printer-friendly
talk about it
Football Recruiting - A Different Type of Analysis
Part 1: Head-to-Head Recruiting

by Phil Martin, 6/1/05

Football recruiting – the one topic that can lead to endless debate since no true winners or losers exist when looking at the signings on the first Wednesday in February. Players that signed elsewhere suddenly become “overrated” and sleepers are bountiful in every school’s recruiting class. Every fan has his or her favorite players and each class seemingly will have the answers for the team’s current weaknesses. Many signees will have an immediate chance for helping in the eyes of fans, no matter how unrealistic those expectations may actually be. Rankings of players will be mulled over and the “astrology” buffs will be counting stars in an attempt to see the recruiting class in the brightest light possible.

Recruiting has been a natural topic for message boards since so many opinions exist and no true means for evaluating and comparing recruiting classes has been developed. However, there is one simple means for comparing recruiting classes that, while statistically not valid, does provide a quantitative means for comparing the signing classes of different schools.

Why not look at the players offered by two schools and then compare the number that signed with each? If Virginia Tech and Virginia offered 43 common players and 11 signed with Tech as opposed to 5 signing with UVA, wouldn’t it seem that VT won the recruiting battle head-to-head? Maybe or maybe not, but at least it provides a quantitative method for comparison.

This article is the first of a series of four that takes a more quantitative look at recruiting and may lead to some interesting conclusions when looking at Virginia Tech’s football recruiting. In this article, I will take a comparative look at how Tech stacks up against its recruiting competition head-to-head. The second article will provide an analysis of recruiting by location and regional trends. The third article will provide a positional analysis of recruiting classes and ability to meet recruiting needs, while the fourth article presents a quantitative analysis of the current (2005) recruiting class and provides an evaluation of Tech’s success in meeting current needs.

Data from the last four years will be used to provide some comparison over time and to see if Tech’s recruiting patterns have changed since acceptance into the ACC. If nothing else, the different statistics will provide some new data for debate.

In this article (and the ones that follow), I discuss recruiting years in terms of the school year. For example, while most people would refer to the "2005 recruiting class," I call it the "2004-05" recruiting class, culminating in signing day in February 2005. Some players now graduate early and enroll in the spring semester, so I wanted to be technically correct and mention the school year.

So, how did Tech do head-to-head against their new ACC brethren in 2004-05 recruiting? Head-to-head Tech was 63-32 against ACC teams and did not have a losing record against any other ACC school. Obviously, winning the ACC championship translated over to recruiting. In fact, Tech only lost the head-to-head recruiting battle with three schools (Ohio State [1-2], Auburn [1-2], and Georgia [2-3]) in which more than one player signed with either school. Based on a head-to-head comparison, Tech enjoyed an exceptional recruiting class.

Looking at the head-to-head comparison may disprove some common perceptions on recruiting as well. UVA is Tech’s biggest recruiting competition, right? Well, based on the most common offers, Virginia would actually be third. North Carolina has had the most common offers over the last two years (2003-04 and 2004-05) and Maryland is second. The fourth team this year – Syracuse – surprised me, since the Orange are obviously not in the same geographic region, though the state of Virginia has become a targeted area for the Cuse. N.C. State was fifth, followed closely by long-time recruiting foe Tennessee.

The following table displays the head-to-head records for all schools offering the same players as Virginia Tech in the last year. The “Won” column indicates the number of players offered by an opposing school that signed with Tech. The “Lost” column shows the number of players signing with the opposing school that VT had offered. The “Neither” column displays common offers for players that signed with another school. Note that not all known offers are reported, so the records cannot be complete as to total offers. Also, only written “official” offers are counted based on recruiting reports. If doubt exists as to an offer, then I tend to be conservative on counting the offer.

Table 1 - 2004-2005 Head-to-Head Recruiting Records
(sorted by conference, and by total offers within conference)

Conf.

School

Won

Lost

Neither

Total Offers

ACC

North Carolina

11

4

34

49

Maryland

10

7

30

47

Virginia

11

5

26

42

N.C. State

8

6

22

36

Clemson

5

2

26

33

Florida State

4

4

18

26

Wake Forest

5

2

15

22

Miami

2

1

18

21

Duke

3

0

16

19

Boston College

1

1

17

19

Georgia Tech

3

0

10

13

Overall ACC

63 32  (.663)  

SEC

Tennessee

7

3

25

35

Florida

5

2

21

28

South Carolina

3

2

17

22

Georgia

2

3

14

19

LSU

1

0

15

16

Vanderbilt

2

0

13

15

Auburn

1

2

10

13

Alabama

1

0

12

13

Kentucky

1

1

6

8

Mississippi State

2

0

6

8

Mississippi

1

0

5

6

Arkansas

0

0

4

4

Overall SEC 26 13 (.667)  

BIG TEN

Penn State

6

3

20

29

Michigan

4

4

15

23

Michigan State

2

0

17

19

Ohio State

1

2

14

17

Iowa

1

0

13

14

Wisconsin

1

0

11

12

Purdue

0

0

10

10

Northwestern

1

0

8

9

Indiana

1

0

7

8

Illinois

0

1

4

5

Minnesota

1

0

3

4

Overall Big Ten 18 10  (.642)  

BIG EAST

Syracuse

12

1

28

41

West Virginia

8

1

20

29

Pittsburgh

2

0

19

21

Rutgers

1

0

18

19

Connecticut

3

0

14

17

Louisville

2

1

5

8

South Florida

0

0

2

2

Overall Big East 28 3 (.903)  

BIG 12

Nebraska

5

1

22

28

Oklahoma

2

2

14

18

Kansas State

3

0

5

8

Colorado

0

0

3

3

Texas

0

0

3

3

Oklahoma State

0

0

2

2

Overall Big 12 10 3 (.769)  

PAC 10

Southern Cal

1

1

11

13

UCLA

2

0

6

8

Stanford

0

1

3

4

Arizona State

0

0

2

2

Overall PAC 10 3 2  (.600)  

CUSA

East Carolina

2

0

10

12

Marshall

3

0

4

7

Central Florida

0

0

2

2

Memphis

0

1

1

2

Southern Miss

0

0

2

2

Overall CUSA 5 1  (.830)  

IND

Army

2

0

2

4

Notre Dame

0

0

15

15

Overall IND 2 0  (1.000)  

MAC

Temple

1

0

7

8

Kent State

2

0

4

6

Akron

1

0

1

2

Buffalo

0

0

2

2

Ball State

1

0

0

1

Overall MAC 5 0  (1.000)  

SUN BELT

MTSU

1

0

2

3

 

Other

0

0

14

14

TOTALS

162

64

744

970

Note: Overall winning percentage is .717.

Obviously, Tech did very well last year, but the record that jumped out at me was how well the Hokies did against the Big East schools (28-3), so the move to the ACC had a big impact on recruiting against the Hokies' former conference.

Now to put this year’s recruiting record in perspective, I have compiled the head-to-head records for the last four years to look more closely at recent trends in recruiting for Virginia Tech.

Table 2 - Head-to-Head Recruiting Records for the Last Four Years
(sorted by conference, and by total offers within conference)

Conf.

School

2004-2005

2003-2004

2002-2003

2001-2002

Total

Pct.

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

 
ACC

Virginia

11

5

4

3

8

5

8

5

31

18

.63

Maryland

10

7

7

1

12

3

6

1

35

12

.74

N.C. State

8

6

4

6

7

5

4

0

23

17

.58

UNC

11

4

8

2

6

2

2

3

27

11

.71

Florida State

4

4

0

3

4

0

3

6

11

13

.46

Clemson

5

2

7

0

3

0

2

3

17

5

.77

Miami

2

1

1

4

1

3

2

4

6

12

.33

Wake Forest

5

2

2

0

5

1

2

0

14

3

.82

BC

1

1

3

1

4

1

1

0

9

3

.75

Duke

3

0

3

0

2

0

1

0

9

0

1.0

Ga. Tech

3

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

6

0

1.0

SEC

Tennessee

7

3

5

3

7

0

4

3

23

9

.72

Florida

5

2

0

4

3

1

4

4

12

11

.52

S. Carolina

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

7

6

.54

Georgia

2

3

0

0

1

0

3

1

6

4

.60

Alabama

1

0

1

1

2

0

1

1

5

2

.71

LSU

1

0

1

0

2

1

0

1

4

2

.67

Auburn

1

2

0

0

1

1

0

1

2

4

.33

Mississippi

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

3

0

1.0

Vanderbilt

2

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

3

1

.75

Kentucky

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

2

2

.50

Miss. State

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

1.0

Arkansas

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

BIG TEN

Penn State

6

3

0

3

4

4

1

3

11

13

.46

Michigan

4

4

2

4

2

1

3

0

11

9

.55

Ohio State

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

5

6

.46

Mich. State

2

0

1

2

1

0

2

0

6

2

.75

Purdue

0

0

2

1

1

2

1

1

4

4

.50

Iowa

1

0

2

1

0

1

0

0

3

2

.60

Wisconsin

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

3

2

.60

Indiana

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

1.0

Minnesota

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

1.0

Illinois

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

.67

Northwestern

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

1.0

BIG EAST

WVU

8

1

2

1

5

1

8

1

23

4

.85

Syracuse

12

1

3

0

5

0

2

0

22

1

.96

Pittsburgh

2

0

2

1

4

1

4

0

12

2

.86

Rutgers

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

0

6

1

.86

Connecticut

3

0

2

0

1

1

0

0

6

1

.86

Louisville

2

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

4

2

.67

USF

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

1.0

Cincinnati

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1.0

BIG 12

Nebraska

5

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

7

3

.70

Oklahoma

2

2

0

2

0

0

0

2

2

6

.25

Kansas State

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

1.0

Colorado

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

Missouri

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

Texas A&M

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

.00

PAC 10

Southern Cal

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

2

2

.50

UCLA

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

.67

Arizona

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

1.0

Oregon

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

Washington

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

Wash. State

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

Stanford

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

.00

CUSA

East Carolina

2

0

3

0

8

0

2

0

15

0

1.0

Marshall

3

0

2

0

2

0

2

0

9

0

1.0

UCF

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

Memphis

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

.00

IND

Notre Dame

0

0

0

1

0

5

2

4

2

10

.17

Army

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1.0

MAC

Temple

1

0

3

0

1

0

1

0

6

0

1.0

Kent State

2

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

6

0

1.0

Akron

1

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

1.0

Toledo

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1.0

Ohio

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

1.0

C. Michigan

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

1.0

Ball State

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

W. Michigan

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

E. Michigan

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

OTHERS

UNLV

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

MTSU

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1.0

TOTALS

2004-2005

2003-2004

2002-2003

2001-2002

Total

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

 

162

64

91

50

135

43

80

54

468

211

 
.717 .645 .758 .597

.690

 

Virginia Tech’s most troublesome recruiting opponent in recent years has been Notre Dame (2-10). The Hokies have lost their share of battles with Miami (6-12) and Oklahoma (2-6) as well, but given the status of those programs, that can’t be considered a surprise. The one team that Tech has consistently beaten head-to-head in recruiting that really surprised me was Tennessee. VT has received the signature for 72% of the players deciding between the Vols and Hokies in the last four years. Also, I was surprised at Tech’s success against SEC schools overall (71-41). As Tech ventures more into South Carolina and Georgia, it will be interesting to track how well Tech does in those areas against the SEC.

While the head-to-head records give some perspective on Tech’s success in recruiting, these statistics don’t really disclose any changes in recent trends. Now that Tech is a member in the ACC, have the Hokies’ recruiting opponents changed? How has the change in focus on the ACC states – North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia – changed VT’s recruiting competition?

The following table shows the number of common offers over the last four years so that we can analyze the changes in recruiting patterns more closely. All of the North Carolina and South Carolina schools (highlighted in aqua) have shown a dramatic increase in common offers over the last two years, so the obvious change in recruiting competition due to the increased focus on these states has occurred. Two years ago (2002-03), the Hokies had 104 common offers with the NC and SC schools; last year it was 193, an increase of 85.6%.

However, no change in pattern can be detected from the Georgia schools (highlighted in yellow), though Tech only began to recruit the Peach state last year. Four years ago, the Hokies had 42 common offers with the Georgia schools; since then it has been 20, 28, and 32.

Also, Tech did not focus on the state of Florida last year for the first time, but the pattern for the major Florida schools did not appear to change, though the smaller Florida schools (UCF and USF) saw the number of common offers drop. I would have to assume that the patterns are similar for Georgia and Florida because the major schools still recruit a common area with Virginia Tech, i.e., the ACC states.

Table 3 - Common Offers for the Last Four Years

School

2004-2005

2003-2004

2002-2003

2001-2002

Total

Maryland

47

30

33

25

135

UNC

49

39

21

25

134

Virginia

42

32

29

28

131

Tennessee

35

33

23

24

115

N.C. State

36

30

24

24

114

WVU

29

22

20

28

99

Syracuse

41

23

23

11

98

Pittsburgh

21

26

23

24

94

Florida

28

20

11

31

90

BC

19

26

25

18

88

Penn State

29

16

22

19

86

Mich. State

19

25

19

22

85

Clemson

33

20

11

19

83

Michigan

23

22

12

20

77

Miami

21

19

11

21

72

S. Carolina

22

21

12

16

71

Florida State

26

16

10

18

70

Rutgers

19

16

13

16

64

Notre Dame

15

16

12

21

64

Ga. Tech

13

16

11

22

62

Wake Forest

22

15

14

10

61

Georgia

19

12

9

20

60

Ohio State

17

21

8

14

60

Nebraska

28

11

7

11

57

Duke

19

19

11

7

56

Purdue

10

17

8

15

50

Iowa

14

19

13

3

49

LSU

16

8

8

15

47

East Carolina

12

15

11

4

42

Wisconsin

12

16

4

9

41

Connecticut

17

9

9

4

39

Oklahoma

18

12

2

5

37

Temple

8

10

12

7

37

Auburn

13

7

2

14

36

Vanderbilt

15

9

8

3

35

Alabama

13

7

2

12

34

Southern Cal

13

5

7

7

32

Indiana

8

8

10

5

31

Northwestern

9

9

7

5

30

UCLA

8

8

8

2

26

Kentucky

8

5

2

7

22

Marshall

7

4

5

4

20

Illinois

5

10

3

2

20

UCF

2

6

5

7

20

Kansas State

8

6

0

4

18

Louisville

8

4

3

3

18

Mississippi

6

6

5

1

18

USF

2

7

2

7

18

Minnesota

4

7

5

1

17

Stanford

4

6

3

2

15

Kent State

6

7

1

0

14

Arkansas

4

3

2

5

14

Colorado

3

5

4

1

13

Miss. State

8

1

1

0

10

MTSU

3

3

1

2

9

Texas

3

2

2

2

9

Akron

2

5

2

0

9

Cincinnati

1

3

3

1

8

Oregon

1

3

3

0

7

Toledo

0

5

2

0

7

Missouri

0

0

1

5

6

South. Miss

2

0

0

3

5

Kansas

1

2

1

1

5

Army

4

0

0

0

4

Memphis

2

0

0

2

4

Oregon State

0

3

1

0

4

Buffalo

0

1

2

1

4

Arizona

0

0

2

2

4

TCU

1

1

0

1

3

W. Michigan

1

1

0

1

3

Ohio

0

1

1

1

3

Baylor

0

1

0

2

3

Miami (OH)

0

1

0

2

3

UAB

0

1

0

2

3

Arizona St.

2

0

0

0

2

Texas Tech

1

1

0

0

2

Navy

1

1

0

0

2

Ball State

1

1

0

0

2

Utah

1

0

1

0

2

E. Michigan

1

0

1

0

2

C. Michigan

0

1

1

0

2

Texas A&M

0

1

0

1

2

BYU

0

1

0

1

2

Tulane

0

1

0

1

2

Washington

0

0

2

0

2

SMU

0

0

1

1

2

Bowl. Green

1

0

0

0

1

LA-Monroe

1

0

0

0

1

LA-Lafayette

1

0

0

0

1

UTEP

1

0

0

0

1

California

0

1

0

0

1

Colorado St.

0

1

0

0

1

San Diego St

0

1

0

0

1

Houston

0

1

0

0

1

Rice

0

1

0

0

1

Wash. State

0

0

1

0

1

UNLV

0

0

1

0

1

Hawaii

0

0

1

0

1

TOTAL

970

837

595

683

3085

The next article will analyze the regional recruiting trends in more detail by breaking down offers from Tech by geographic location. Some interesting changes have occurred in the Hokies’ recruiting focus in the last year and I’ll have an initial measure of the success of these recruiting strategies.

TSL Pass Home

TSL Home



var mep1="&site=techsideline.com§ion=football&pageName=TSLPassArticle429";