So I take no credit for this as I stole it from reddit r/cfb but it was really interesting. I know it has been discussed and shown time and again that stars matter, but u/uga1992 broke down previous Heisman Winners and their stars, national and position rankings.
Order from left to right is Star Rating, National Ranking, Position Ranking. All of this is based on the 24/7 Composite. The reason I only went back to 2004 is because that is how far back I was able to find 24/7 rankings.
2017: Baker Mayfield: 3*, 1029, 42
2016: Lamar Jackson: 3*, 409, 12
2015: Derrick Henry: 5*, 12, 1
2014: Marcus Mariota: 3*, 491, 18
2013: Jameis Winston: 5*, 16, 1
2012: Johnny Manziel: 3*, 374, 13
2011: Robert Griffin III: 4*, 293, 6
2010: Cam Newton: 5*, 26, 2
2009: Mark Ingram: 4*, 112, 10
2008: Sam Bradford: 3*, 307, 12
2007: Tim Tebone: 5*, 21, 1
2006: Troy Smith: 4*, 191, 8
2005: Reggie Bush: 5*, 17, 3
2004: Matt Leinart: 4*, 58, 4
TOTAL:
5*'s: 5
4*'s: 4
3*'s: 5
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7wlmvc/star_and_national_rankings_...
Comments
This is cool to see and all, but this is how it should be. There are so much fewer 5 stars than 4 stars, and there are much much fewer 4 stars than 3 stars. It shows how good 5 star recruits are that of their small numbers they have won 5 Heisman's since 2004, the same amount of the much larger pool of 3 stars.
That was basically the sentiment over there too. ~30 5 star kids a year and 5/13 were 5 Star kids
I would think it would break down even further as to how many 5 * offensive players as we all know that despite how good a defensive player is he's not gonna win the Heisman this day and age.
Basically what I get out of this is you need to either be very highly touted QB/RB or a QB who can ball who gets overlooked because teams look too hard for the "prototypical QB" instead of guys who can just play.
Alex what is the one thing
TibmTim Tebow won't do till marriage.He's a UGA fan so it might have been intentional, I copied and pasted.
Always funny when people make fun of spelling mistakes while making spelling mistakes.
couldve sworn rg3 was a 5 star composite, he was a HUGE get for Baylor
Same class as Terrelle Pryor, I remember calling he would be much better than TP. Honestly, it was mostly because I hated Ohio State back then, but lots of people at my high school thought it was a good foresight that I called that. Little did they know it was 80% bias against tOSU haha.
I remember watching him ball out against TCU real early in that season, and then and there I called him winning the Heisman. Some dudes you can just TELL are gonna be special. Aaaand then they get drafted by the Redskins.
And if they're lucky, they get traded to the Chiefs!
Individually, stars do not matter. Collectively, the aggregate over four years is what matters.
When looking at the relationship between stars and average program success over an extended period time, there is a definite correlation. There are also enough exceptions that the true cause and effect nature of the relationship is impossible to scientifically define, driving some of the logic driven types on TKP into slightly obsessive behavior over this topic in relation to the people who just see the pattern without having to understand or explain it.
It's a micro vs. macro thing
. A recruit's star ranking does not guarantee that he is going to be successful, but no program has won a national title without a 50% blue chip ratio and at least 2 top 10 classes in the 4 classes before their championship season.
How many of those teams had 2 top 10 classes in the 4 years without having 2 top ten finishes in the years prior to having those classes? The relationship between recruiting and performance is not one-way, which makes it more difficult to define. Which came first - VT getting better at recruiting or VT competing for conference championships? Also, just because they have not does not mean they will not - look how close we came to being the exception to that rule. If you recruit but don't win, the recruiting is likely to fall off over time. If you win without recruiting, the winning is likely to fall off over time. The debate we keep having on TKP is which comes first, and I don't think that has to be the same way each time, so no-one can win the argument IMO, but a lot people keep trying to.
So there's a lot to unpack here, but TL;DR: Without elite talent it's impossible to win a national title (unless you're 2000 Oklahoma, the one outlier).
Short answer - it varies. A lot. Michigan ('97), USC (2003), LSU (2003), Alabama (2009) and Auburn (2010) all had two or less double-digit-win seasons in the DECADE before their first national title of the rival's era (starting in 1996). OSU was 7-5, 8-4 and 6-6 in the years leading up to their title game, though they won double digit games in 5 of 6 season prior to their three season pre-national-championship slump. UF won double digit games 5 of the 6 seasons before their 1996 title (despite never having a 10-win season prior to 1991).
If anything is clear, storied programs (AKA Bluebloods) are always sleeping giants, and can turn on recruiting at any time.
Quality recruiting does not guarantee wins, but it makes winning much more statistically likely. Beyond that, we've seen team bring in top talent without wins (see aforementioned examples). Teams that win on the field and win in recruiting are able to feed on the success of each. I get it; it's a chicken/egg scenario, but I think the numbers show that that you can only get so far without a few top 10 classes.
The issue is, there is only one exception to this rule in 20 years: 2000 Oklahoma, which won with only three top 25 classes (one of which was top 15, and others that were top 5 in average recruiting rank). And they were a blue blood. Texas in 2005 also only had one 'top 10' recruiting class in the 4 years prior to their Natty, HOWEVER, they had 2 classes that were less than 20 kids, one class being number one in average recruit ranking.
I think we can all agree that lack of talent has prevented VT from taking the next step over the last 25 years. We have reached 11 wins in a single season, but have not been able to take the next step. I bet that changes if you give Fuente/Foster 2-4 top 10 classes.
Good point...I complete agree macro vs micro.
Talent does matter I don't think anyone is arguing that. I find it interesting though when people quote the talent pool of the national title winners or even the top 5. I think it may also might be something else, rather than their "blue chip" pool that gets them the national title.
I think coaching plays a much bigger role. Of the top 5 teams over the past ten years there are only 30 unique coaches. It's only 22 coaches when you count assistants who came from the previous 30....
That's less than half the top 5 teams a year are coached by 'New to the top 5' coaches...
And since 1998 there have only been 19 coaches who've coached in a national title game.
That's 19 coaches over 19 years. It's only 12 coaches if you take out head coaches that we're assistants at a team that went to the national championship. #frankBeamerisOne
2/3 of the national championship games are coached by either a coach who has already been to the national championship or assisted on a staff of a team that went to a national championship.
Talent matters but I would fair to say coaching is much more correlated than a teams 3 year star avg.
An even better indicator
Every team in this years top 10 AP poll was lead by a coach who had either already been in the top ten or was an assistant on a team that was in the top ten (Frost, Riley)
Since 2013, in the top 10, only 5 teams have been lead by a coach who hadnt already been in the top 10 before or coached on a staff of a team in the top ten.
5 out of 50 teams...
In 11 years from 2007, there were only 29 unique head coaches discounting those that had been assistants on previous top ten teams.
29 coaches out of 110 teams....
Further challenge of decoupling recruiting/coaching - part of a coach's job is to recruit. Saban isn't just the best on the field coach, he's a top recruiter.
Of the 'New to the top 5' coaches, how many did it without a top 10 class? Dantonio and Peterson come to mind, but that's it (ps - Peterson is starting to actually recruit talented players at UW, will be interesting to see if he can win a title in the next 5 years).
* Coaches who've been in the top 10
** Coaches who've been assistants on teams who have been in the top 10
Looking at teams 3 year recruiting average based on average class ranking from 247 (avg of their past three recruiting class averages)
Prior Top 10 Coaches: 10 out of 10 - 100%
Teams with Avg over 88: 5 out of 10 - 50%
Teams with Avg under 87: 3 out of 10 - 30%
Prior Top 10 Coaches: 9 out of 10 - 90%
Teams with Avg over 88: 6 out of 10 - 60%
Teams with Avg under 87: 2 out of 10 - 20%
Prior Top 10 Coaches: 10 out of 10 - 100%
Teams with Avg over 88: 5 out of 10 - 50%
Teams with Avg under 87: 5 out of 10 - 50%
Prior Top 10 Coaches: 8 out of 10 - 80%
Teams with Avg over 88: 4 out of 10 - 40%
Teams with Avg under 87: 6 out of 10 - 60%
Prior Top 10 Coaches: 8 out of 10 - 80%
Teams with Avg over 88: 5 out of 10 - 50%
Teams with Avg under 87: 4 out of 10 - 40%
Prior Top 10 Coaches: 10 out of 10 - 100%
Teams with Avg over 88: 6 out of 10 - 60%
Teams with Avg under 87: 2 out of 10 - 20%
This is completely not even part of your macro/micro argument which I agree with 100%.
I think were saying the same thing, but Im actually now not even sure in Macro terms if recruiting average is really a good indicator of teams performance, or recruiting in general.
I mean if we use this year as a base Top 15 class has over a class avg of 88, a top 25 has over 87:
So overall the averages from above combined -
31 of 60 teams had top 15 recruiting classes for their past three recruiting averages (three year class avg over 88). So half of the teams have three year recruiting averages outside the top 15.
22 of 60 teams had recruiting classes outside of the top 25 (under 87) so a third of teams that finished in the top 10 had three year recruiting averages outside the top 25.
However, 55 of the 60 teams were coached by a coach who had either been in the top ten before or was an assistant on a team that had been in the top ten.
This bodes well for us because Justin Fuente was on Pattersons staff when they were in the top 10. In summary, were going to win a National Championship in the near future.
Edit wrong thread
Lmao. Tim Tebone.
So you are saying QP will be a Heisman winner. I am cool with it.