called "underachievers." These include a bunch of programs that would not surprise us: mostly marquee programs that recruit well but then fail on the field more than they should. Notice how many of those programs have either replaced their coaches recently (USC, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Miami, Georgia, LSU) or find their coaches on the hot seat now. I will note that Michigan, USC and Miami are seeing turnarounds (i.e. their numbers for 2015 and/or 2016 are overachieving numbers, but the 2010-2014 period weighs them down). This is not happening with old Notre Dame, of course. (Nor is it happening, I will note, with Georgia. Notre Dame and Georgia will be the underachievement Olympics.)

Teams with a difference of between -4.99 and 4.99 are called "achievers." These include all NC winners from 2010-2016 except for Auburn. The top programs like Alabama or OSU achieve at the rate you would expect, given their talent. (This is not the diminish Saban and/or Meyer. Obviously not all of the "achievers" win titles. But their winning % is what you would expect, given their talent. It doesn't mean that they win big bowl games or playoff games as Saban and Meyer do.)

Teams with a difference of 5 or more are called "overachievers." These include some familiar teams such as Stanford, Wisconsin, and Michigan State.

Anyway, I realize that the methodology is not perfect, but it clearly captures something valuable about which teams perform and which do not.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Interesting. Thanks. *
by Newt  (2017-07-02 10:26:02)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

another interpretation ...
by ThreeD  (2017-06-30 08:58:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

the teams with scores less than 0 "sell" in the recruiting business and teams over 0 do not. There might be a financial incentive to hyping or over-hyping players that get recruited by the sellers.

Nevertheless, interesting numbers. Thanks for posting.

Hey, just a thought - since subtracting ranks like that might not be the best approach (ranks are not equal intervals), maybe create z-scores of each score (rather than rank) and then subtract z-scores. The ends of your distribution (teams at the top and bottom) will be less affected by that, but the middle portion might re-arrange some and it would be a technically better approach.

Couple of more points
by SixShutouts66  (2017-06-30 22:19:41)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

1. You have a good point that recruiting rankings are affected by cohorts. With absolutely no knowledge of the player, I assume when Alabama, a big Florida school, USC, or Texas offers someone a good distance away, that the kid is really good. Some of our recruiting ranking is probably due to this factor.

2. Perhaps these even out, but it seems that the recruiting rankings should be retabulated to consider the effects of transfers and serious injuries. In some cases, the coach is a factor in the player leaving, but not all the time.

3. Recruiting scores are also slightly biased against good recruiting schools since only 22 players start. Yes it is great having 4 star recruits on the bench for depth/injury purposes and to cover any mistakes you made in selecting players. A team with fewer high-ranked recruits can compete.

4. Achievements should factor out cupcake games against D2/FBS opponents.

The charts do confirm intuitive feeling on underachievers (Texas, Tennessee, Old Miss, Miami, UCLA, LSU, TAMU, and us), but USC seems a reach. The overachievers confirm (WASU,MSU,Stanford, Utah, K-State, and Wisconsin), but many others just say that the teams didn't have great talent, but did OK

The contents of this post represent the views of the author. is not responsible for its contents.