- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,439
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Bill Connelley does some cool stuff with roster math. His returning talent index has always been interesting. He's doing his best to figure out how transfers work in all this.
You can read the article here:
www.espn.com
Because that's ESPN+ and some don't pay for it, I'll leave the returning talent list below.
But what caught my eye was his comments about UGA and how numbers just don't always tell you the story. As you can see from the below excerpt, he ranks UGA's 2023 class 22nd, even though we were ranked 2nd when just looking at high school recruits. The problem is that there is nuance here his numbers don't account for.
- Initially, he points out that this is the ranking for what these classes could contribute for this year. Well, that's kind of meaningless. UGA isn't a team that recruits the best high school players to immediately contribute this year. That is what teams that take 10-25 transfers do. In our world, if you are starting freshmen, you aren't going to be very good. We develop freshmen to be ready next year and years after that.
- Along those same lines, one of the reasons you can't look at a one year window for teams like UGA is that the reason we can't take a lot of transfers is that we have close to 85 really good players already. Because most of our class of 2023 players will be ready to play in the next 2 years, we won't need as many transfers then, either. In other words, you have to take more transfers if you aren't taking as many high school players.
- He says, "But it does appear that, by choosing not to upgrade experience and production levels through transfers, the Dawgs are giving other teams an opportunity to catch up, at least slightly." What he fails to understand is that if you recruit the best players out of high school, you really can't upgrade experience and production, or at least not as much. We took 2 WRs, both the no. 1 WRs at their respective schools, a former top 100 DB recruit that went to ATM for money and is returning home, and another Georgia kid who is transferring from UTjr as a PWO, not a scholarship player. Last year we took no transfers.
Now to the good part of this for CFB ... not everyone can get a lot of good kids coming out of high school. And as he indicates the transfer portal is, in fact, serving as a way to close the gap between the very top and the next tier. I have stated here before that I hoped the transfer portal (along with the expanded CFP and NIL) would do this even if it was against my best interest. I am a Dawg fan, but also a CFB fan. It is good news that teams are able to better their rosters where they can't do so with normal recruiting. Closing the talent gap will make the sport much better over time.
- Finally, he doesn't mention "culture" with regard to UGA, but that is a huge thing. Teams that win at a high level typically have a culture of success. UGA thinks that is easier to do with kids you have in your program 3, 4 and 5 years, and that transfers can actually hurt culture. This is especially true if the people transferring are folks like Cox to UF and Bear Alexander to USC ... players with attitude problems (there are also great kids who transfer to get more PT ... Bama got a great ILB this year from us, and the CornDawgs got a couple great players who liked, so it's not all problem players). Maybe Bear turns out to be great of USC - he has all the talent to do so - but will be the lazy player he was at UGA, made even more likely by the cush life he is living in LA? I firmly believe that culture matters in the long term, but the transfer portal will put that to the test over the next few years.
That means intriguing things for a team that (A) has won the past two national titles and (B) hasn't dipped into the portal all that much.
Kirby Smart used the portal to add a couple of proven wide receivers (Missouri's Dominic Lovett and Mississippi State's Rara Thomas), a young running back (Tennessee's Len'Neth Whitehead, who carried 32 times in 2021) and a young cornerback (Texas A&M's Smoke Bouie, a Georgia native and top-70 recruit in 2021). Considering 25 teams have added at least 15 transfers and 53 have added at least 10, that's not much of a haul in terms of either quantity or known production.
That has created an interesting effect. When it comes to the impact teams' recruiting hauls will specifically have on their 2023 performance, Georgia's class ranks just 22nd overall despite their freshman haul ranking second
2023 recruiting classes, ranked by potential 2023 impact:
1. LSU
2. Oklahoma
3. Oregon
4. Miami
5. Texas A&M
6. Florida
7. Ohio State
8. Auburn
9. USC
10. Michigan
Alabama's transfer-light class ranks No. 11, and Georgia comes in just ahead of Wisconsin and Nebraska in the 20s. That's not to say Smart is doing anything wrong; the Dawgs' recent rings certainly say plenty about the recent product. But it does appear that, by choosing not to upgrade experience and production levels through transfers, the Dawgs are giving other teams an opportunity to catch up, at least slightly. SP+ still clearly likes UGA overall, but the gap might not be as big as we were initially thinking when the season ended.
Here are the full, updated rankings:
You can read the article here:
Post-spring SP+ rankings for all 133 teams, plus the Colorado conundrum and more takeaways
With spring practice done and most transfers at their new homes, it's time to look at the updated SP+ rankings for all 133 teams.
Because that's ESPN+ and some don't pay for it, I'll leave the returning talent list below.
But what caught my eye was his comments about UGA and how numbers just don't always tell you the story. As you can see from the below excerpt, he ranks UGA's 2023 class 22nd, even though we were ranked 2nd when just looking at high school recruits. The problem is that there is nuance here his numbers don't account for.
- Initially, he points out that this is the ranking for what these classes could contribute for this year. Well, that's kind of meaningless. UGA isn't a team that recruits the best high school players to immediately contribute this year. That is what teams that take 10-25 transfers do. In our world, if you are starting freshmen, you aren't going to be very good. We develop freshmen to be ready next year and years after that.
- Along those same lines, one of the reasons you can't look at a one year window for teams like UGA is that the reason we can't take a lot of transfers is that we have close to 85 really good players already. Because most of our class of 2023 players will be ready to play in the next 2 years, we won't need as many transfers then, either. In other words, you have to take more transfers if you aren't taking as many high school players.
- He says, "But it does appear that, by choosing not to upgrade experience and production levels through transfers, the Dawgs are giving other teams an opportunity to catch up, at least slightly." What he fails to understand is that if you recruit the best players out of high school, you really can't upgrade experience and production, or at least not as much. We took 2 WRs, both the no. 1 WRs at their respective schools, a former top 100 DB recruit that went to ATM for money and is returning home, and another Georgia kid who is transferring from UTjr as a PWO, not a scholarship player. Last year we took no transfers.
Now to the good part of this for CFB ... not everyone can get a lot of good kids coming out of high school. And as he indicates the transfer portal is, in fact, serving as a way to close the gap between the very top and the next tier. I have stated here before that I hoped the transfer portal (along with the expanded CFP and NIL) would do this even if it was against my best interest. I am a Dawg fan, but also a CFB fan. It is good news that teams are able to better their rosters where they can't do so with normal recruiting. Closing the talent gap will make the sport much better over time.
- Finally, he doesn't mention "culture" with regard to UGA, but that is a huge thing. Teams that win at a high level typically have a culture of success. UGA thinks that is easier to do with kids you have in your program 3, 4 and 5 years, and that transfers can actually hurt culture. This is especially true if the people transferring are folks like Cox to UF and Bear Alexander to USC ... players with attitude problems (there are also great kids who transfer to get more PT ... Bama got a great ILB this year from us, and the CornDawgs got a couple great players who liked, so it's not all problem players). Maybe Bear turns out to be great of USC - he has all the talent to do so - but will be the lazy player he was at UGA, made even more likely by the cush life he is living in LA? I firmly believe that culture matters in the long term, but the transfer portal will put that to the test over the next few years.
Georgia and the transfer gap
The transfer portal has made it a lot easier for teams -- at least those pretty high up in the rankings -- to add experienced players and field more complete teams. That's not to say everyone uses the portal equally well, but now that I've had time to play with data from the transfer-heavy 2022 season, recruiting rankings for transfers have become a solid-sized piece of SP+ projections.That means intriguing things for a team that (A) has won the past two national titles and (B) hasn't dipped into the portal all that much.
Kirby Smart used the portal to add a couple of proven wide receivers (Missouri's Dominic Lovett and Mississippi State's Rara Thomas), a young running back (Tennessee's Len'Neth Whitehead, who carried 32 times in 2021) and a young cornerback (Texas A&M's Smoke Bouie, a Georgia native and top-70 recruit in 2021). Considering 25 teams have added at least 15 transfers and 53 have added at least 10, that's not much of a haul in terms of either quantity or known production.
That has created an interesting effect. When it comes to the impact teams' recruiting hauls will specifically have on their 2023 performance, Georgia's class ranks just 22nd overall despite their freshman haul ranking second
2023 recruiting classes, ranked by potential 2023 impact:
1. LSU
2. Oklahoma
3. Oregon
4. Miami
5. Texas A&M
6. Florida
7. Ohio State
8. Auburn
9. USC
10. Michigan
Alabama's transfer-light class ranks No. 11, and Georgia comes in just ahead of Wisconsin and Nebraska in the 20s. That's not to say Smart is doing anything wrong; the Dawgs' recent rings certainly say plenty about the recent product. But it does appear that, by choosing not to upgrade experience and production levels through transfers, the Dawgs are giving other teams an opportunity to catch up, at least slightly. SP+ still clearly likes UGA overall, but the gap might not be as big as we were initially thinking when the season ended.
Here are the full, updated rankings:
Post-Spring College Football SP+ Rankings
| TEAM | SP+ | OFF. SP+ | DEF. SP+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Georgia | 29.9 | 41.9 (9) | 11.9 (3) |
| 2. Ohio St. | 29.6 | 46.4 (2) | 16.7 (13) |
| 3. Michigan | 29.2 | 42.0 (7) | 12.9 (4) |
| 4. Alabama | 27.9 | 44.2 (5) | 16.3 (10) |
| 5. LSU | 25.2 | 41.6 (10) | 16.4 (12) |
| 6. Tennessee | 23.9 | 45.5 (3) | 21.6 (31) |
| 7. USC | 23.6 | 46.4 (1) | 22.8 (39) |
| 8. Penn St. | 23.5 | 37.5 (22) | 14.0 (6) |
| 9. Texas | 23.3 | 40.4 (11) | 17.1 (16) |
| 10. Florida St. | 21.6 | 38.4 (19) | 16.8 (14) |
| 11. Oregon | 21.5 | 44.5 (4) | 23.0 (42) |
| 12. Clemson | 21.3 | 37.6 (21) | 16.3 (11) |
| 13. Oklahoma | 19.7 | 42.1 (6) | 22.4 (37) |
| 14. Utah | 19.4 | 40.0 (13) | 20.6 (26) |
| 15. Notre Dame | 19.3 | 36.3 (26) | 17.0 (15) |
| 16. Texas A&M | 18.8 | 30.7 (44) | 11.9 (2) |
| 17. Washington | 18.3 | 42.0 (8) | 23.7 (48) |
| 18. Ole Miss | 17.5 | 39.0 (14) | 21.4 (30) |
| 19. Wisconsin | 15.8 | 31.4 (41) | 15.6 (7) |
| 20. TCU | 15.8 | 38.7 (16) | 23.0 (41) |
| 21. Florida | 14.8 | 37.4 (23) | 22.6 (38) |
| 22. Kentucky | 14.5 | 28.1 (59) | 13.7 (5) |
| 23. Kansas St. | 14.3 | 36.1 (27) | 21.8 (34) |
| 24. UCLA | 14.3 | 40.0 (12) | 25.7 (60) |
| 25. Miss. St. | 14.1 | 35.8 (29) | 21.7 (32) |
| 26. Arkansas | 13.8 | 38.6 (17) | 24.8 (51) |
| 27. Auburn | 13.7 | 33.5 (35) | 19.8 (23) |
| 28. N. Carolina | 13.5 | 38.8 (15) | 25.3 (55) |
| 29. Iowa | 13.2 | 23.2 (81) | 10.1 (1) |
| 30. Oregon St. | 12.8 | 34.1 (34) | 21.3 (29) |
| 31. Minnesota | 12.0 | 27.7 (63) | 15.7 (9) |
| 32. Baylor | 11.9 | 35.5 (30) | 23.6 (47) |
| 33. S. Carolina | 11.6 | 37.9 (20) | 26.3 (64) |
| 34. Missouri | 11.1 | 29.4 (52) | 18.3 (17) |
| 35. UCF | 11.0 | 33.3 (37) | 22.3 (36) |
| 36. Louisville | 11.0 | 29.9 (50) | 18.9 (20) |
| 37. Miami | 10.9 | 30.3 (47) | 19.3 (22) |
| 38. Texas Tech | 10.8 | 38.5 (18) | 27.7 (69) |
| 39. Oklahoma St. | 10.5 | 36.0 (28) | 25.5 (59) |
| 40. Maryland | 9.0 | 30.0 (49) | 21.1 (27) |
| 41. Pittsburgh | 8.7 | 32.7 (40) | 24.0 (49) |
| 42. Michigan St. | 7.9 | 28.5 (56) | 20.6 (25) |
| 43. NC St. | 7.5 | 26.8 (67) | 19.3 (21) |
| 44. Illinois | 7.0 | 22.7 (86) | 15.7 (8) |
| 45. Iowa St. | 6.8 | 25.3 (74) | 18.5 (18) |
| 46. Cincinnati | 6.4 | 25.2 (76) | 18.9 (19) |
| 47. Tulane | 5.8 | 34.1 (33) | 28.3 (72) |
| 48. Purdue | 5.7 | 30.6 (45) | 24.9 (52) |
| 49. Nebraska | 5.3 | 27.3 (65) | 22.0 (35) |
| 50. SMU | 5.1 | 37.4 (24) | 32.3 (100) |
| 51. Wake Forest | 4.8 | 33.3 (38) | 28.5 (73) |
| 52. Syracuse | 4.7 | 27.7 (62) | 23.0 (43) |
| 53. Houston | 4.3 | 37.1 (25) | 32.8 (102) |
| 54. California | 4.0 | 26.9 (66) | 22.9 (40) |
| 55. Duke | 4.0 | 29.7 (51) | 25.8 (61) |
| 56. W. Virginia | 3.0 | 31.1 (43) | 28.1 (71) |
| 57. UTSA | 2.9 | 33.2 (39) | 30.3 (85) |
| 58. Wash. St. | 2.3 | 27.4 (64) | 25.0 (54) |
| 59. Memphis | 2.0 | 33.4 (36) | 31.4 (94) |
| 60. BYU | 1.8 | 31.2 (42) | 29.5 (80) |
| 61. Kansas | 0.9 | 34.6 (31) | 33.7 (106) |
| 62. Boise St. | 0.6 | 26.1 (70) | 25.5 (57) |
| 63. Arizona St. | 0.2 | 30.4 (46) | 30.2 (84) |
| 64. Troy | -0.6 | 22.4 (88) | 23.0 (44) |
| 65. Va. Tech | -1.4 | 22.1 (90) | 23.5 (46) |
| 66. Marshall | -2.5 | 20.6 (96) | 23.1 (45) |
| 67. Ga. Tech | -2.7 | 22.3 (89) | 25.0 (53) |
| 68. Fresno St. | -2.8 | 22.7 (85) | 25.5 (58) |
| 69. Vanderbilt | -3.1 | 29.2 (53) | 32.3 (99) |
| 70. Arizona | -3.1 | 34.6 (32) | 37.6 (123) |
| 71. Indiana | -3.4 | 27.8 (61) | 31.2 (92) |
| 72. S. Alabama | -3.6 | 24.0 (79) | 27.6 (67) |
| 73. Rutgers | -4.0 | 20.8 (95) | 24.8 (50) |
| 74. Boston Coll. | -4.2 | 22.0 (91) | 26.2 (63) |
| 75. Coastal Caro. | -4.6 | 28.6 (55) | 33.2 (105) |
| 76. Toledo | -4.7 | 25.7 (72) | 30.4 (86) |
| 77. App. St. | -4.7 | 28.3 (57) | 33.0 (103) |
| 78. Louisiana | -4.8 | 24.7 (77) | 29.6 (81) |
| 79. Virginia | -5.3 | 14.7 (124) | 19.9 (24) |
| 80. JMU | -5.4 | 25.2 (75) | 30.6 (87) |
| 81. Air Force | -6.1 | 15.6 (122) | 21.7 (33) |
| 82. FAU | -6.5 | 23.4 (80) | 29.8 (82) |
| 83. Northwestern | -6.7 | 14.6 (126) | 21.3 (28) |
| 84. WKU | -6.9 | 28.7 (54) | 35.6 (117) |
| 85. SDSU | -7.3 | 18.0 (110) | 25.3 (56) |
| 86. N. Texas | -7.7 | 30.2 (48) | 37.9 (125) |
| 87. Liberty | -7.8 | 24.1 (78) | 31.9 (96) |
| 88. ECU | -8.2 | 19.4 (103) | 27.6 (68) |
| 89. Georgia St. | -9.5 | 26.7 (68) | 36.3 (120) |
| 90. So. Miss | -9.6 | 21.4 (93) | 31.1 (91) |
| 91. Army | -9.7 | 21.0 (94) | 30.7 (88) |
| 92. Wyoming | -10.0 | 16.2 (121) | 26.2 (62) |
| 93. Ohio | -10.0 | 25.9 (71) | 35.9 (118) |
| 94. UAB | -10.1 | 18.4 (107) | 28.5 (74) |
| 95. Stanford | -10.1 | 17.4 (115) | 27.5 (66) |
| 96. Ga. Southern | -10.5 | 27.9 (60) | 38.5 (129) |
| 97. SJSU | -10.8 | 20.6 (97) | 31.3 (93) |
| 98. Navy | -11.1 | 17.6 (113) | 28.8 (78) |
| 99. Temple | -11.2 | 19.6 (102) | 30.8 (89) |
| 100. Tulsa | -11.5 | 26.7 (69) | 38.2 (127) |
| 101. Miami-OH | -11.8 | 15.2 (123) | 27.0 (65) |
| 102. Buffalo | -11.9 | 22.9 (83) | 34.9 (113) |
| 103. Colorado | -12.6 | 22.8 (84) | 35.4 (115) |
| 104. MTSU | -12.8 | 19.3 (104) | 32.2 (98) |
| 105. EMU | -13.1 | 20.0 (100) | 33.1 (104) |
| 106. USF | -13.5 | 25.5 (73) | 39.0 (130) |
| 107. UNLV | -13.8 | 20.4 (98) | 34.2 (109) |
| 108. La. Tech | -13.8 | 28.1 (58) | 42.0 (133) |
| 109. CMU | -13.9 | 16.3 (120) | 30.1 (83) |
| 110. Arkansas St. | -14.6 | 20.2 (99) | 34.9 (112) |
| 111. Ball St. | -14.6 | 17.3 (116) | 31.9 (97) |
| 112. Rice | -14.9 | 22.5 (87) | 37.4 (122) |
| 113. Nevada | -15.4 | 16.3 (119) | 31.7 (95) |
| 114. NIU | -16.1 | 23.0 (82) | 39.1 (131) |
| 115. UConn | -16.2 | 14.6 (125) | 30.8 (90) |
| 116. Utah St. | -16.2 | 18.0 (111) | 34.2 (110) |
| 117. UTEP | -16.3 | 18.2 (108) | 34.5 (111) |
| 118. Colorado St. | -16.4 | 12.3 (127) | 28.7 (77) |
| 119. ODU | -16.4 | 12.2 (128) | 28.6 (76) |
| 120. WMU | -17.1 | 16.8 (118) | 33.9 (108) |
| 121. Sam Houston | -17.4 | 10.7 (131) | 28.1 (70) |
| 122. NMSU | -17.5 | 17.9 (112) | 35.4 (116) |
| 123. J'ville St. | -18.2 | 21.5 (92) | 39.7 (132) |
| 124. Hawaii | -18.4 | 17.6 (114) | 35.9 (119) |
| 125. BGSU | -18.4 | 19.8 (101) | 38.3 (128) |
| 126. Charlotte | -18.5 | 16.9 (117) | 35.3 (114) |
| 127. FIU | -18.5 | 18.7 (105) | 37.2 (121) |
| 128. Texas St. | -19.4 | 9.2 (132) | 28.6 (75) |
| 129. UL-Monroe | -19.6 | 18.6 (106) | 38.1 (126) |
| 130. Akron | -19.6 | 18.1 (109) | 37.7 (124) |
| 131. UMass | -21.7 | 11.0 (130) | 32.7 (101) |
| 132. New Mexico | -21.7 | 12.2 (129) | 33.9 (107) |
| 133. Kent St. | -23.0 | 6.2 (133) | 29.1 (79) |
