Facts Support USF's Future Potential

[CRBULL]

I've referred to our recruiting in different threads since the last wave of conference realignment and I've never felt like the point gets across. Here's a graph posted on regressing deadspin that shows exactly what I'm talking about when referring to the potential of USF.

 

I felt the need to post this after seeing some of the crazy comments along the lines of "we shouldn't expect to compete with P5 teams" that followed the NC State and Maryland games. When you look at where we sit among our recruiting peers, on average, that is where you should expect to be competitive - and for USF, when the ship is righted, that includes both those teams and plenty others in the P5.
 
http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522/+benes

http://www.thebullspen.com/gallery/image/206-2014regressingdeadspinexpectedtalentvsrealizedsuccess/

 

 

What does this graph tell us?

• Our recruiting segment (even during sustained poor performance and poor conference affiliation) is comfortably among respected P5 teams
• The red line directly above where we sit in this graph is where an average coach (hopefully Taggart) should be able to take us (into the blue if they are good)
• Wisconsin is the top over-performer in our recruiting segment

 

The section circled in green is where I believe we could move with a couple years of sustained success (8+ wins a year).

 

It's pretty interesting to have a visual summary of all the over and under performers

[BullsFanInTX]

Yes our recruiting segment includes wisconsin nc state louisville tcu baylor rutgers iowa etc. In other words usf has equal talent to these programs if recruiting rankings are to be believed. Usf should dominate the aac.

[jstewholymoly]

And yet,

[DC]

USF can no longer sell being in a BCS conference to recruits. Combine that with the drastic decrease in TV revenue and their rankings, and other Go5 teams, will continue to fall. Well still be near the top when compared to the Go5, but the gap between Go5 and all of the P5 schools will continue to grow.

Edited October 11, 2014 by DC

[Who'sYourData?]

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

[Buller64]

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

 

Actually what it says is that over the 5 year period between 2009 and 2013 the team underperformed. As you may recall three of those years were SkippyKragthorpe. For USF to have fallen down into the upper 50s for average recruiting class, it tells you how poor Skippy was in recruiting. The Jim was above 40 during his year and CWT has been above 50 both years. It really indicates the fall- off in talent and coaching that Skippy demonstrated.

[Breedwell]

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

 

There are some factors that aren't shown on this graph that can modify results. It merely compares two sets of data to create the graph. There's somewhat enough of a line formed out of the data to make some hypothesis, but, correlation doesn't prove causation, after all.

 

For example, USF may not be reaching the full potential of its recruiting bracket due to coaching changes. One can look at this graph and say "Well, Saban, The Hat, Stoops, Meyer, and Spurrier, they all have been with their respectful team for a good while. Teams like USF, Rutgers, UK, and Cal must not be doing well because their head coach has only been around for a couple of years."

 

This statement has some sort of fact behind it, given that Alabama, LSU, OU, OSU, and SCAR all are around the average expected balance between performance and recruiting (OSU is somewhat away from the line, but still). And the other teams I mentioned have all had newer coaches, and all of them are about one full measurement, if not more, below their expected performance output. 

But, we all know that may not necessarily be true. Muschamp has been with UF long enough that he should be doing really well. Likewise for Georgia, Miami, Minnesota, Michigan, Duke.. even Oregon, they've all had either a coach for a long time and haven't really produced, or, they've had a coach for a very short time and have still done well (given their relation to the expected average line). So, the theory that coach longevity = success doesn't necessarily correlate. We can still pull a few plots out of the graph and make a statement like that, though.

 

Perhaps coach longevity may effect results, given the predicament left behind by the past coach. Wassisface at Oregon inherited greatness, so it makes sense that he could easily carry on the success of the program. Likewise, coaches like Taggart and Strong inherited a mess, and their teams have suffered because of it. This also inhibits results, as their positive year is more the outlier compared to the negative years from their predecessors. 

 

 

Wow, I've said way too much about this. lmao.

 

Basically: I wouldn't say our coaching sucks. There's a lot of hidden factors behind the data shown in the graph. Location, coaching, longevity of coaching tenure, SOS, recruiting ability of the coaches, etc. etc. etc.

[Bulls2k]

 

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

 

There are some factors that aren't shown on this graph that can modify results. It merely compares two sets of data to create the graph. There's somewhat enough of a line formed out of the data to make some hypothesis, but, correlation doesn't prove causation, after all.

 

For example, USF may not be reaching the full potential of its recruiting bracket due to coaching changes. One can look at this graph and say "Well, Saban, The Hat, Stoops, Meyer, and Spurrier, they all have been with their respectful team for a good while. Teams like USF, Rutgers, UK, and Cal must not be doing well because their head coach has only been around for a couple of years."

 

This statement has some sort of fact behind it, given that Alabama, LSU, OU, OSU, and SCAR all are around the average expected balance between performance and recruiting (OSU is somewhat away from the line, but still). And the other teams I mentioned have all had newer coaches, and all of them are about one full measurement, if not more, below their expected performance output. 

But, we all know that may not necessarily be true. Muschamp has been with UF long enough that he should be doing really well. Likewise for Georgia, Miami, Minnesota, Michigan, Duke.. even Oregon, they've all had either a coach for a long time and haven't really produced, or, they've had a coach for a very short time and have still done well (given their relation to the expected average line). So, the theory that coach longevity = success doesn't necessarily correlate. We can still pull a few plots out of the graph and make a statement like that, though.

 

Perhaps coach longevity may effect results, given the predicament left behind by the past coach. Wassisface at Oregon inherited greatness, so it makes sense that he could easily carry on the success of the program. Likewise, coaches like Taggart and Strong inherited a mess, and their teams have suffered because of it. This also inhibits results, as their positive year is more the outlier compared to the negative years from their predecessors. 

 

 

Wow, I've said way too much about this. lmao.

 

Basically: I wouldn't say our coaching sucks. There's a lot of hidden factors behind the data shown in the graph. Location, coaching, longevity of coaching tenure, SOS, recruiting ability of the coaches, etc. etc. etc.

 

Watch the games and our game plan and game time adjustment show that our coaching sucks.  I have noticed a nice slow/but steady improvement the last 3 games and I'm optimistic that the trend continues. As always rooting for our Bull's but I'm still waiting for CWT to "do something"....so a little emotion, chew out someone for making a dump mistake, yell at the ref if needed, pat a player on the head....pretend like your the coach.

 

A frustrated Bull.

[Bull94]

USF can no longer sell being in a BCS conference to recruits. Combine that with the drastic decrease in TV revenue and their rankings, and other Go5 teams, will continue to fall. Well still be near the top when compared to the Go5, but the gap between Go5 and all of the P5 schools will continue to grow.

no it won't. it can't. they have a limited # of recruits they can take every year. just like they did before.

 

vandy won't start taking our recruits. neither will northwestern or duke. being in the top 5 conferences doesn't mean they will start getting players we have been signing. if they started paying players(and in some cases loosening their standards) and we couldn't match then maybe you would have a point

[Bull94]

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

anybody who puts any weight into this just doesn't get how recruiting rankings work. you can recruit 10 5 star receivers and finish near the top in rankings. doesn't mean you have a good team.  a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

 

we had 1 scholarship QB on our roster when Taggart arrived. he was so good that he lost his job to a walk-on senior and a option qb transfer.