Why Recruiting Rankings Matter

National Signing Day 2013 was a massive success for the University of Notre Dame.  It went so well that the faxes churning out one-by-one throughout the day seemed more like a wish list of players than Notre Dame’s actual signing class. And when Rivals 5-star defensive lineman Eddie Vanderdoes announced his decision to attend Notre Dame over USC, Alabama and UCLA, you could easily envision every Notre Dame fan in the country jumping out of their seat and shaking hands, like a NASA control room that had just successfully landed a rover on Mars after a year’s worth of planning. The Fighting Irish signed four 5-star players in the class of 2013, the very first time that has been accomplished since Internet recruiting was established.

But does it matter? That question is debated every year amongst every fan base on every football message board in the country. Recruiting rankings are subjective, and not every recruit pans out. Just as not every 1st round selection in the NFL Draft goes according to plan (bonus points if you recognize the name Tony Mandarich). Whenever one individual points out the success of teams like Alabama and connects it to their recruiting muscle, another individual will single out Boise State and ask how they can continuously challenge without top recruiting classes. Attempts have been made to settle these debates by looking at evidence, but the problem is the methodology has always been flawed.

When the connection between recruiting and results is traced, many erroneously take a recruiting class and use the following year for their argument. For example, it would be akin to taking Notre Dame’s recruiting Class of 2013 and then examining Notre Dame’s on the field success the following season. Such a process is illogical considering those recruits will be freshmen, and while freshmen can contribute and succeed, generally a recruiting class doesn’t begin to place its mark on a program until they become upperclassmen. Some sites have even begun comparing back-to-back recruiting classes to get a more in-depth feel of success, and, while more effective, it still misses the mark. A more accurate way to examine to what extent recruiting and football results are connected is to take a particular recruiting class and measure a program’s football results three years down the line.

This article will examine the top five recruiting classes on Rivals starting in 2002 and compare those rankings to the programs who finished the season in the AP top five three seasons later. The intent is to see if a top five finish in recruiting translates to a top five finish in the AP poll. An “R” by a year indicates the recruiting rankings, and an “F” by a year indicates the on-field football results.

Table 1 (Recruiting: 2002-2005, Football: 2005-2008)

Table 1 offers some interesting insights. There is definitely a correlation between a top five recruiting class and a top five AP finish three years later. Every season examined led to at least 40% of those with a top five recruiting class finishing in the top five of the AP, meaning each team, with a top five recruiting class, had an 8% chance of being in the top five of the AP poll three years later. Another interesting find: of the four years examined, all four years had one of the top five recruiting classes playing for a national title (2005: Texas, 2006: Florida, 2007: LSU, 2008: Oklahoma). Amazingly, this means that of the classes examined, if you finished with a top five recruiting class, you had a 20% chance of playing (win or lose) in the national championship game three years later.

Table 2 (Recruiting: 2006-2009, Football: 2009-2012)

Table 2 also tells an intriguing story. In the 2007 recruiting class/2010 football results, there were no matches between the top five recruiting classes and the final top five in the AP poll. Interestingly enough, the University of Florida won the recruiting title in 2007 but Auburn won the national championship in 2010. They share one common element: Cam Newton. Newton, a 5-star QB that signed with Urban Meyer’s Florida Gator squad in 2007, eventually transferred to Auburn where he won a national title in 2010.

The following recruiting year of 2008/football season of 2011 had another interesting result.  Only one of the five top recruiting classes finished in the top five of the final AP Poll (Alabama).  Every other program that made up the top four recruiting classes for 2008 eventually went through a head coaching change before the 2011 season (Notre Dame: Charlie Weis, Florida: Urban Meyer, Ohio State: Jim Tressel, Miami: Randy Shannon), a perfect illustration of other variables that influence program success.

Overall, there were 14 matches out of 40 possibilities, meaning that in any given year 35% of the teams who finish in the top five in recruiting make it to the top five of the AP poll three years later. So, in any given season, each team that finishes with a top five recruiting class has a 7% chance of finding themselves in the top five of the AP poll three years later. In addition, at least one of the top five recruiting classes played in the national title game 7 out of 8 years, meaning 87.5% of the time one of the top five recruiting classes played in the title game three years later.  In any given recruiting season, a program with a top five recruiting class has a 17.5% chance of appearing in the national championship three years later.

Do recruiting rankings matter? With the signing of Notre Dame’s Class of 2013 the Fighting Irish now possess a 7% chance of finishing in the top five of the AP poll in 2016, and a 17.5% chance of playing for the national championship the same year.

Yes, recruiting rankings matter.