Do Rivals’ Rankings Really Matter? @PGarbinDT
Having compiled something similar about a year ago—Rivals’ annual team recruiting rankings correlating to the annual final AP Poll—I wanted to calculate and post an update since the recent release of the final AP Poll for 2016.
Beginning with Rivals’ initial team rankings in 2002 and over a 15-year period through last year, I awarded points as it’s conducted for the AP Poll, allocating one point for a 25th team ranking, two points for a 24th ranking, etc. The result was Rivals’ 15-year team recruiting rankings (2002-2016):
Likewise, for the final AP Poll beginning in 2002 and through the recently released rankings, I awarded points just like above, resulting in what is the final AP Poll’s 15-year rankings (2002-2016):
So, is there any type of relationship between Rivals’ team rankings and the final AP rankings? If a strong to very strong correlation is such a “type,” then certainly yes.
I’ve nerdily used and explained the correlation coefficient here before but, again, in a nutshell: It’s a number between −1 and +1 calculated so as to represent the dependence of two variables or sets of data. The nearer the coefficient is to -1, the more negative the correlation between the two sets of numbers; the closer the coefficient is to +1, the more positive the correlation between the two sets of numbers. In this case, the two sets of data are the point totals for the Rivals’ rankings and AP Poll over the last 15 years, whereby the correlation coefficient is 0.793 or what is considered a strong or very strong relationship. Thinking perhaps it takes a year, or three, for a recruiting class to make its impact on the field, I staggered the measuring of the two data sets (e.g., a one-year stagger didn’t measure the two sets straight up—both 2002-2016—but measured the Rivals from 2002-2015 to the AP Poll from 2003-2015). Still, with a 1, 2, and 3-year stagger calculated to have coefficients of 0.777, 0.746, and .718, respectively, the straight-up stagger resulted in the strongest correlation.
Therefore, I then found the FBS’ biggest, what I call, “Overachievers” and “Underachievers” over the last 15 years—programs which somewhat defied the correlation.
The top 10 "Overachievers" from 2002 through 2016, or teams will the biggest positive difference between AP Poll points and Rivals' points:
The top 10 "Underachievers" from 2002 through 2016, or teams will the biggest negative difference between AP Poll points and Rivals' points:
So, do Rivals’ team recruiting rankings matter? Well, if you’re looking to find a strong to very strong indicator of how a team performs in terms of their final placement in the AP Poll, as a matter of fact, yes.
