Based on a conversation in the recruiting thread I wanted to see the statistics of the Final Four participates recruiting rankings. All rankings are taken from 247. I put together the four classes that would have played in the final four (assuming the players stayed for 4 years).
| Freshman | Sophomore | Junior | Senior | Rank (Mean) | Rank (Median) | Rating (mean) | Rating (Median) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rk | Rating | Rk | Rating | Rk | Rating | Rk | Rating | |||||||
| 2011 | Connecticut | 23 | 0.9365 | 8 | 0.9458 | 7 | 0.8410 | 252 | 0.8590 | 72.5 | 15.5 | 0.8956 | 0.8978 | |
| Butler | 60 | 0.8698 | 270 | 0.6125 | 305 | 0.5202 | 68 | 0.8474 | 175.8 | 169.0 | 0.7125 | 0.7300 | ||
| Kentucky | 1 | 0.9662 | 1 | 0.9685 | 1 | 0.9996 | 9 | 0.9570 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.9728 | 0.9674 | ||
| VCU | 57 | 0.8495 | 242 | 0.6723 | 308 | 0.5674 | 65 | 0.8357 | 168.0 | 153.5 | 0.7312 | 0.7540 | ||
| 2012 | Kentucky | 1 | 0.9972 | 1 | 0.9662 | 1 | 0.9685 | 1 | 0.9996 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9829 | 0.9829 | |
| Kansas | 17 | 0.9321 | 48 | 0.9586 | 7 | 0.9918 | 9 | 0.9351 | 20.3 | 13.0 | 0.9544 | 0.9469 | ||
| Ohio State | 6 | 0.9601 | 3 | 0.9607 | - | 0.0000 | 5 | 0.9689 | 4.7 | 5.0 | 0.7224 | 0.9604 | ||
| Louisville | 3 | 0.9619 | 63 | 0.9141 | 23 | 0.8535 | 18 | 0.8721 | 26.8 | 20.5 | 0.9004 | 0.8931 | ||
| 2013 | Louisville | 79 | 0.9680 | 3 | 0.9619 | 63 | 0.9141 | 23 | 0.8535 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 0.9244 | 0.9380 | |
| Michigan | 8 | 0.9373 | 29 | 0.9228 | 45 | 0.9104 | 34 | 0.7593 | 29.0 | 31.5 | 0.8825 | 0.9166 | ||
| Syracuse | 43 | 0.9863 | 15 | 0.9735 | 4 | 0.9647 | 265 | 0.6311 | 81.8 | 29.0 | 0.8889 | 0.9691 | ||
| Wichita State | 105 | 0.8840 | 87 | 0.8076 | 231 | 0.7667 | 256 | 0.6681 | 169.8 | 168.0 | 0.7816 | 0.7872 | ||
| 2014 | Connecticut | 29 | 0.9475 | 33 | 0.9851 | 23 | 0.9365 | 23 | 0.9365 | 27.0 | 26.0 | 0.9514 | 0.9420 | |
| Kentucky | 1 | 0.9728 | 1 | 0.9935 | 1 | 0.9972 | 1 | 0.9662 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9824 | 0.9832 | ||
| Florida | 34 | 0.9969 | 18 | 0.9462 | 58 | 0.9270 | 5 | 0.9151 | 28.8 | 26.0 | 0.9463 | 0.9366 | ||
| Wisconsin | 38 | 0.8731 | 61 | 0.9142 | 43 | 0.8841 | 51 | 0.8857 | 48.3 | 47.0 | 0.8893 | 0.8849 | ||
| 2015 | Duke | 1 | 0.9954 | 9 | 0.9910 | 41 | 0.9914 | 2 | 0.9870 | 13.3 | 5.5 | 0.9912 | 0.9912 | |
| Wisconsin | 130 | 0.8991 | 38 | 0.8731 | 61 | 0.9142 | 43 | 0.8841 | 68.0 | 52.0 | 0.8926 | 0.8916 | ||
| Michigan State | 40 | 0.9211 | 79 | 0.8758 | 12 | 0.9695 | 19 | 0.9235 | 37.5 | 29.5 | 0.9225 | 0.9223 | ||
| Kentucky | 2 | 0.9942 | 1 | 0.9728 | 1 | 0.9935 | 1 | 0.9972 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.9894 | 0.9939 | ||
| 2016 | Villanova | 29 | 0.9345 | 48 | 0.9641 | 36 | 0.9081 | 27 | 0.9459 | 35.0 | 32.5 | 0.9382 | 0.9402 | |
| North Carolina | 70 | 0.9291 | 10 | 0.9929 | 15 | 0.9712 | 5 | 0.9808 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 0.9685 | 0.9760 | ||
| Oklahoma | 51 | 0.9099 | 34 | 0.9004 | 81 | 0.8092 | 49 | 0.8782 | 53.8 | 50.0 | 0.8744 | 0.8893 | ||
| Syracuse | 8 | 0.9729 | 38 | 0.9861 | 8 | 0.9475 | 43 | 0.9863 | 24.3 | 23.0 | 0.9732 | 0.9795 | ||
| 2017 | North Carolina | 14 | 0.9829 | 70 | 0.9291 | 10 | 0.9929 | 15 | 0.9712 | 27.3 | 14.5 | 0.9690 | 0.9771 | |
| Gonzaga | 20 | 0.9302 | 112 | 0.9333 | 45 | 0.8812 | 149 | 0.8094 | 81.5 | 78.5 | 0.8885 | 0.9057 | ||
| Oregon | 21 | 0.9515 | 19 | 0.9488 | 23 | 0.9213 | 52 | 0.8673 | 28.8 | 22.0 | 0.9222 | 0.9351 | ||
| South Carolina | 65 | 0.8540 | 33 | 0.8748 | 42 | 0.8890 | 24 | 0.8433 | 41.0 | 37.5 | 0.8653 | 0.8644 | ||
| 2018 | Villanova | 28 | 0.9373 | 45 | 0.9503 | 29 | 0.9345 | 48 | 0.9641 | 37.5 | 37.0 | 0.9466 | 0.9438 | |
| Michigan | 43 | 0.9172 | 31 | 0.9049 | 107 | 0.9430 | 30 | 0.8818 | 52.8 | 37.0 | 0.9117 | 0.9111 | ||
| Kansas | 9 | 0.9870 | 16 | 0.9731 | 13 | 0.9836 | 9 | 0.9473 | 11.8 | 11.0 | 0.9728 | 0.9784 | ||
| Loyola-Chicago | 103 | 0.8580 | 126 | 0.8547 | 124 | 0.7987 | 142 | 0.8510 | 123.8 | 125.0 | 0.8406 | 0.8529 | ||
| 2019 | Virginia | 63 | 0.8887 | 98 | 0.8668 | 7 | 0.9745 | 62 | 0.9427 | 57.5 | 62.5 | 0.9182 | 0.9157 | |
| Texas Tech | 33 | 0.9042 | 39 | 0.8890 | 145 | 0.8400 | 74 | 0.8626 | 72.8 | 56.5 | 0.8740 | 0.8758 | ||
| Michigan State | 17 | 0.9507 | 49 | 0.9666 | 3 | 0.9900 | 25 | 0.9555 | 23.5 | 21.0 | 0.9657 | 0.9611 | ||
| Auburn | - | 0.0000 | 22 | 0.9389 | 12 | 0.9500 | 16 | 0.9208 | 16.7 | 16.0 | 0.7024 | 0.9299 | ||
Averages are Mean unless otherwise noted. Cinderella teams are those mid majors that aren't Gonzaga.
| Freshman | Sophomore | Junior | Senior | Rank (Mean) | Rank (Median) | Rating (Mean) | Rating (Median) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rk | Rating | Rk | Rating | Rk | Rating | Rk | Rating | ||||||
| National Champion | 30 | 0.9542 | 35 | 0.9511 | 24 | 0.9402 | 50 | 0.9399 | 35 | 33 | 0.9464 | 0.9457 | |
| Runner Up | 42 | 0.9213 | 64 | 0.8978 | 81 | 0.8855 | 46 | 0.8807 | 58 | 55 | 0.8963 | 0.8917 | |
| 3rd/4th | 35 | 0.8821 | 50 | 0.9138 | 58 | 0.8453 | 59 | 0.8836 | 51 | 54 | 0.8812 | 0.8828 | |
| All | 36 | 0.9099 | 50 | 0.9192 | 55 | 0.8791 | 53 | 0.8970 | 49 | 52 | 0.9013 | 0.9034 | |
| No cinderellas | 30 | 0.9155 | 34 | 0.9420 | 31 | 0.9060 | 43 | 0.9090 | 35 | 33 | 0.9181 | 0.9122 | |
VTs recruiting class since 2007-2018 (the time covered in this chart) averages 66th with a median of 46th. With the non-cinderella Mean/Median being 35/32 we have a ways to go, however we only need a four year period.
In 2017 our four year Mean/Median was 38/24 which is good enough to play for a final four. The 2018 foure year Mean/Median is 46/39. Most of the other years are 50th-60th/47. Oddly enough our recruiting class 4 year average is median of 47 for 5 of the 8 seasons covered. We have a pattern of 3 good years and then one terrible year of recruiting.
UVA is the worst recruiting champion followed by Louisville.
Comments
UVA is an anomaly much as they are on the court. Tony Bennett looks for defense first which isnt as big a factor in how these kids are ranked by the ranking services. He will constantly have guys much lower ranked that deliver the tireless defense that his system requires. That said, once they leave their chances of going pro have likely been the most improved of most schools. UVA now has three in the draft. Two of them I could see going in the first round.
LOLUVa basketball=(more successful) GT football
Those that are in the draft are from their #7 ranked recruiting class. I wouldn't say that is a huge abnormality.
UVA winning with averaging in the 60s for their class is as abnormal as Kentucky winning with 4 straight #1 classes.
What I took away from this data is that this isn't football, you can win it all with 25th ranked classes. VT has recruited well enough that we could have been in the final four last year, and it wouldn't be a huge stretch for us to have made it this year.
so we should really start becoming a basketball school is what you're saying
If your end goal is to win a national championship in a revenue sport, it is easier and cheaper to build a competitive program in basketball than football. Your money will go further there than football.
But your ROI in football dwarfs that of basketball
Yeah but given the angst about giving and how it doesn't seem to be improving all that greatly basketball would seem to be a thriftier use of what we do have, no?
If our goal is to win a National Championship, you are correct. We would be better off pouring money into basketball to build ourselves a power in Blacksburg. Its a more direct path to relevance and you will get more bang for your buck via on field/court success.
If our goal is to make money, its hard to argue with what we're doing now. Though, one does have to wonder if we don't make a step forward back to at least regional relevance in the coming years, if the money we are currently getting in football will begin to stagnate and fall back. A lot of the luster and shine that made us money a decade ago has worn away, and if we don't start seeing results soon, what little fundraising we do have might start to fade away as well.
This only applies to national champions and not just final 4 rosters, but are a couple of interesting stats related to the topic:
-38 of the last 40 national champs have had a McDonald's All American on their roster, with 30 of those 40 having 2 or more. They only teams to not have one in that time span were 2002 Maryland (which had future NBA players Steve Blake, Chris Wilcox and Juan Dixon) and 2014 UCONN (Shabaz Napier).
-Since 1991 only 3 teams have won the natty with more than 7 losses (1997 Arizona, UCONN in 2011 and 2014).
Even the worst winners had 1 good class. You have to have players, you just don't need stings of top 5 classes.
Thanks for putting this all together. I think this is where basketball differs from football, in that you don't need consistently high recruiting classes as one class is capable enough to make a run at the national championship.
Welcome. I really like this type of stuff and it gives me excuses to built tools to mine the data. I just wish I had more time.
To me this analysis points out that Final Four teams do need some top talented players, but it shows that team chemistry and fit to the system matter more.
As some one pointed out in another thread, the teams that won a championship had some amazing coaches. Kevin Ollie might have been the worse coach to win one and he did it with Calhouns recruits and an NBA quality guard that put the entire team on his back AND that was a huge abnormality that they won.
Something is not adding up for me, look at 2013, Louisville had the 79th ranked Freshman class with a composite average of 0.968, but Mich was 8th with an avg of 0.9373? Is this a situation where number of recruits weigh in over average, so UL could have only had one recruit in the upper 90s but Mich had 3 that averaged lower?
The 2013 class would not be on campus for the 2013 championship, the 79th class is from 2012. Just like the Mike Young is recruiting the 2019 class they didnt play in the 2019 sweet sixteeb.
I mean the Rankings to ratings are not lining up, ie 0.96 rating is ranked 79th and 0.93 is ranked 8th. My guess is that its recruiting services giving credit for total number of recruits.
Yes the rankings are weighted by number of players as well as rating percentile. Louisville had two in their 2012 class that was 79th. One of those was Motrezl Harrell and the other an unranked center. Rating is only impacted by Harrell but the class is impacted by both.
Michigan had five in their 2012 class that was 8th. Five star Glenn Robinson, two fours and two threes. All were rated, so the overall rating was averaged out across the five.
Another side note, all of the one and done players make some of these rankings meaningless. How many players from the 2012, 2014, and 2015 Kentucky classes were from the number 1 ranked Sr and Junior classes? My guess is not many, most were probably from the Soph class. To get an accurate picture, it would take someone to drill down to the rosters and individual rankings of the players on the team at the time they made the Final 4. Ain't nobody got time for that!
100% agree. It's coming as soon as I can find reliable data I can mine. I have 3-4 data mining projects I am working on and mainly is getting ahold of the data I need easily.
EDIT: I am interested in this because my assumption is that the average class in the 30s is due to 1 and dones. If top players stayed longer then the teams that recruit well would do better assuming recruit rankings are for the most part correct.
With the surprise commitment of Cassius Stanley today Duke now has five commits in the top 42 in the Class of 19 to give them the top recruiting class. Three in the top 13.
Fuck Duke