Analyzing College Basketball’s Relationship Between Recruiting Rankings and Wins - watchstadium.com

[49r]

Pretty interesting analysis of correlation between recruiting rankings and wins on the court on Stadium's website.  The data does not paint a very rosy picture of the Miles tenure at Nebraska.

 

https://watchstadium.com/news/analyzing-college-basketballs-relationship-between-recruiting-rankings-and-wins-04-17-2019/

 

There are multiple graphs in the article, I chose this one to embed here.  The horizontal line represents average performance for a team based on their recruiting rankings, falling below the line would indicate underperforming:

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by 49r

[Norm Peterson]

Being in the left lower quadrant has to be like NCAA Basketball's version of the Mendoza line.

[49r]

I mean, look at Purdue!  They've been recruiting at about the same level as Nebraska and average about 9 more wins per year.

[PointGuard]

"Better" scheduling would have increased the # of wins.

[49r]

2 minutes ago, PointGuard said:

"Better" scheduling would have increased the # of wins.

 

Good point, but look at the KenPom strength of schedule for both teams for the last 4 years:

 

Purdue - (Non-Con) (Overall) (W-L)

============================

2019 ----- #55 ---------- #4 -------- (26-10)

2018 ----- #144 -------- #41 ------ (30-7)

2017 ----- #224 -------- #38 ------ (27-8)

2016 ----- #239 -------- #56 ------ (26-9)

 

Nebraska - (Non-Con) (Overall) (W-L)

==============================

2019 --------- #168 -------- #9 -------- (19-17)

2018 --------- #255 -------- #59 ------ (22-11)

2017 --------- #27 ---------- #14 ------ (12-19)

2016 --------- #323 -------- #73 ------ (16-18)

[PointGuard]

I'm not sure this chart really compares apples to apples.  For one thing a school could have a great recruiting class, but the results of that effort may not be seen for 2 or 3 years.  This list shows the same 4 years of recruiting with the record for the same 4 years.  How does it handle a graduate transfer?  Look at Texas Tech.  Not a great recruit status, but a few graduate transfers and they almost win it all.  Some schools on this list recruit a lot of one and done players.  Those freshmen are much better that the 3* that other schools get, and their results show up on the chart.  Kansas, Duke etc.  How did Gonzaga look so bad on the recruiting?  Is that because their conference is so weak?

[49r]

Sure there may be some outliers in the data - that's expected - but I would expect Nebraska lies more or less in the middle of the bell curve as it pertains to transfers, jucos, etc affecting the recruiting rankings.  Meaning I would expect Nebraska to fit pretty well within the average recruiting profile.  Transfers in/out, jucos, international guys, etc.

 

Even if you eliminate all the outliers (Gonzaga would be a good example as you mention because they rely so heavily on international players), you would still have Nebraska fall below the @Norm Peterson Mendoza line in that graph I'd imagine.

 

What jumps out at me are the extreme outliers, which can kind of be grouped in several ways.

 

Style of Play

-Wisconsin

-Virginia

-Villanova

 

Recruiting Philosophy

-Gonzaga (international)

-Nevada (transfers)

-Kentucky (one and done)

-Duke (one and done)

 

Level of Competition

-Wichita State

-Gonzaga

-Wake Forest

 

Coaching Acumen

-Villanova

-Michigan

-Michigan State

-Texas

 

What it means to me is it appears the least significant factor in a team's success over time very possibly could be recruiting rankings.  If that weren't the case, the line would slope much more downward.  Look at Colorado for example.  Hovering right around #80 in recruiting rankings but within a couple of wins per year as say, Syracuse, who is ~50 spots above them in the recruiting rankings on average.

[Norm Peterson]

2 minutes ago, 49r said:

What it means to me is it appears the least significant factor in a team's success over time very possibly could be recruiting rankings.  If that weren't the case, the line would slope much more downward.  Look at Colorado for example.  Hovering right around #80 in recruiting rankings but within a couple of wins per year as say, Syracuse, who is ~50 spots above them in the recruiting rankings on average.

 

Can you cross-reference against strength of schedule? Colorado is winning but are they playing as tough a schedule as Syracuse? I'm curious.

[49r]

Just now, Norm Peterson said:

 

Can you cross-reference against strength of schedule? Colorado is winning but are they playing as tough a schedule as Syracuse? I'm curious.

 

Fair enough.  You're probably right, I'd imagine without looking that Colorado's SOS isn't anywhere near Syracuse.  How about we substitute Clemson then?

[49r]

Here is the Syracuse/Colorado breakdown.  The Pac 12 sucking so bad really drags Colorado down here.  Also, due to the elevation, Colorado has a massive home court advantage, so even though they appear on the line, they might just be considered an outlier due to such a creampuff schedule and their home advantage.

 

Syracuse - (Non-Con) (Overall) (W-L)

============================

2019 -------- #156 -------- #38 ------ (20-14)

2018 -------- #163 -------- #27 ------ (23-14)

2017 -------- #248 -------- #57 ------ (19-15)

2016 -------- #180 -------- #18 ------ (23-14)

 

Colorado - (Non-Con) (Overall) (W-L)

==============================

2019 -------- #300 -------- #95 ------ (23-13)

2018 -------- #160 -------- #67 ------ (17-15)

2017 -------- #180 -------- #73 ------ (19-15)

2016 -------- #227 -------- #54 ------ (22-12)

Edited April 29, 2019 by 49r

[49r]

Here's the Syracuse/Clemson one.

 

Syracuse - (Non-Con) (Overall) (W-L)

============================

2019 -------- #156 -------- #38 ------ (20-14)

2018 -------- #163 -------- #27 ------ (23-14)

2017 -------- #248 -------- #57 ------ (19-15)

2016 -------- #180 -------- #18 ------ (23-14)

 

Clemson - (Non-Con) (Overall) (W-L)

==============================

2019 -------- #134 -------- #45 ------ (20-14)

2018 -------- #214 -------- #20 ------ (25-10)

2017 -------- #91 ---------- #27 ------ (17-16)

2016 -------- #335 -------- #61 ------ (17-14)

[tcp]

if this were any other hypothesis, all the scatterplot would tell you is that there wasn't a very good correlation between then hypothesis that recruit rankings cause wins. 

 

and I think you wound up hitting the nail on the head with SoS as to one reason why that is. You could try plotting this against a more sophisticated measure--like rpi and then do that over, say, 20 years. 

 

Personally, with that much outlay, NU looks more like within an acceptable margin of error for a weak hypothesis where they're at. Not that big of a deal, in other words. 

 

I think there is *some* connection, obviously. I think the best way to see it graphically is maybe compare the recruit tankings versus team wins *within* a conference over time, like the B1G or the ACC. I'm sure there would be a much tighter relationship. 

[49r]

That's pretty much the gist of the article, except they use games played in the NCAA tournament as the measure of ultimate success.  In other words, unless you are Duke, Kansas or Kentucky, recruiting at a high level isn't as valuable as one might think.  The table below shows recruiting rank and number of wins for each school that has at least 100 wins over the past 4 years:

 

School	’15 Rank	’16 Rank	’17 Rank	’18 Rank	Avg. Rank	’16 Wins	’17 Wins	’18 Wins	’19 Wins	Total Wins	NCAA Tournament Games Played (2016-19)
Gonzaga	112	20	120	68	80	28	37	32	33	130	16
Villanova	29	45	28	9	27.8	35	32	36	26	129	16
North Carolina	70	14	19	14	29.3	33	33	26	29	121	17
Kansas	13	16	9	5	10.8	33	31	31	26	121	15
Virginia	62	7	98	63	57.5	29	23	31	35	118	13
Kentucky	1	2	2	2	1.8	27	32	26	30	115	13
Duke	2	1	1	1	1.3	25	28	29	32	114	13
Michigan	107	31	43	12	48.3	23	26	33	30	112	14
Oregon	19	21	13	3	14	31	33	23	25	112	12
Cincinnati	53	63	58	65	59.8	22	30	31	28	111	6
Michigan State	25	3	49	17	23.5	29	20	30	32	111	10
Nevada	150	57	101	52	90	24	28	29	29	110	5
Saint Mary’s	__	89	150	112	117	29	29	30	22	110	3
Purdue	37	108	34	49	57	26	27	30	26	109	11
Wichita State	57	72	125	62	79	26	31	25	22	104	6
Houston	67	134	67	114	95.5	22	21	27	33	103	5
Arizona	3	9	3	22	9.3	25	32	27	17	101	5
Xavier	119	28	11	64	55.5	28	24	29	19	100	8

*Wins in the First Four aren’t included in NCAA Tournament games played.

Edited April 30, 2019 by 49r

[PimpMario]

22 hours ago, 49r said:

I mean, look at Purdue!  They've been recruiting at about the same level as Nebraska and average about 9 more wins per year.

 

A 3 Star big man is better than a 5th 3 Star sf

[PointGuard]

Purdue also got a 7 foot + person from France that probably didn't count as any stars.

[49r]

 

 

"With two commitments, Nebraska’s 2020 class is ranked No. 5 in the country and No. 2 in the Big Ten Conference. The Huskers currently have no available scholarships to give in 2020. "

[colhusker]

There is a trend for the chart but the correlation is not as strong as I would have thought.

[Searching 4 Chester Surles]

28 minutes ago, colhusker said:

There is a trend for the chart but the correlation is not as strong as I would have thought.

 

I think it's much stronger in college football. Which, I'm guessing, is where they got the idea to see if the same was true in basketball.

[colhusker]

2 hours ago, Searching 4 Chester Surles said:

 

I think it's much stronger in college football. Which, I'm guessing, is where they got the idea to see if the same was true in basketball.

Guessing your right.