Delaney is a whiny little man bitch.
Kevin | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 6:48 pm | #

excellent article. i disagree that the big 10 had a very good football season in 2006, however. It consisted of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State. Due to how screwy this year was in college football, we don't even really know how good those 3 really were anyway!
Tommy O | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 8:28 pm | #

Jeff,

Great article. I enjoyed the insight and results from the research you did. I would be curious to look in the mirror as well. Notre Dame has always claimed its academic standards as handcuffs for recruiting. If we did the similar research as what you performed for the Big 10, what would we find? Is it truth or imagination when you put hard facts behind it. I imagine it would be somewhere between the two.
rbingham'97 | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 9:15 pm | #

There go you ND people interfering with me appeasing my base by making believable yet baseless statements.

And please stop referring to me as "Al Campanis" for my statements that fast linemen can't possibly qualify for a BigTen school.
Jim D. | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 9:28 pm | #

I think this is a resonable argument ... but maybe the data should be top NFL draft picks rather than top 100 rivals b/c scouting services maybe skewed toward one region over another. Personally, I think this analysis could be benefited by looking at the top 100 players in the draft and what high school/college they attended to see if the regional B10/SEC bias is true.

Cheers.
Frank F. | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 9:51 pm | #

rbingham -

The thought of including ND occurred to me about halfway through the analysis. Instead of re-doing it, I simply added the portion about ND and Southern Cal (I also looked at Texas, but all of their recruits came from TX and I think OK as well).

If I included ND in the analysis, I think you will see ND's success somewhere between the SEC and Big Ten, but more nationwide. ND is going up against the Big Ten in the Midwest, the PAC-10 in the west, and the SEC in the south. To really do the analysis correctly, I'd need some standard academic measure of the recruits (say, SAT scores) to see if poor academic performers were offered or not. But, even without this, it is pretty apparent that players opted for the Big Ten over the SEC rather than being eliminated for academic reasons. All of the major programs pretty much made offers to a similar set of players.

My personal feeling is that the academic issue is generally raised as an excuse for poor recruiting. While not every elite player will meet ND's academic standards, there are plenty of them out there that do.
Jeff | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:09 pm | #

Frank F. I think Jeff did a good job using the rivals top 100. Though not a perfect indicator of recruited talent, I think it beats the NFL draft which (I think) measures the player's college career performance which is more a product of the college's system, coaching and player development than it is a product of what type of talent they are able to recruit up front. In other words, if the SEC kids end up in the NFL draft more than the Big Ten kids, is it because the SEC attracts better recruits or because it does more with the recruits that it has been able to attract?

Now I'm confusing myself. When is kick-off?
Don E. Brook | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:25 pm | #

While I am not sticking up for Delany, the Larry Grant situation was a bit of a stretch that could have been better explained with a little research. He was missing a math class to get into Florida (as a transfer) that OSU did not require. Dont really think that tells us anything about the academic selectiveness of either school. It does tell us that Florida may be a little more selective on transfers...and expect them to know their multiplication tables.
Herringbone | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:26 pm | #

not to nitpick, but the big 10+ was 3-6.
yz | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:31 pm | #

Jeff's article is an excellent example why BGS is my favorite ND-related site.
Voice in the Wilderness | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:42 pm | #

I notice that we finished ahead of the entire Big 10 in recruiting AND in academics this year. Something to feel smug about. :-)

As for using the Rivals rankings to track where the talent is, isn't it possible that the Rivals scouts are skewed toward Texas, California, and the Southeast?

I'd think it would be better to check where NFL players come from. After all, the next Brian Urlacher might be out there crushing opponents in the New Mexico heat, but who's gonna put him in the Rivals list when he's playing out in the sticks somewhere?
Paul | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:46 pm | #

Following up my own post, I found this from usafootball.com:
States with Most NFL Players:

California 206
Florida 177
Texas 175
Ohio 83
Georgia 80
Louisiana 74
Pennsylvania 58
Virginia 56
South Carolina 51
Michigan 49
Alabama 48
New Jersey 46

It largeley confirms Jeff's Rivals list, but with notable additions for the Big 10 argument--Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Looking further, I found a posting from Georgia Sports Blog last summer which ranked the conferences by how many NFL players (2005 rosters) were in each one's recruiting zone:

>>Percent of NFL players by conference in '05

SEC states -- 31.66%
ACC states -- 26.95%
Big East states - 24.35%
Big 10 states -- 20.46%
Big 12 states -- 17.04%
Pac 10 states -- 16.33%

Note: This list isn't saying which conference produces the most NFL players. It's saying which conferences are located in states that produce NFL players. Also, I only included the home states of Big East football playing schools.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 11:07 pm | #

oops! I cut myself off somehow. That last bit wasn't me, that was the quote from the Georgia guy. He didn't say how he handled the dual ACC/SEC states, but I'm guessing a lot of the talent in ACC's 27% of the pool ends up in the SEC column in the end.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 11:11 pm | #

I am selling ND t-shirts out of the back of my car. And cupcakes. enough with the ads, mike.
The Truth | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 9:55 am | #

How much does the talent discrepancy from the Midwest to the South/West have to do with the loss of blue-collar population in the Rust Belt states over the last generation or so? I mean, you hear about these kids from back in the day, sons of factory workers, going to play ball at Penn State, OSU, Michigan, ND. If the factories close, then the dads move down south where it's warm, and all of a sudden you've got Ohio parents with kids who are LSU fans...
BlueDevilDave | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 10:35 am | #

Regarding number of players from certain states - wouldn't you want to control for population? Then we would be able to see if certain states generate more than their fair share of players.

Using 2000 Census data, here's how the states above rank in terms of players/100K population:

State Players/100K Pop. Rank
LA 1.66 22
SC 1.27 26
FL 1.11 4
AL 1.08 23
GA 0.98 10
TX 0.84 2
VA 0.79 12
OH 0.73 12
CA 0.61 1
NJ 0.55 14
MI 0.49 13
PA 0.47 11


This shows that SEC strongholds like FL, SC (wtf?), LA, etc. generate the most NFL players relative to the population of the respective state. Also, high population doesn't correlate with higher normalized numbers (i.e. even though CA is several times more populous than SC, it generates about half as many NFL players/capita).
Big Red | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 10:40 am | #

Oops, formatting didn't work. The column headings are "State", "Players/100K", "Pop. Rank"
Big Red | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 10:41 am | #

In all these numbers, maybe you should look at why SEC schools offer, on average, 8 more scholarships per year than Big Ten schools. Is it because mathematically an SEC school can count on that number of its recruits not qualifying?

Maybe graduation rates or scholastic performance should be studied? Naaah.

You see, when Delaney says "appropriate balances between athletics and academics" he's not referring solely to admissions standards. But I understand how interpretting it that way would give you a basis for this brilliant column.

This superficial "analysis" is a perfect example of knowing just enough to be dangerous -- drawing conclusions, but none meaningful.
Ben | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 10:54 am | #

Ben - If a player doesn't academically qualify for an SEC school, how exactly is that a knock on admissions standards for SEC schools? Perhaps they offer more kids because a number of the kids come from poor high schools and might not be able to qualify for college. That is a indictment on the college prep abilities of the high school (as well as the student of course) more than the college in question.

I wonder if you even read Jeff's post, as he clearly states at the bottom that the Big Ten is the academically superior conference based on undergraduate rankings. All Jeff was saying was that the SEC out-recruited the Big Ten this year and that Delany was silly for responding the way he did.
Pat | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:31 am | #

The internet vs. Jim Delaney.

ESPN would never go after this guy, as much as we wish they would. No one regional authority should control this much.

Need a CFB Czar.
HMFIC | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:33 am | #

Gone are the days when a team made up exclusively of players from Ohio or Pennsylvania can dominate college football. Gone are the days when a team exclusively from Ohio or Pennsylvania can dominate college football.
marchand chronicles | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:34 am | #

Yep. Too many edits. Thanks MM.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:36 am | #

Ben, did you miss the part where Delany says, "It seems premature for us to lower our admission standards..."? Or the context in which "an appropriate balance when mixing academics and athletics" was uttered?
Jay | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:40 am | #

Paul-

It looks like in your assessment of ND being ahead of the whole big int in recruiting and academics, you forgot about Northwestern. Also, you forgot about Poland.
dave | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 12:26 pm | #

Pat,

I think by saying that since 8 more scholarship athletes won't qualify for an SEC school means that those SEC admissions standards are high (or good, or whatever) is disingenous as best.

Delaney's letter was probably an overreaction to a no-reaction situation. I doubt many people would quarrel with that. But, if I might disagree, I don't think the letter was in response to being "out-recruited." It was in response to a Chicago Tribune article (maybe Sun Times?) declaring the Big Ten in decline and a second rate conference to the SEC.

All in all, whether you agree with its necessity, Delaney's message, and the supporting facts, are clear. The SEC recruits more tree stumps than the Big Ten. But the Big Ten's athletic performance is comparable over the last decade.

Can you disagree with that?
Ben | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 1:33 pm | #

Jay (my favorite nd martyr),

Academic admissions standards, more often than not, foretell academic performance.

Linking the two (and the respective data) in a discussion of recruiting and academics is not exactly unproductive. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that Delaney intended that link:

"... each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends."

"Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university."

In fact, using the two things that go hand-in-hand might lend some depth to the otherwise shallow "analysis."
Ben | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 1:41 pm | #

Ben, you're confused on Delany's point. No one's going to argue that the Big 10 collectively isn't a notch higher academically-speaking than the SEC. What Delany's saying is that the Big 10, because of its academic superiority, can't recruit many of the same football players that the SEC can. The snapshot of the Rivals 100 clearly disputes this claim -- many of the top players in the country had B10 offers but simply chose to go to the SEC instead.

Wetzel said it best:

In a statement more loaded than Florida's recruiting class, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany this week claimed that when it comes to procuring football players his league is more ethical and academically minded than the Southeastern Conference.

Here's what it sounded like he was saying: His league won't compromise its supposed high academic standards to sign a bunch of fast, dumb guys, especially at a position that in the SEC is overwhelmingly played by blacks.

That, apparently, is one reason the SEC signed seven of the top 10 classes nationally according to Rivals.com, the Big Ten got none and Delany lost his mind.

Delany is delusional.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 2:14 pm | #

And Ben, you bring up graduation rates as a "less superficial" metric. Let's look at grad rates for the B10 vs the SEC (per the NCAA's '06 report).

http://www.bluegraysky.com/GSR-B...GSR-B10- SEC.xls

SEC average
African-American GSR: 50.50
Total Program GSR: 59.67

Big 10 average
African-American GSR: 55.09
Total Program GSR: 65.27

So the B10 is about 5% better. I can see why you're so up in arms.

By the way, the worst performer of any school in both conferences for black football players was Ohio State (32 GSR).
Jay | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 2:51 pm | #

No offense, but using outdated statistics to reference a point that is being made about a current ocurrence of recruiting versus academics hardly proves a point....or puts out a reasonable perspective

If you are using NCAA's '06 report, then you need to compare those numbers against the recruiting numbers from the same period, you need to align your numbers to prove a point...but then again recruiting numbers are totally subjective anyway...

The bottom line is that you (everyone) are proving your point with totally subjective recruiting data and "out of date" GSR numbers, which mean nothing for the year 2006.

Awesome...maybe you guys can find some non-correlated data pools that will tell us why ND Hockey is actually winning games this year. That would be more believable than the Big11-SEC recruiting academic comparisons. Sorry guys, but this post and subsequent comments is why almost every MBA student (at any school) has to read "How to Lie with Statistics."
Herringbone | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 4:44 pm | #

Herringbone, I think you're making it way more complicated than it is.

In the first example you reference, Delany made some statements that really don't hold up to scrutiny.

In the second example, Ben made a comment that comparing grad rates between the conferences would be instructive. I did so, and found not a great divide between the two.

That's all. It's no big thing.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 6:39 pm | #

Just to clarify something. In no way am I saying that I have statistically compared the academic standards of the two conferences or the academic performance of their recruits.

What I am saying is that the Big Ten offered scholarships to basically the same set of players as the SEC, and that those players chose the SEC by an 80-20 majority. I give evidence to support this claim. Absent any quantifiable academic data, the "SEC outrecruited the Big Ten" argument seems a much more reasonable interpretation of what happened than the "Big Ten is limited by their academic standards" argument.
Jeff | Email | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 8:40 pm | #

Jay...not a big deal at all. I personally think that Delaney is crazy saying anything at all. I think Delaney was putting out the political feelers on the over-recruiting with a dependency based on attrition concept. You know...the old I am going to recruit 30 guys every year knowing that 50 - 60% will not make the academic cut. I think that Delaney is starting to lay the foundation (plant the seed...so to speak) to push to outlaw that type of recruiting practice. If he can get the NCAA to go along with the idea of not allowing that type of recuiting behavior without some reprecussion the SEC would actually have to fish with a fishing pole instead of a net the size of Rhode Island...imo
Herringbone | Email | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 1:13 am | #

Hold your heads high, Irish! You can't hand with the big boys on Saturday afternoons, but your back up left tackle carries a 3.7 gpa. It must be tough on you with the NBC contract and all. Thank God for ND! They are the glue that holds our society together. It's football, people. What was Julius Jones gpa at ND? Lets see some spread sheets on that. Recruit some defense and shut up already.
Steve C. | Email | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 1:56 pm | #

All of this recruiting "malpractice" has got me super upset. And comments about Steve C. (above) makes it even worse. What happened to the sanctity of the student athlete? Why is ND criticized for not being a national power when we try to win the right way, when we care about our student athletes, when our athletic program doesn't use them for four years to make money before casting them back into society with no degree or preparation for the real world (obviously this is a generalization). We try and do it right, and I'll take coming up short on the field a few times to continue doing it right. The comment "If you think that stuff doesn't go on at ND you're crazy" is just jealous ranting by fans from other schools attempting to justify the winning at all costs attitude their schools promote.
Anthony P. | Email | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 4:07 pm | #

Thank God we didn't join that mess. Abolish the Faculty Senate.
jakester | Email | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 8:46 am | #

Actual data up at MGoBlog and EDSBS.

Or you could just stick with Larry Grant Analysis.
Ben | Email | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 3:10 pm | #

Ben, what exactly is your problem.

The "actual data" shows that the SEC offers more scholarships than the Big 10. Does that surprise anyone? And does it accurately prove anything?

Seriously, did you miss the part of our post that said that the Big 10 was academically superior to the SEC? Why are you so upset that we think that the Big 10 is a better academic conference but in this particular year didn't recruit as well as the SEC?
Pat | Email | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 3:55 pm | #