Does Recruiting Rank Matter?

[bma725]

The 11 doesn't actually include RJax, since they are looking at commitments only, not transfers in, I added him in when talking about Top 50 players. In terms of the the guys that left it would look something like this.....

MU
Consensus: 12 committed, 3 left
Non-Consensus:  7 committed, 5 left

UW
Consensus:  10 committed, 3 left
Non-Consensus:  4 committed, 0 left

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

In the words of the late, great, Ed McMahon:"You are correct, sir!" I could nitpick about your need for qualifiers but a) they're true and b) they're part of your DNA

Yea yea yea... qualifiers. I know.

But, in this case, its in important distinction.

The most talented team doesn't ALWAYS win. The highest ranked recruits aren't ALWAYS the best players. There are a LOT of variables in there.

But, on a macro level, high recruiting rankings = talent. Talent = wins.

[NersEllenson]

Earlier you stated that Wisconsin "has pulled in higher rated recruits than MU under Ryan by quite a bit" while your your succeeding post indicates a virtual dead heat. I think Ners was saying he doesn't see the "big disconnect" you previously suggested, though his misuse of a ? confuses the issue.

This was my point...thanks.  I think where this whole issue got confused was I suggested Chicos become a fan of UW if he was interested in players who aren't high-fliers..but instead hard working, coachable, fundamental..it was a joke as my point was UW rarely has had the high-fliers or athletes..but has been successful.  BMA interpreted my remark to imply that UW hadn't recruited any talent - which isn't what my point was - it was  just that the talent UW has recruited hasn't been the high-flier variety...but it has been successful.

As for the disconnect comment - yes, I was saying that I didn't see there being much difference in the talent levels recruited to MU/UW, and I made that remark in response to BMA's post stating that UW had pulled in higher rated recruits by quite a bit...when as we've seen it virtually has been even.  Just different types of players but both types talented.

[ChicosBailBonds]

To get back to the original question:

The teams with the most talent usually win.

The most talented players are usually ranked the highest.

Yes, recruiting rank matters.

In an individual game, tournament or even season, recruiting rankings don't really matter that much, but on a macro level (over the course of time) recruiting ranking is generally a good indicator.

I would generally agree with this.  Where I think it gets crazy, however, when people start going crazy about having the 19th rated recruiting class vs the 26th ranked recruiting class.   The differences between the two in the minds of some is significant.  In my opinion, the difference may be nothing at all depending on what the makeup is of the class.  Are we talking a few top 20 kids in one class vs 5 kids ranked 50 to 100, etc, etc.  You get the idea.

[Lennys Tap]

I would generally agree with this.  Where I think it gets crazy, however, when people start going crazy about having the 19th rated recruiting class vs the 26th ranked recruiting class.   The differences between the two in the minds of some is significant.  In my opinion, the difference may be nothing at all depending on what the makeup is of the class.  Are we talking a few top 20 kids in one class vs 5 kids ranked 50 to 100, etc, etc.  You get the idea.

Agree. "Margin of error" covers things 19th vs 26th class or 50th vs 80th player. That said, I still don't think the "bucket" theory (1-20, 21-120, and 121-320) holds water.

[jmayer1]

Agree. "Margin of error" covers things 19th vs 26th class or 50th vs 80th player. That said, I still don't think the "bucket" theory (1-20, 21-120, and 121-320) holds water.

I also agree with that thought.  Eventually if you go with the buckets theory, A ~ B ~ C ~ D, thus A ~ D, but the gap between A ~ D can be quite big.  But Chico's is right, not a huge difference in guys not ranked that far apart, but it can get blurry when you keep extrpolating that difference. 

I don't think I explained that point very well at all.