SCIENCE!
Football, and more specifically, college football, is the greatest game there is. What makes it the greatest game, you ask? The reason football is the greatest game is because of the ball itself. The ball is shaped oddly and when it touches the ground it does funny things. Even an expert football player, someone who’s spent their entire life playing the game, often loses control of the ball [see: Wilson, John Parker]. It’s unwieldly and uncontrollable, like the game itself. A football isn’t round, so it’s not like other games. Round ball games are for pussies. You drop a round ball and it comes back to you. You drop a football and you don’t know what it will do. This uncertainty is why college football is the most beautiful game, and largely because of its uncertainty, many would say this year was the most beautiful college football season of all. The twists and turns started in January, still haven’t let up, and we’re only now approaching bowl season. Buried in all of this uncertainty, deep in the bowels of the game, is science. What is this science of which I speak? The cold, hard, indisputable science of recruiting. And buried within this science is the lab of mad scientist Joe Wetzel. In his lab, he’s done the impossible. He’s broken down recruiting class ranks and compared them to actual football results. If you’ve wondered how good of a job your school does with what they have - Joe Wetzel has the answers. He breaks down all the major conferences, and the Big East. Discuss if you will, but remember, this is science and therefore cannot be disputed.
1
So is rugby also the greatest game ever?
Comment by Jonathan — December 5, 2025 @ 3:45 pm
2
Notre Dame - second most under achieving team in the country. Right behind the U.
Charlie Weiss is, indeed, a fat retarded slob. And the worst football coach in the universe.
Comment by The Humanitarian — December 5, 2025 @ 3:50 pm
3
This information must be made into an easily manipulated table, where one is able to rank all teams by any quantifiable measurement shown. Immediately.
Comment by SmoothJimmyApollo — December 5, 2025 @ 3:55 pm
4
GT, coming out just above avg, kinda like how 7-5 looks.
Comment by Brian — December 5, 2025 @ 4:02 pm
5
Weis Thomas Dolby Tribute Band:
It’s fat paychecks in motion
And now they expect me to win
The Domers in commotion
The sinners in harmony
I blinded them with science
I blinded them with science
And hit them with some pass the buck
I blinded them with science
SCIENCE!
Comment by Out of Conference — December 5, 2025 @ 4:08 pm
6
There is a flaw in the methodology — they are comparing the order in which the team finished with the raw averages of recruiting classes, not the order in which the averages occur.
As a result, USC would be “underachieving” according to the charts even if it were ranked #1 in performance this season — it’s average recruiting class ranking of 2.07 is almost certainly the best in the country (i.e., #1 recruiting) but appears as if it is “second” in the charts.
To fix this, the authors need to show the order of average recruiting rankings — USC 1, etc. And that can be compared to the ~order~ of finish this year.
Comment by WWJD — December 5, 2025 @ 4:08 pm
7
WWJD,
I don’t think I am following you, unless you are stating that more emphasis should be placed on the ‘03 or ‘04 classes as opposed to the ‘06 classes, which would make a bit more sense as the better teams usually rely more on upperclassmen.
Weighting the class of the seniors and RS juniors the same as the freshmen makes no sense, as some teams will get penalized for having great recent classes, or improved recent classes, but their upperclassmen suck, and vice versa.
Comment by Coop — December 5, 2025 @ 4:17 pm
8
“He breaks down all the major conferences, and the Big East.”
Comment by Anonymous IV — December 5, 2025 @ 4:22 pm
9
He breaks down all the major conferences, and the Big East.
Ouch. Bet you’re gonna have some West Fucking Virginia fans coming for your couch after that one.
Comment by Doug — December 5, 2025 @ 4:23 pm
10
Doesn’t this really speak to how off recruiting rankings are to begin with? UConn’s stud LB Scott Lutrus had zero other offers but was the freshman defensive player of the year in the Big East. I love Edsall to death but the fact is, Lutrus was a gem that no one else found not Edsall coaching ‘em up.
But, hey, UConn is #5! Suck it Florida Atlantic!
Comment by Edsall is God — December 5, 2025 @ 4:29 pm
11
How long will it take them to get here in their buggies? You know what, nevermind, they’ve never crossed the Mississippi, I’ll be fine.
Comment by jebus — December 5, 2025 @ 4:30 pm
12
9 - I think he means that the Big East is more than a major conference, it’s a Mega Conference of Doom.
Comment by Edsall is God — December 5, 2025 @ 4:30 pm
13
For all the ups and downs of this season, we have a championship game with a Big10 team that made it last year vs. an SEC team that looked like it would get there most of the season.
The journey was far more interesting than the end result.
Comment by Tim — December 5, 2025 @ 4:31 pm
14
“Weighting the class of the seniors and RS juniors the same as the freshmen makes no sense, as some teams will get penalized for having great recent classes, or improved recent classes, but their upperclassmen suck, and vice versa.”
The 2004 classes were given more weight than the 2007 classes, etc. From the admittedly dry explanation:
“Because student athletes are more likely to be key contributors in their later years, the “Recruiting Rating Average” is weighted in favor of older recruiting classes. 4% weight is given to the 2007 rating average, 20% for 2006, 33% for 2005, 33% for 2004, and 10% for 2003. These percentages are based on an average of each class’s depth chart participation for several teams.”
Weighting each team individually to take into account drop-outs, injuries, transfers, etc. was understandably impossible.
Comment by Joe — December 5, 2025 @ 4:32 pm
15
@7 on top of that, it doesn’t really take into account players who left early and it assumes that all 5th year seniors actually came back.
Comment by NDTom — December 5, 2025 @ 4:33 pm
16
#13
Share your crystal ball with us? I’m curious to know how you’ve seen the end results?
Comment by jebus — December 5, 2025 @ 4:37 pm
17
If for nothing else, it shows who is good at player development from the 2-3 star recruits - Grobe at WFU (heaven forbid he goes to Ann Arbor) and even heaven forbid, [Name Redacted].
And who sucks? Namely one Charles Weis, along with Larry Coker, Shula, dacoachO, & RedShoes Amato.
Comment by yoyofutbawl — December 5, 2025 @ 4:38 pm
18
If he broke down only the major conferences, how will we know how the ACC did?
Comment by 90 minutes — December 5, 2025 @ 4:40 pm
19
#10 - The recruiting people, and I am a patron of these people, will tell you that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, basically.
If your team recruits well and you produce, we called it right. If your team recruits well, and you don’t, your coach can’t develop talent. In fact, your talent might have regressed, according to the gurus.
However, by and large, the recruiting rankings pan out, as the “gurus” usually rate these guys 4 and 5 stars before USC, LSU, Texas, and Florida make them offers, if only because schools cannot legitimately make offers until a certain point in their high school progression.
As for the guys that slip through the cracks, like your UConn LB, those guys are going to happen, and some coaches do develop talent over time with less than highly touted prospects.
Bottom line, you have to take all recruiting rankings with a large grain of salt, but there is a reason that Rivals had guys like Tebow, McFadden, Daniel, Booty, etc so high in their rankings.
Comment by Coop — December 5, 2025 @ 4:41 pm
20
Nevermind, #14, I didn’t even bother to read the “instructions.” What man does that?
Well, I have no beef, obviously. Thank you.
Comment by Coop — December 5, 2025 @ 4:43 pm
21
Good heavens Miss Yakamoto!
You’re beautiful.
Comment by GamecockTony — December 5, 2025 @ 4:52 pm
22
# 2 Dept:
College football is the SECOND greatest game there is…the FIRST is chasing babes!
But, I do think a bouncing football is far more predictable than trying to figure out the inscrutable ladies. (I think I used ‘inscrutable’ right in this context.)
Comment by Stacy Keibler Luvs Me — December 5, 2025 @ 5:22 pm
23
I’m sorry, I was told there would be no math for this football blog.
#15 He does not assume all 5th years come back. The 03 class counts for 10% of the number, while the true JR’s and true SR”s count for 33%, so he’s assuming roughly 30% of the 03 class is still contributing as RS seniors.
Aside from the problem mentioned by WWJD in #6, there is another difficulty. The recruiting rankings are on a national basis, while the pre-bowl rankings are largely the result of competition within a small subset of schools.
Let’s pretend one of those subsets has greater access to the most fertile recruiting grounds. In this theoritical world, say 3/4’s of the set finishes in the top 30 of recruiting every year.
If the members of that set compete largely against each other, it will be exceedingly difficult for many of the them to live up to “expectations.” If you are the 25th best team in the nation based on talent, but you have to play five teams more talented, you are likely to lose too many games to finish near your “expected” ranking.
However, if you are a team of good to great talent that plays a series of games against largely inferior talent, it is relatively easy to exceed “expectaions.”
Until January 7th.
Comment by Chg — December 5, 2025 @ 5:42 pm
24
Without using multiple years’ results as the outcome the whole thing is sort of arbitrary
Comment by Grimey — December 5, 2025 @ 5:45 pm
25
SCIENCE!
People measuring things, AND ADJUSTING THEM!
Comment by Jack — December 5, 2025 @ 6:26 pm
26
#5
When dealing with Weis, I think the more applicable song is “One of Our Submarines.” The USS Our Lady… seems she went down on maneuvers.
Comment by panhandler — December 5, 2025 @ 7:29 pm
27
Looks like Junk Science…the recruiting ratings are based on the class as it was upon recruitment, but the performance rating for each year is for the class(es) as they are. So if most of a class transfers/fails out/goes away, the comparison of the two is meaningless.
See ND class of 03-07, which ends up being about 6 strong by senior year.
Comment by NoVaDamer — December 5, 2025 @ 9:05 pm
28
#26: If a significant portion of a class transfers or whatever, that’s partly the coaching staff’s fault for not picking players that are a good fit for the school or team.
If there’s a coaching change, some transfers are to be expected. But to some degree the new coach has to work with what he has and do the best he can to bring in the players he wants as he can. Most people expect a coaching change to shake things up and consider that when thinking about how a staff is doing. Furthermore, the new staff can blame the old one for a few years.
Comment by Joe — December 5, 2025 @ 10:52 pm
29
Recruiting is inexact. There are always underrated guys. It’s impossible to judge every high school player in the country. Now that that’s out of the way, the higher your recruiting ranking the more likely you’ll finish high on an annual basis. The teams that grossly outperformed their rankings in those tables were mostly one year aberrations (UConn, Missouri and Kansas especially). In fact, the only two teams I can think of who consistently play well beyond what their recruiting rankings would indicate are West Virginia and Virginia Tech. It’s interesting that the SEC is the only conference where more than half the conference has a difference of single digits one way or the other. I have no idea what it means, but it’s vastly different from every other league.
Comment by Biggus Rickus — December 6, 2025 @ 9:11 am
30
Mmmmm, pie pants.
- Weis, Mangino, Fulmer, Simpson
Comment by tOSU_radar — December 6, 2025 @ 1:35 pm