Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Lou_C, post: 809702, member: 3201"]
Really?
 
From [url]http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/star-power-defense-recruiting-rankings-214251813.html[/url]
 
"2011 was not a banner year for the usual suspects — Ohio State turned in a losing record for the first time in well over a decade; Florida and Texas barely struggled past .500 — and a great one for middle-of-the-pack recruiters like Arkansas, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Stanford and Wisconsin. Still, on the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won more than two-thirds of the time (68.7 percent of the time, to be exact), and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it. The gap on the field also widened with the gap in the recruiting scores: At the extremes, "one-star" and "two-star" recruiting teams managed just five wins over "five-star" recruiters — four of them coming at the expense of Florida State and Texas — in 31 tries.
It's a simple equation: The better your recruiting rankings by the gurus, the better your chances of winning games, against all classes. Emphasis on the word [I]chances[/I] — the counterexamples are obvious and legion in both directions. But as far as forming a reasonable basis for predictions, well, it probably goes without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies."
 
That doesn't answer that hypothesis?  Either you didn't read it, or I don't understand your hypothesis.  I did go to FSU, so that could be.
 
There's plenty of data support for the idea that teams with higher rated recruits win more often.  There's no data other than the anectdotal or occasional anomaly to suggest otherwise.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?