About CFB Matrix

NFL Draft – CFB Development vs. Recruitment

By  |  1 Comment

Click for bigger  image

NFL Draft – CFB Development vs. Recruitment

By Bartoo

3rd Annual Update April 15, 2013

I started adding to the profile of the modern recruiting rank era (2002 forward) and draft pick rankings since then in 2005 when the first group of recruits was eligible.  While the draft does relate back to the college football predictions it may tie together other areas of the Matrix rankings.

For those of you reading the Matrix for the first time, you will find that everything is tied together or related in some way.  It’s just one big rabbit hole with simple and understandable stats that simple help paint a picture and put you on the right side of any ‘odds’ for expected results.

For the NFL draft I am curious as to how many draft picks correlate to CFB teams recruiting rank and how many draftees come out of schools that I have identified having net negative game effect coaching.  Simply put, how good are the overall recruiting ranks and can bad coaching bring talent, even NFL level talent down.

No Surprises – Of the top 10 teams for recruiting ranking over the last decade, 9 of them are in the top 10 for total draft picks.  Like it or not, the recruiting rankings done by Scout, Rivals and ESPN are very solid even 4 year ahead of a draft.  Only non-top 10 recruiter in top 10 of total draft picks – Cal

Great Player Developers – The top teams with guys drafted totals farthest above their average recruiting ranks:

  1. Cincinnati
  2. Utah
  3. Wisconsin
  4. TCU
  5. Boise
  6. Iowa
  7. Cal
  8. Stanford
  • Only Wisconsin, Iowa and Virginia have recruiting rankings above #30 from ’02-’09 and have more than 25 draft picks in the last 7 years.

Worst Top 10 Recruiter – So one team that recruits in the top 10 the last decade is not a top 10 developer of draft picks.  Bad coaches, or bad culture?  Probably both in Ann Arbor, Michigan

Weak Player Development - So we know that recruiting rank is a very good barometer of future NFL draftees.  We have posted the teams with the biggest gap between recruiting rank and draft numbers rank.  How about the other direction?  These are the teams with above average recruiting and way below average number of draft picks over the last 8 years.

  1. Washington
  2. UCLA
  3. Ole Miss
  4. Mississippi State
  5. Texas A&M
  6. Washington State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Oklahoma State
  •  Teams with less than 20 draftees in the last 7 years with recruiting better than #30? Texas A&M, Washington, Arizona State, UCLA, Ole Miss and Maryland

2012 NFL Draft Notes

  • Of the 192 total picks in the 2012 draft, 166 came from teams with winning records in 2011. (86.5%)
  • 19 teams had losing records in 2011 and net NEGATIVE game effect coaches (Matrix rankings).  Those teams had 19 picks or 1.05 picks per team
  • 7 teams had losing records but positive game effect coaches for 1.57 picks per team
  • 24 teams had winning records in ’11 but net negative game effect coaches.  77 draft picks for a 3.20 average
  • 23 teams had winning records in ’11 and POSITIVE game effect coaching in the last 4 years.  84 picks of 3.65 picks per team

CFBMatrix conclusion: Recruiting produces winners and winners produce draft picks.  The wrong program and wrong coach may lessen your odds of being picked in the NFL Draft.  More research on past years is required but the results are interesting enough to give me pause to consider it.

Contact: Dave Bartoo @CFBMatrix on Twitter  Email Dave@CFBMatrix.com 971.244.3041

Current NFL Draft Pick to Recruiting Rank Ratio Matrix

CFB Maven. National Radio Show Guest. The 1st word on CFB thru The Wide-Angle Lens of CFB. Attrition Analytics Consultant & owner of #UpsetAlert & #PaceOfPlay

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: 2013 NFL Draft: Bruins Nation Open Thread | Sportilizer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>