What do recruiting rankings mean anyway?

Is there a correlation between recruiting rankings and winning? I think even those most jaded when it comes to discussing college football recruiting rankings would agree that there's a definite correlation between the teams that typically recruit the best and win the most. But just how strong a connection is there?

What do the recruiting rankings mean?

That's a question I often get, and based on the spirited discussion recruiting rankings can generate, it's obvious to me that they mean very different things to different people. 

Some consider them affirmation of their own superiority as fans of a team ranked high. 

Some consider them nothing more than marketing ploys to pander to the largest fan bases as their team consistently outperforms their historic recruiting ranking.

Some consider them to be gospel, while others consider them to be garbage.

What do they mean to me? 

Read more at...

National Signing Day viewer's guide

Top 25 preview | Commitment tracker

Instant impact players | Photo gallery

Top recruiting programs

Top 25 players photo gallery

Inside the USC-UCLA rivalry

Recruiting rankings are meant to be a guide. Recruiting is a step in the process of winning football games -- it's not the entire process. Team recruiting rankings are a compilation of individuals. Games are won by TEAMS. It's not always the best collection of individuals that makes up the best TEAM.

I went back through Scout's ranking for the Class of 2005 thru 2008, the four years that made up the vast majority of rosters for the 2008 season and I compared those rankings to both the compiled AP ranking and winning percentage for the same period.

Looking through the numbers below, there are several trends worth noticing, while keeping in mind that we're not comparing apples to apples all the time. For example, teams don't all play the same schedules. It's not fair to discount strength of schedule when comparing winning percentage. But by the same token, it would also be irresponsible not to point out that there are multitudes of teams that win at a much greater pace than those who would take recruiting rankings too literally might believe.

One trend I can't help but notice, teams high in recruiting but low on winning seem to be breaking in new coaches the last couple of years, and teams high on the right, but low on the left seem to find their coaches as hot commodities. Coincidence?

West Virginia is the team that immediately jumps out at me as a BCS school that wins at a high level and finishes high in the polls at an equally high level, despite rarely cracking the Top 25 in recruiting. Quarterback Pat White was the square peg in a round hole for most teams, but at West Virginia, his talents fit the system perfectly, and the four-year starter is leaving Morgantown with the accolades of a five-star.

The non-BCS conferences have continually gotten stronger and stronger. Boise State, TCU, Utah, and BYU are four teams that have proven they can compete with anyone on the field, despite typically having to pass on players recruited by bigger-named BCS schools. TCU is in a football hotbed in Texas, but Idaho and Utah aren't exactly considered deep in local talent.

In the ACC, two perennial overachievers are Wake Forest and Boston College. I've said for the last several years that I think Jim Grobe and his staff at Wake Forest do the best job of recruiting to a system based on the players available to them. What impresses me most about what Wake Forest is able to do is the localized competition in a small area. With five Football Bowl Subdivision schools and four in the ACC in a state that produces toughly 60 FBS guys, there's a tremendous amount of in-state competition for a limited amount of players.

Speaking of small states producing big results, the state of Oregon is lucky to produce 25 FBS signees per year, yet Oregon and Oregon State each outpace their respective recruiting rankings. Exciting offenses bolstered by a few special talents can go a long way to leveling the playing field.

In the Big 12, Missouri and Kansas are teams that have to contend with heavyweights that make a living closer to Texas, yet stand toe-to-toe with them on the field. Quarterback play can go a long way to elevating a team on the field. Chase Daniel of Missouri was heavily recruited; Todd Reesing at Kansas wasn't. Both have proven invaluable to their teams.

As another National Signing Day will come and go, much will be made about who won the wars in February. Die-hard recruitniks and skeptics alike should keep in mind that while some battles may have been won and lost, the war for supremacy in 2009 is just beginning and will be settled next fall.

	Compiled Rankings 2005-2008
	Recruit Rank		Winning %			AP Rank*
1	USC	1	USC	0.885	1	USC
2	Florida	2	Texas	0.865	2	Ohio State
3	Michigan	3	Boise State	0.846	3	Florida
4	Georgia	4	Ohio State	0.843	4	Texas
5	Texas	5	Florida	0.830	5	LSU
6	LSU	6	West Virginia	0.824	6	West Virginia
7	Ohio State	7	TCU	0.804	7	Oklahoma
8	Miami (Fl)	8	LSU	0.792	8	Georgia
9	Notre Dame	9	Penn State	0.784	9	Virginia Tech
10	Auburn	10	Oklahoma	0.778	10	Penn State
11	Oklahoma	10	Virginia Tech	0.778	11	Auburn
12	Florida State	12	Georgia	0.769	12	Boise State
13	Alabama	13	BYU	0.745	13	TCU
14	Tennessee	14	BC	0.736	14	BC
15	California	15	Wisconsin	0.731	15	Oregon
16	Clemson	16	Texas Tech	0.725	16	Wisconsin
17	Texas A&M	16	Utah	0.725	17	Alabama
18	Nebraska	18	Oregon	0.706	18	Michigan
19	Pittsburgh	19	Tulsa	0.704	19	Texas Tech
20	UCLA	20	Missouri	0.698	20	BYU
21	Penn State	21	Auburn	0.680	21	Missouri
22	South Carolina	22	Alabama	0.673	22	Oregon State
23	Virginia Tech	23	California	0.667	23	Cal
24	North Carolina	23	Rutgers	0.667	24	Louisville
25	Illinois	25	Hawaii	0.660	25	Notre Dame
26	Mississippi	26	Kansas	0.660	26	Utah
27	Oregon	27	Louisville	0.653	27	Cincinnati
28	Arkansas	28	Cincinnati	0.647	28	Tennessee
29	Arizona	28	Navy	0.647	29	Kansas
30	Arizona State	28	Oregon State	0.647	30	Nebraska
31	Iowa	31	Clemson	0.627	31	Clemson
32	Washington	31	South Florida	0.627	32	Florida State
33	Miss. State	31	Wake Forest	0.627	33	Hawaii
34	Wisconsin	34	C. Michigan	0.615	34	Rutgers
35	West Virginia	34	Georgia Tech	0.615	35	Arkansas
36	Oklahoma State	34	Houston	0.615	36	Wake Forest
37	Georgia Tech	37	Nebraska	0.608	37	Iowa
38	Maryland	38	Michigan	0.600	38	Tulsa
39	NC State	39	Florida State	0.596	39	Mississippi
40	Colorado	40	W. Michigan	0.592	40	Georgia Tech

*Not every team was ranked all four years. For each time a team wasn't ranked, a ranking of 40 was generated for that year.