5 Year Study/2010-2014 Recruiting Classes
KS
How the Data was gathered
• Using Rivals and 247Sports data the Draft classes
from 2010-2014 were evaluated on a Star and Player
rating value.
• Using the Ourlads website, a 2 deep depth chart was
created for each school. No duplicates were counted.
For example, if the 2nd string Right and Left Guard
was the same person he was only counted 1 time not
to skew the average of the data
• Players that were walkons or transfers all counted on
the 2deep as a 0 value as this study is designed to
look at recruiting classes and how they can be
compared.
KS
Looking at the Data
5 Year Study / OVERALL (2010-2014)
1 OSU
2 MI
3 PSU
4 NEB
5 NW
6 MSU
7 WIS
8 IA
9 RUT
10 MD
11 PUR
12 IND
13 ILL
14 MIN
Rival
STARS
Rival
RATING
247
STARS
247
RATING
3.63
3.42
3.14
3.15
2.89
3.08
2.94
2.88
2.84
2.93
2.73
2.63
2.70
2.72
5.78
5.71
5.64
5.55
5.56
5.58
5.53
5.55
5.50
5.51
5.50
5.37
5.42
5.46
3.69
3.47
3.29
3.13
2.99
3.00
2.98
2.95
2.95
2.90
2.88
2.76
2.74
2.70
0.91
0.89
0.86
0.83
0.84
0.82
0.84
0.84
0.83
0.80
0.83
0.81
0.79
0.77
• Rivals Star and Ratings as well
as the 247 Star and Ratings for
each BIG10 school from 20102014.
• This shows who has brought in
the top classes over the past 5
seasons in the BIG10
• OSU is on top while Min is
pulling up the rear.
• PSU was just edged out of 3rd
place on Rival Stars by NEB but
sits at 3rd in every other rating.
KS
Looking at the Data (2)
2DEEP (2014)
Rivals
STARS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
OSU
RUT
MI
NW
ILL
MSU
PUR
PSU
WIS
MD
MIN
IA
IND
NEB
3.64
2.89
3.22
2.82
2.65
2.80
2.60
2.72
2.62
2.50
2.40
2.49
2.49
2.44
Rivals
247
247
RATING STARS RATING
5.68
5.24
5.04
5.20
5.26
5.11
5.13
4.75
4.85
4.82
4.85
4.70
4.66
4.28
3.71
2.93
3.37
2.82
2.70
2.76
2.71
2.81
2.62
2.57
2.42
2.49
2.47
2.49
0.88
0.80
0.82
0.79
0.79
0.74
0.77
0.72
0.73
0.71
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.66
• Rival and 247 Star and Rating
for the 2 Deep for each team as
they appear in their respective
recruiting Class.
• The information lets us know
what caliber of recruit are
contributing and impacting the
teams’ success.
• PSU 8th overall.. Those playing
are not the upper echelon of
recruit even by B1G standard
KS
Looking at the Data (3)
DIFFERENCE (2DEEP-OVERALL)
Rivals
Rivals
STARS RATING
1 OSU
2 ILL
3 RUT
4 NW
5 PUR
6 MI
7 MSU
8 MIN
9 IND
10 WIS
11 MD
12 IA
13 PSU
14 NEB
0.02
-0.05
0.04
-0.07
-0.14
-0.20
-0.27
-0.33
-0.14
-0.32
-0.43
-0.40
-0.42
-0.70
-0.10
-0.16
-0.27
-0.36
-0.37
-0.67
-0.48
-0.61
-0.70
-0.68
-0.70
-0.85
-0.89
-1.27
247
STARS
247
RATING
0.02
-0.04
-0.02
-0.17
-0.16
-0.10
-0.24
-0.28
-0.30
-0.36
-0.33
-0.46
-0.48
-0.64
-0.03
-0.01
-0.03
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.09
-0.10
-0.09
-0.13
-0.14
-0.18
• Rows look at the difference in
the 2 Deep vs the Classes.
• Higher numbers indicate team
playing the higher rated
prospects they recruit.
• Example: If everyone recruited
is a 4 star prospect and 100% of
the 2 deep consists of 4 Star
prospects then the NET result
would be 0.00.
• PSU ranking low indicates
those currently playing rank
lower than the overall average
recruit. (walkons & sanctions).
KS
Win Percentage 2010-14
5 Year Study/RECORD (2010-2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
OSU
MSU
WIS
NEB
PSU
MI
RUT
IA
NW
MD
MIN
ILL
PUR
IND
WINS LOSSES WIN %
56
11
84%
53
14
79%
50
18
74%
47
20
70%
38
25
60%
38
26
59%
35
28
56%
34
30
53%
33
30
52%
29
34
46%
28
35
44%
26
36
42%
21
41
34%
19
41
32%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
• OSU is leading at 84% with
only 11 losses in 5 seasons
• There is a gap in the top 4 teams
winning 70% or better
• PSU is 5th but on the other side
of the division having 18 less
wins over 5 seasons.
KS
Rankings (by win%)
OVERALL (2010-2014)
Rival
Rival
247
247
STARS RATING STARS RATING
OSU
1
1
1
1
MSU
5
4
5
10
WIS
6
8
7
6
NEB
3
6
4
7
PSU
4
3
3
3
MI
2
2
2
2
RUT
10
10
8
8
IA
9
7
9
4
NW
8
5
6
5
MD
7
9
10
12
MIN 12
12
14
14
ILL
13
13
13
13
PUR
IND
11
14
11
14
11
12
9
11
Rival
STARS
1
5
8
13
6
2
3
11
4
10
14
7
9
12
2DEEP (2014)
Rival
247
RATING STARS
1
1
6
6
8
9
14
12
11
5
7
2
3
3
12
11
4
4
10
10
9
14
2
8
5
13
7
13
DIFFERENCE (2DEEP-OVERALL)
247
Rivals Rival
247
247
RATING STARS RATING STARS RATING
1
2
1
1
2
7
8
6
7
8
8
9
9
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
10
12
13
13
13
2
7
8
4
7
3
1
3
2
3
13
11
12
12
12
5
4
4
6
4
12
13
10
10
9
9
10
7
8
5
4
3
2
3
1
6
11
5
6
5
11
5
9
6
10
• OSU has been the number 1 recruiting school in the B1G over the past 5
seasons in all 4 criteria. #1 in 2 deep as well.
• OSU also ranked 1st or 2nd in the difference meaning the top recruits are the
ones playing and contributing on Saturdays.
• Rival’s says, their 2 deep is better than the average of their recruiting classes.
(OSU & Rutgers were the only one in that were in the positive)
WIN
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
KS
Nebraska-Rutgers-Indiana
OVERALL (2010-2014)
DIFFERENCE
(2DEEP-OVERALL)
2DEEP (2014)
Rival Rival
247
247
Rivals Rivals
247
247
Rival
Rival
247
247
WIN
STARS RATING STARS RATING STARS RATING STARS RATING STARS RATING STARS RATING
%
NEB
3
6
4
7
13
14
12
14
14
14
14
14
4
RUT
10
10
8
8
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
7
IND
14
14
12
11
12
13
13
11
6
11
9
10
14
•
Nebraska was about middle of the road in recruiting. In 2 deep & difference they
ranked towards the bottom if not last. Nebraska has found great success with instate walkons as well as finding transfer contributors. Walkons & transfers that
show up in the 2 deep would count for 0 Star or rating points, making the
difference & 2 deep yield a low number.
•
Rutgers is maximizing the production from the highest rated prospects in it’s
classes. Rutgers was in the bottom half of recruiting classes but top 3 in all the 2
deep and difference categories.
•
Indiana is an example of a team struggling recruiting and poor 2 deep. The
highest ranking they have in any of the 8 categories is 11th out of 14. It is no
wonder they were a league low at 32% win percentage of the 5 season span.
KS
What this means for PSU
PSU has been in the top 4 across all the recruiting criteria over
the past 5 seasons but very mediocre at the 2 deep for 2014. This
can be explained by a few things.
1) Strong classes late and young guys not ready right away.
2) Undervalued Prospects like a Kyle Carter, Ryan Keiser,
Wendy Laurent or Jesse Della Valle contributing.
3) Scholarshipped players leaving after the sanctions hit
counting as a high level recruit but not able to contribute to
the success of the team.
Despite all that went on PSU managed to have the
5th highest win % in the B1G at 60% but in reality
they are the top of a large group clumped together
with 4th highest school (NEB) 10 percentage points
higher with 70%.
If you look at PSU you can see similar numbers to Nebraska, the difference is the
Sanctions. PSU was forced into this situation and used whatever it had left to keep
the program rolling. Both schools are playing with players that were either not top
prospects or not prospects for the school at all. On a positive note you can say both
schools are finding diamonds in the rough, but on the flip side their top tier
prospects aren’t carrying their weight right now. This can be answered by PSU’s
youth movement and Nebraska’s in state walkon success.
KS
Going forward for PSU
• It’s safe to say PSU is heading in the right direction. Immediate depth
is an issue and the strength of the prospect stars and ratings is in the
youth movement.
• In 2 seasons if we continue to stack classes the 2 deep will catch up
and start to resemble more of a Rutgers and OSU situation if we play
those players that are higher rated.
• With Better players expect that win % to climb and the gap in the
difference to close dramatically.
KS