forums

Interesting study on player development

DMoney

DMoney

D-Moni
Administrator
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
18,820
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
 
Advertisement
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...

We’ve had some ****** QBs and depth issues here and there but there is no doubt we have talent every year most teams would kill to have. Coaching changes/schemes been a detriment as well.
 
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...


I would also add:

(3) Miami coaches are not successful enough at skills development, thus creating situations where obviously talented HS players do not maximize the 3-5 years of college coaching, yet are able to re-engage with superior NFL coaching and play for 1-10 additional years at a higher level.

and

(4) many SoFla kids that Miami signs allow an expectation (which may be true on the part of the coaches as well) that 3-5 years at Miami, with its longtime culture and history of alums in the NFL, will somehow magically transform them into NFL-draft-level talent, but have actually lost sight of the specifics of what prior coaches and players actually DID to produce those results.
 
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...

Wow Texas 30th... ive said Mack Brown is a good recruiter but has always done less with more
 
Advertisement
There are a few things that could be adjusted to make this study better IMO.

1. Instead of grouping all top247 kids together they should give linear weights based on their composite score (a 99/top 10 player is not the same as a 90/fringe 4 star player)

2. They could use this as well as a sliding scale in the draft to compare how kids were drafted based on HS projections. Kids who are 5 stars are supposed to go on day 1 or 2.

3. They can give negative points for teams that had a top247 kid and he did not get drafted, or got drafted lower than his HS projection. This would give a better representation of who is "wasting" talent.

4. More data points would be useful, although I understand recruiting rankings are not as precise the farther you go back.
 
Look at number 6, 7, 9 and 11. What do we see that’s odd about the 247 recruit numbers, draft percentage, and how they relate to the individual ranking?
 
Advertisement
If they calculate recruiting rankings with players drafted regardless of rounds we would be first.
They should also perform an analysis of the percentage of recruits that were highly rated that never made the league. This is not a developmental analysis. This is a results analysis. This is the type of sht done to make the obvious seem like some magic osu bama effect. If you get 3-4 top 100 players at every position it’s safe to say you will get quite a few to the nfl and they will likely get picked early.
Now if theyre was a school getting players to the league that no one ever thought would make it and
do it at a higher clip, then we would likely be in the top 5 of that list.
Speaking of Texas, they benched Colbert and we got him in the league. But we don’t develop right?
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
This really says nothing about actual development. It's just a compilation of data that they labelled as development when that data doesn't actually reveal anything about development.
Click to expand...
Fake *** list that says nothing about getting a 3 star or lower rated kid and “developing” him into an nfl player.
How hard is it gonna be for Oregon to make Flowe a first rounder? Stupid *** list.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
We aren’t 11th best in America in developing talent. We are “value pick U.” The NFL loves our guys bc they underperform or are criminally misused here and they can get a talented kid really late.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. To me, the takeaway is that we are very good (relative to the rest of the country) at avoiding busts but need more homeruns and more seniors.
 
Advertisement
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...
That’s insane especially when you sum up the following:
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...
That’s insane because if you sum the following:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.

we’d probably be ranked number 1 in termsof people who don’t complete the program. for the last 15 years I’d say 40-50% of our signing class doesn’t make it. That Id argue is killing our program more more than anything. It kills depth and competition amongst positions. Cupboard is never stocked.
 
pacusmc said:
Fake *** list that says nothing about getting a 3 star or lower rated kid and “developing” him into an nfl player.
How hard is it gonna be for Oregon to make Flowe a first rounder? Stupid *** list.
Click to expand...

It also assumes that the 247 assessment of the player is accurate. In other words, if the player didn’t make it into early rounds, it’s a development issue not a poor ratings issue.
 
pacusmc said:
Fake *** list that says nothing about getting a 3 star or lower rated kid and “developing” him into an nfl player.
How hard is it gonna be for Oregon to make Flowe a first rounder? Stupid *** list.
Click to expand...
Dumbest **** around done to pander to the rednecks in the fanbases that are their biggest subscribers. Yeah, Cletus! We is the best at developing too!!
 
The Franchise said:
This really says nothing about actual development. It's just a compilation of data that they labelled as development when that data doesn't actually reveal anything about development.
Click to expand...

Yep. When you remove players who were dismissed, players who didn't qualify, players who retired, and players who transferred, you are isolating out a massive part of the "development" equation, particularly for UM, which has, what at least feels to be, an extremely high bust rate.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top