The Best/Worst of Recruiting & Developing NFL Draft Picks

Click here for the 2012 NFL Draft Matrix updates and stats

By Dave Bartoo, Founder CFBMatrix
follow on twitter @cfbmatrix for all CFB picks and best bets in 2012

As a site and model rooted in team recruiting rankings and our Field Adjusted Recruiting Ranking (FARR)* I started to look at comparing recruiting rankings to NFL draft picks per team rankings in 2010.   I wanted to see if there was any correlation between long term recruiting rankings and NFL draft picks.  The idea being that if you have the #1 recruiting ranking over a time period, then your NFL draft pick ranking should be similar in rank.  For teams that fell outside the expectations, one might be able to identify weak recruiters that have a good staff and support system for players.  On the opposite end, one might find good recruiters that have long term systemic issues that go beyond just coaches, for player development.

Good recruiting data started in 2002 and with kids having to wait 3 years to be NFL eligible, I ran the recruiting numbers from 2002 through 2008 (the ’08 class having their first year of eligibility this year)  to determine the overall composite recruiting ranking.  To compare, I used the draft picks from 2005-2011 (’08 recruits were eligible last year).  In that time period the USC Trojans had the #1 ranked class and produced 61 draft picks, also ranked #1 (tied).  The #3 recruiting rank, Miami, was #3 producing NFL draft picks, Alabama was the #15 recruiting rank and #14 for number of draft picks. 

Reader note:  If you have the opinion recruiting ranks hold no value consider:

* Of the top 25 of producing NFL draft picks from 2005-2011, all but 4 were in the top 25 for recruiting. 
* Out of the top 10 recruiters, 9 were in the top 10 of draft picks (Michigan #8 out and Virginia Tech #26 in).

* And in 2011,
77% of all the AQ games were predicted correctly 4 months in advance using only the CFBMatrix 4 year adjusted recruiting rankings + field adjustment.

While there are many ideas and theories on  labeling programs ‘football factories’, it was clear in the numbers that a majority of college football programs fell in line with their recruiting/NFL draft pick expectations.  It should come as no surprise that most programs with the top classes produced the most NFL draft picks, while the worst ranked recruiting classes usually produced the fewest.  But what I was interested in showing, was a) there was a correlation and b) who is on the outside edges.

I feel that “a” has been shown in the numbers below, but what about “b”.  What about those teams that are getting more players  picked in the NFL draft than their recruiting rank would indicate.  Does this show the ability to ‘coach’em up” or an ability to “coach them down” within a system.  Coaches come and go, but those doing the hiring remain relatively unchanged as does their process.   While you can choose to draw any conclusion of your liking to the CFBMatrix numbers modeled out and ranked below, I feel that it is a good indicator that the recruiting rankings as a whole are very good and that some teams get more or less from their players versus the norm.

Click Here for an example on how I use recruiting for team SOS & EOS

Click Here for a  team page to see how recruiting is used for trends, wins and coaching effect

Total National Recruiting vs NFL Draft Picks Rankings

Top 20

By the time you get outside the top 15, you begin to see that most teams are starting to fall very close (<12%) to the recruiting ranking from 2002-2008 versus their total draft pick ranks.  The top 15, many of whom may be a surprise, have certainly produced a solid number of draft picks.  There are a number of those teams that have nowhere to go but up.  However, there are some impressive numbers by top 30 recruiting ranked teams as well.  This is especially evident, when you compare these top ranked teams versus those around them on the total national rankings at the bottom of this page.

Bottom 20

This is a list that no one wants to be on and one that is certain not to be shown to recruits.  A quick comparison between the top 20 and bottom is Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech.  Both have 7 year national recruiting ranks of #25 but Virginia Tech produced 32 NFL draft picks versus Oklahoma State’s 12.  Many of the bottom 20 are teams that had very high (top 25) overall recruiting rankings for the time period, but just did not get guys drafted.   How Duke has no one drafted since 2005 is beyond the model.  It is also no surprise that many of these teams were considered “under performers” on the field by their fans.  After talking with many fans and reading the feedback a new conclusion is a much deeper “systemic” issue of success and achievement within an athletic department as these numbers have played out over nearly a decade, much longer than most coaches have been at one school.

Conference Breakdowns


The SEC shows a really solid profile for recruiting rank versus draft picks produced rank.  You can see in the right column that there are just a handful that are more than +/- 8  spots (<10%)  in ranking difference.  With the national midpoint at a recruiting ranking of #39, most of the top SEC teams are recruiting and producing NFL picks at a similar rate.  This is a very good snapshot of top recruiters having a low ceiling.  Alabama, LSU, Florida and Georgia all getting top players, keeping them on campus and getting them drafted.  They may not be at the top of this particular list, but that is good non-game coaching.  It is the bottom 3 teams that are really outside the curve on this comparison, led easily by Mississippi State for the time period reviewed.


The only real under performers in the group are Boston College and Duke.  No surprise with Duke as they have, inexplicably, had no players picked since 2005 and for good reason should be excluded from the rankings.   The Tarheels, once at the bottom of this list last year, had 9 picks in the 2011 draft which puts them back to expectations.  The two Techs, along with Wake Forest were easily had the biggest positive gaps in recruiting versus draft picks but not too far off the midpoint.  Half of the conference was within just a couple ranking spots in the comparison with NC State, North Carolina, Florida State, Maryland and Miami all with +/- of %5 of both ranking categories.

PAC 12

This is certainly the conference with the largest range from the top to the bottom with Utah #1 and Washington dead last.  Huge over performers in the Utes, Stanford , Oregon State and Cal with Washington, UCLA and Arizona being under performers in the comparison.  This should be an interesting chart to revisit over the next few years as Utah enters the PAC12, USC has their sanctions and Washington is trying to dig out from the Willingham dark ages.

Big 12

I was not expecting these numbers from one conference when I broke out the national numbers.   4 teams were very close to a 1:1 ratio led by Missouri.  Oklahoma and Texas are developing draft picks (#3 &#6) as well as their recruiting #6 (ties) overall.  However, the rest of the conference all had negative performers in the charts.  There is no question as to the lack of development in comparison to the recruiting ranks for Oklahoma State and Texas A&M as both were nearly out produced by Missouri.  Even the 2011 draft pick totals fell right in line with the 7 yer review with the top 4 having 14 picks and the bottom 6 with just 5.

Big Ten

No serious under performers in the Big Ten but a couple of years of down draft numbers and Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota will be in the bottom 10.  However, Iowa and Wisconsin have been serious over achievers when it comes to the recruiting rank versus draft pick rank.  Iowa and Illinois have nearly identical recruiting composite rankings, yet the Hawkeyes have had twice the number drafted into the NFL over the last 7 years.

Big East

Amazingly, all the Big East teams have a positive ranking comparison in this review.  The bottom 5 have both rankings within 5%.  Outside of Pittsburgh and West Virginia, the other 6 teams are all clustered in the 50s and 60s in  overall recruiting rank. Due to the very weak overall recruiting in the Big East, this is not too much of a surprise.  Cincinnati, Connecticut and Louisville at easily the top 3 and national leaders in this review as well.  Teams are developing players at or above expected levels so the Big East simply needs to get better players as their recruiting average is by far the worst in the country.

National Draft Pick/Recruiting Rank Ratio

Top 25 Draft Pick Totals (’05-’11)

Top 25 Recruiting Classes (’02-’08) Ranked

1.0 Published April 27, 2011

2.0 Revised January 4th, 2012 with 2011 NFL Draft numbers


22 Responses to The Best/Worst of Recruiting & Developing NFL Draft Picks

  1. Great, great work, Dave.

  2. Well done…. All fans say recruiting rankings are meaningless, Iowa and Wisconsin fans can say it with conviction. I think another part to keep in mind is winning percentage. Some players are rated high based on their college potential, and not necessarily their pro potential. Especially at the QB position. 6’0 QBs are fairly common for the college game, but not in the NFL Draft.
    outstanding read. I’d like to see the column referenced every time someone says the services are biased against their teams.

    • cfbmatrix says:

      Thanks Scott – Any fan saying there is bias could potentially do so for one single season, but over many years? No way. It would be impossible to target a few dozen players out of thousands for just a couple of teams. Plus, by stating it, you are under selling the ability of your coach!

      • Bob says:

        Sorry, but your data prove that a SEC bias exists. Well, either it exists or the SEC coaches aren’t as good as ACC, B12 or Big East.

      • cfbmatrix says:

        I am not sure it proves anything other than what fans want to interpret for themselves. As for thee SEC, the biggest issue I see with the ‘study’ is that their recruiting is so high to start there is little room for big improvements over the recruiting ranking. Most of the teams fall within +/- 10% of the two compared rankings. IMO, the most interesting stats are the AQ teams that are on the extremes of positive and negative. Thanks for commenting – Dave

  3. Sweet Jonny B says:

    Incredible work. Would love to see an additional layer of analysis added for quality of draftee – weighted by round or even by selection.

  4. Kevin says:

    To me, this serves as further proof that recruiting websites consistently overrate the prospects in SEC country and consistently underrate those in the Midwest and Northeast, Big 10 and to a degree Big East country. This makes perfect business sense for them, as the majority of their subscribers come from the South and thus will continue to come back to a site if they regularly see their school near the top of the recruiting rankings, but it is something to keep in mind when looking at the rankings of sites.

  5. BigJake says:

    Why are you using the NFL draft numbers from 2002-4? Those aren’t going to have anything to do with the classes coming in those years.

    • cfbmatrix says:

      Big Jake – Spot on response. I do agree and will be redoing the entire data sheet at the end of the week to include the 2011 draft. Recruiting classes will be from 2002-2009 and draft from 2004-2011. – Dave

  6. Byrdman55 says:

    Check out those Hawkeyes! It’s nice to see some recognition of what Kirk Ferentz and Co. have been doing in Iowa City for the last few years.

  7. Utahdude says:

    Look at those Utah Utes ! # 1 baby ! And for good reason too. Coach Whittingham and his staff are unbeleivsble with the talent they get, can you say overachievers ???

  8. ChiroGuy87 says:

    Ahh matrixes i feel like I’m back in stats class haha. I agree w/Byrdman, if kids want to go the NFL, it looks like Iowa should definitely be one of their visits.

  9. Pingback: Morning Links | Marty Tirrell - Mouth of the Midwest

  10. Mark says:

    Wait, maybe I’m not understanding the data here.
    Doesn’t this analysis (very interesting, BTW, thanks) say that there is no correlation between recruiting rank and the NFL draft?
    I’m not surprised. First the recruiting rankings are almost random, then the player is coached and develops physically for 3-4 years. So I wouldn’t even expect a strong correlation between the value of the recruit vs. the value of the draftee.
    It would be interesting to see if these rankings were consistent from year to year. Does Utah consistently perform better in the draft than in the recruiting rankings? Probably not enough statistics to judge.
    Bias is a factor too, as pointed out in other comments. Some schools always get high recruiting rankings no matter who they get.
    Thanks again.

    • cfbmatrix says:

      See my last comment. Each fan will interpret the data as they see fit for who they feel about stats, recruiting rank, their team and conference.

  11. Pingback: Where are all the Picks? | Pistols Firing

  12. Bradley Fay says:

    I’m confused about the ASU ratings. In one chart they are at a -8 and another they are at a -10. Which is the correct figure?

    Also, this is a fascinating analysis. I’ve been arguing with friends for years over what schools do the best developing talent. It would be more interesting (and cumbersome) to go through and look at each school by individual players. Looking to see how many ranked recruits were drafted and in what round as well as walk-on players. That would have implications for player development as well as the efficacy of recruit ratings.

  13. Utah fan near Seattle says:

    I like that Utah is at the top, and confirms what I believe about our coaches… BUT

    Lemme see: USC has best overall recruiting classes, and has the most success putting those players into the NFL (No.1 and No.1), rating them 40th best at developing NFL talent??

    Sorry, but those stats sound pretty good to me, even better when you consider there is probably bias that led to those classes being ranked no.1.

    • cfbmatrix says:

      It is just one way of looking at it. USC and other elites and to the opposite the weak recruiters are boxed in with this review. USC is just doing what is expected #1 recruiter #1 in draft picks. There is not a lot that separates many teams. Of the top 25 recruiters, 21 are in the top 25 of draft picks. I am more interested in why the UCLAs and Texas A&Ms of the CFB world are doing so bad at player development and why a Utah or Virginia Tech is doing so much better with clearly lesser recruited talent. – Dave Bartoo CFBMatrix

  14. pezgordo1 says:

    More great information Dave. Thanks. As for the UCLA, Texas A & M and Washington’s on the list, clearly bad coaching was the culprit. That is why Neuheisel and Sherman are both gone and Sark’s influence on Washington is not yet reflected. I was surprised to see the draft discrepancy between Va Tech and Oklahoma State considering the last 2 or 3 years OSU has arguably had the better teams.

  15. Jack says:

    Dont understand how wisconsin gets the nod above Iowa in big ten rankings and in overall. Our numbers are identical except for we had 1 more pick in 2011 and are class rank is 39 to there 42.
    Would much rather have a draft pick then a lower ranked class

    • cfbmatrix says:

      Jack – I had both at 28 picks from 05-11. UW 6 yr RR (recruiting rank) at #42 and Iowa RR at #39. The difference is really nothing but a few percentage points. Both are VERY impressive metrics in the Big Ten and the country. – Dave

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s