Objectively it’s a list of 100 kids being used to support the premise that academics don’t aren’t a factor in recruiting. Yet, Aside from the 3 going to ND, not a single one is going to a private school or UVA. I made no conclusion, only pointed out that it doesn’t support the premise you are trying to prove. What do you conclude?

their football aspirations. ND under Holtz was one of those schools. Academics does not preclude that. It’s an excuse for the lazy.

That’s what I conclude.

ND's peer group is Ohio State, Georgia, Alabama et al. - where the Top 100 elect to play football.

ND's peer group is not Vandy, Stanford, Duke, et al. - where the Top 100 elect not to play football.

That kids choose based on their football aspirations is obvious. No one has ever argued that. The list supports that, not much more. To the coldly analytical this list says nothing about how academics factors in, only that it would appear that all 100 are eligible.

My biggest takeaway from this list that the best players are from California, Texas, or the south. My other takeaway is that the top schools kids are picking are west coast, Texas/Oklahoma and the south. Seems like those two things could be related. The list doesn’t prove it.

I don’t think kids exactly dream of playing for BK or in his offense but I also don’t think a lot of those kids in the top 100 care much about academics. I’d go so far as to say that any kids who picks Oklahoma does not.

Among data scientists, physicians, and psychologists, the term for your bias is called “confirmation” bias.