New Power 5 coaches and recruiting

The Power 5 conferences hired 7 new coaches at member schools in 2015.  These new coaches had mixed results in their first season on the playing field.  But how did these coaches perform in bringing in their first full recruiting class in 2016?

The 7 schools with new coaches were Oregon State (Gary Andersen), Michigan (Jim Harbaugh), Nebraska (Mike Riley), Florida (Jim McElwain), Kansas (David Beaty), Wisconsin (Paul Chryst) and Pitt (Pat Narduzzi).  While these programs all reside in Power 5 conferences, they vary greatly in their history of success in football.  Moreover, their success in recruiting is equally varied and plays a role in their success or lack thereof in the sport.   Below are some observations on these programs with new coaches and their Rivals national recruiting rankings:

  • Michigan’s 2016 class was ranked at 4 (1st all-time) and was above the long-term program average of 16 (10-3 in 2015).
  • Oregon State’s 2016 class was ranked at 41 (tied for 2nd best all-time) and was above the long-term program average of 49 (2-10 in 2015).
  • Wisconsin’s 2016 class was ranked at 35 (3rd best all-time) and was above the long-term program average of 45 (10-3 in 2015).
  • Pitt’s 2016 class was ranked at 30 (4th) and was above the long-term program average of 39 (8-5 in 2015).
  • Nebraska’s 2016 class was ranked at 25 (tied for 6th) and was at the long-term program average of 25 (6-7 in 2015).
  • Florida’s 2016 class was ranked at 14 (8th) and was below the long-term program average of 9 (10-4 in 2015).
  • Kansas’s 2016 class was ranked at 95 (lowest all-time) and was below the long-term program average of 54 (0-12 in 2015).

Four of the 7 programs had the benefit of winning seasons in 2015 to assist in recruiting while the other 3 did not.  For the programs with winning seasons, 3 of them showed improvement in recruiting ranking over their long-term averages while Florida experienced below average recruiting.  Among programs without winning seasons, only Oregon State had a 2016 recruiting class that surpassed the program average.  OSU’s recruiting climbed 8 spots over the average despite the really poor record in 2015.  Recruiting at Kansas dropped into the abyss in coach David Beaty’s first season, mirroring the results on the field in 2015.

Oregon State, Michigan, Florida, and Pitt all had their worst ever ranked recruiting classes in 2015 – a transition year between coaching staffs.  All of these programs but Florida rebounded in 2016 with higher than average recruiting classes.  Michigan had their best ever class in 2016 while both OSU and Pitt had classes among the top 4 all-time at the schools.  Wisconsin improved slightly from 2015 (37) to 2016 (35).  Gary Andersen and his staff produced the highest ever ranked class at Wisconsin (33) in 2014.  Nebraska improved from below average in 2015 (31) to average in 2016 (25).  Kansas fell from 66 in 2015 to 95 in 2016, a new record low in recruiting for the program!

Andersen produced the best ever recruiting classes at Utah State (2011) and at Wisconsin (2014). To produce the top rated recruiting classes at two different schools means that you’re pretty good at recruiting. While the jury is still out on his recruiting to OSU, Andersen’s 2016 class was tied for 2nd best ever at OSU.

OSU and Pac-12 Football Recruiting Rankings

How does OSU’s rankings compare to the Pac 12 conference? After all, most of OSU’s schedule is against conference foes so how the program measures up against conference teams is important.

One way that we might be able to better assess how OSU has fared in recruiting is by comparing the national recruiting ranking of OSU with an index or average of the conference rankings rather than raw position in the ranking standings. The problem with using a positional ranking is that it doesn’t give you the best assessment of strength of OSU’s class relative to the strength of the conference in recruiting.

Below is a sortable table of this data for your consideration:

National Recruiting Rankings (Rivals) for OSU, Pac-10/12, Delta

YearOSU rankPac 12 MeanDelta
20025235-17
20035137-15
20054736-12
20064134-7
20074739-8
20085235-17
20095441-13
20104433-11
20115640-16
20123927-12
20133936-3
20145438-16
20157134-37
20164134-7
Mean4936-14

Compared to the Pac 12 mean national recruiting ranking, OSU averages 14 spots below the conference average in national ranking. How close OSU is to the average might be an indication of the talent level and potential competitiveness. Based on these criteria, the 2016 class ranks historically high in relation to our conference competitors and is tied for 2nd all-time in that category.

How did we get here?

The football that you’re seeing this year has been several years in the making. Nearly all major performance metrics have been trending downward for years. I’ve been reporting on these for some time now with the declines in scoring defense and scoring offense among the most troubling.

Recruiting matters. There are consequences for not recruiting well. OSU’s recruiting has been on a multiyear downward slide in relation to conference peers. It’s not just about us. Our competitors are raising expectations and part of that is improved recruiting. There are now fewer programs ranked below OSU in the conference each year and more above OSU. The graphic below clearly shows the trend (regression trend is dashed line) with regard to OSU’s Rival’s ranking of recruiting within the conference.

Recruiting trends

There’s a reason why this team has seemed smaller, slower, and overall less talented than teams in the past – it is. The 2015 OSU team is drawn from weak recruiting classes and has the lowest average national ranking at 52 of any OSU team since Rivals started their database records in 2002. The Pac-12 average is 35. This is not the fault of the players – they are doing their best given the circumstances of learning a new system of offense and defense all while limited in their innate abilities. Compounding the slide in talent is that some of the team’s most talented players have been injured. Few good things happen when you’re playing backups at multiple critical positions like QB, cornerback, etc.

Coaching matters. Brand new coaching staffs need time to adapt to their environment and their players. New coaches will make mistakes not unlike inexperienced players. OSU’s only winning seasons of the past 5 years, 2012 and 2013, were marked by an unusual number of new coaches heading up programs on the schedule. The Beavers were 6-1 against new coaches over those two years, but were only 9-9 against established coaches. OSU was also 1-0 against an interim coach in the bowl game with Boise State, essentially a new head coach.

This is the start of a multiyear rebuild of the program as I indicated at the start of the season. The rebuild will not be quick because the talent level is low. Few Beaver fans recognized these trends several years ago when critical decisions could have been made to stem the tide. Even fewer fans would have supported those changes. So this rebuild could not have been avoided.

We (coaches, players, and fans) will all suffer in the short term. But I know that we will all be better because of it in the long run.

Football Recruiting Expenses

This is the third article in the series on the financial health of OSU’s athletic department.  In the first two articles, we learned that while football accounts for the majority of athletic department revenues, expenses for the program are less than all of our Pac-12 peers with the exception of WSU.  Football expenses are directly related to recruiting, and the more spent specifically on recruiting more often than not, results in greater success in recruiting. Continue reading

The effect of a good season on recruiting

Oregon State’s national recruiting rankings (Rivals) for the 2013 class were very low prior to the start of the 2012 season (Figure 1).  But the class improved over the course of a 9-win season and really jumped after the announcement that OSU would face Texas in the Alamo Bowl.  OSU’s change in ranking from the pre-season to final ranking was the greatest nationally.  The low pre-season ranking is understandable given the expectations for a team that had garnered only 8 wins in the previous two seasons.

Figure 1.  Pre-season national recruiting rankings and final rankings for the 2013 recruiting class.

Figure 1. Pre-season national recruiting rankings and final rankings for the 2013 recruiting class (click to enlarge).

Continue reading