Last week,
@KevinWerner shared with me a tweet showing the the top ten programs with the most current NFL players, and what their average recruiting class rank was for the last 10 years.
It was interesting, but I saw some flaws in the methodology. For example... the time frame was off. A school's last 3 classes won't have produced ANY NFL players yet. So Texas A&M, which bought a couple of great classes when NIL opened up, would in fact look a lot worse at producing NFL players than they were. Also, average rank of recruiting class can leave a number that is skewed by one outlier class. For example, Michigan's 2015 recruiting class (using Rivals data) was ranked 37th. Now, that was in part due to low average quality, but also low quantity - we only signed 14 that year. We made the numbers up on the following class, but that #37 skewed our average rank and painted a false picture of the entirety of our recruiting.
So I decided to try to gauge which of the big programs were getting the most bang for their recruiting buck in a more accurate way.
I started by determining who were the top 15 recruiting powers just based on total recruiting points from 2010-2019. That's the relevant time frame for producing
current NFL players.
Here were the top 14 recruiting powers (meant to do 15, would have had to calculate several more to figure out who 15th was) for the 2010's, based on total accumulation of recruiting points:
1. Georgia
2. Alabama
3. Florida
4. Florida State
5. LSU
6. USC
7. Ohio State
8. Auburn
9. Texas
10. Oklahoma
11. Notre Dame
12. Clemson
13. Michigan
14. Texas A&M
The next thing I did was look at the number of current NFL players for each of these programs, and calculate an average recruiting points-per-NFL player. Obviously the lower the average, the better. This will show how efficiently programs are turning the raw material of recruited talent into finished products drawing an NFL paycheck.
Granted, this is a bit of a blunt instrument, as it doesn't factor in average draft position, but it's still going to be directionally informative.
Here is what we have...
| PTS | CURR NFL | AVG |
Bama | 27030 | 57 | 474.21 |
Georgia | 28334 | 59 | 480.24 |
OSU | 23319 | 48 | 485.81 |
Michigan | 20176 | 38 | 530.95 |
LSU | 24157 | 43 | 561.79 |
Clemson | 21670 | 37 | 585.68 |
Notre Dame | 21732 | 34 | 639.18 |
Oklahoma | 21867 | 32 | 683.34 |
Texas | 22063 | 30 | 735.43 |
Florida | 26285 | 35 | 751.00 |
Auburn | 23166 | 26 | 891.00 |
Texas A&M | 20697 | 23 | 899.87 |
USC | 24476 | 27 | 906.52 |
FSU | 24490 | 21 | 1166.19 |
So what does this tell us?
It's tells us that USC and FSU are recruiting powers who have done a dreadful job of developing scads of high school talent into NFL players.
(FSU is a little weird here, though, as even though they have inefficiently developed NFL players, they have won a National Championship in this span, and went unbeaten this year and might have won another but for Travis' injury. Normally winning games and production of NFL talent track together; for some reason they diverged somewhat with FSU.)
It tells us that Michigan, under Harbaugh, has done much better than most of the big programs at refining raw material into finished products.
It also tells us that the schools we consider football factories - Bama, Georgia, Ohio State - are not just "buying" lots of HS studs and that's why they win. Because USC and Florida are doing the same without the same on-field results.
The numbers show that Saban, Smart and Meyer/Day have also been the best at development, too.
Now, keep in mind: among the schools with the most NFL players are Penn State (7th most), Iowa (10th most), Washington (12th), Oregon (14th), Stanford (15th) and Ole Miss (16th).
None of these programs are top 15 recruiting powers from the 2010's - and only Penn State and Oregon are top 20.
If we were to do their average recruiting points-per-NFL player, PSU, Iowa, Oregon and Washington would come out ahead of even Bama and Georgia. This happens because they give so many more 3* a chance to hit - they have no choice.
The anti-"star gazing" crowd wants to tell you that stars don't matter, that it all comes down to coaching.
But guess what? Iowa, Stanford, Penn State, Ole Miss... they coach the shit out of their guys, get a good number of them on to the NFL... but don't win anything.
The truth - which is borne out in every honest and sensibly carried-out analysis - is that stars do matter.
And coaching matters. This is not an either/or. Want to win at the highest level? You have to do both: bring in tons of highly-rated talent AND coach them up at an elite level.
Getting a ton of highly-regarded HS talent doesn't guarantee you anything.
But NOT getting a ton of highly-regarded HS talent all but guarantees you won't win at the highest level.
4 of the top 15 recruiting powers from 2010-2019 have won 8 of the last 10 national championships. The other 2 were won by #12 recruiter Clemson, but if we ranked the recruiting powers by average points PER recruit, Clemson would be in the top five. They traditionally have small classes because they have the lowest attrition of any of the major powers. Guys just don't transfer out of there.
The upshot:
You can be a good, solid program without being a top ten recruiting power, if you're really well coached.
You will, however, rarely if ever compete for a national title.
The programs who win National Championships are the best recruiters AND the best developers.
One or the other doesn't do it.