By Bart D.
Co-Founder
Follow the author on Twitter @Bart_CFN or the site @bestdamnpoll
You're probably wondering if you managed to step into a really Maury Povich-guest ugly math problem on the way to reading about college football. You did. And you didn't.
National Signing Day is a week away, and every year, the relative legitimacy of "recruit ranking" is combed over. Does it work? Does it matter? Is it just show the slow erosion of society that grown men want to watch 17 year-olds pick hats off of a table? Well, the below graphics should give you an idea of two things:
1. How much time I have on my hands at night
2. Verification of how legit recruiting rankings are when related to winning/playing for Mythical Football Titles
Basically, the top grid will show the recruiting classes via Scout.com from the 5 years that would contribute to a BCS title team. To the left are the winners. To the top are the years of classes. Scout's archives only go back to 2002, therefore the full classes for two teams (5th years) are not complete, but as you see the pattern would not change regardless. The bottom grid shows the runners up. At the end of each grid is the AVERAGE class ranking for the contributing classes. The results are pretty staggering.
Champions
| Alabama |
7 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
7.2 |
| Auburn |
|
2 |
1 |
22 |
18 |
16 |
|
|
|
|
11 |
| Alabama |
|
|
2 |
1 |
22 |
18 |
16 |
|
|
|
11.8 |
| Florida |
|
|
|
12 |
1 |
2 |
11 |
8 |
|
|
6.8 |
| LSU |
|
|
|
|
5 |
7 |
19 |
2 |
2 |
|
7 |
| Florida |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
11 |
8 |
4 |
20 |
9 |
| Texas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
10 |
14 |
1 |
9.5 |
Runners-Up
| LSU |
9 |
7
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.2 |
| Oregon |
|
13 |
26
|
23 |
9
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
24.6 |
| Texas |
|
|
7
|
16
|
3
|
3
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
8.4 |
Oklahoma
|
|
|
|
13 |
30 |
7
|
5
|
7
|
|
|
|
12.4 |
Ohio State
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
13 |
7
|
11
|
25
|
|
14.4 |
Ohio State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
7
|
11
|
25
|
3 |
11.8 |
| USC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
1
|
1
|
12
|
|
5 |
| Oklahoma |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
3
|
2
|
|
4 |
You'll notice some pretty staggering things looking at this:
-You're not playing in a BCS title game without having at least one top 10 class to anchor around. Even Oregon, who had the lowest overall ranking by far in average had a veteran top 10 class. That is a common theme in all of these teams.
-Only THREE times in the 8 years of teams playing in the BCS title game did a team even have SINGLE classes out of the top 25. Oregon had two of those, Oklahoma one. Both lost.
-The highest average for a national title winning team was 11.8 over a 4 year span. That means unless you're getting classes around the top 10, you probably aren't winning. You might play in it, but you probably aren't winning. Keep that in mind when you see this year's top 10.
-East Coast Bias? Oregon's average nearly doubled any other team involved in the BCS game in the past 8 years in recruiting average. Is that a function of them being better coached, having a different system...or are recruiting services just not paying (as much) attention to less populated states that Oregon recruits?
-Southern Cal was the only team to haul in a #1 ranked class and lose a title game of the teams that made it there.
-Of the 8 years sampled, there were 7 #1 overall ranked classes that participated in the game as winners.
-These are all rankings as they were after the recruiting season had ended. These are not adjusted ratings in any way to what ended up happening on the field.
There are many more statistics to be gleaned from these grids, but one thing remains more iron clad than pre-marriage Hillary Duff's belt...when they release the rankings the following day, if you're not hovering around top 10...waste a little extra money on vodka or cheap entertainment. Odds are you won't be needing it for a BCS Mythical Title Game trip anytime soon.