Many fans believe that recruiting is the key to success in college football.

Is that the case? Is college football strictly dictated by recruiting? Are teams’ accomplishments directly related to their recruiting classes?

Umm… kinda, sorta, and maybe.

After 10-20 hours of research and building an excel file that would make Nate Silver proud, those are the answers I came up with— total indecision.

But what my research did determine was data showing the most overachieving and underachieving teams of the past 7 years.

The terms “overachieving” and “underachieving” are in regards to the relationship between the amount of talent on a given team and their actual performance with that talent.

So what defines a team’s “talent”?

I used the most objective formula that I could come up with to determine talent. And while I know this method has several exceptions and is extremely broad, it is the most effective method that I could come up with, without doing individual team analyses. So, keep in mind, this is all done to give a broad picture of a general idea— not a detailed team-by-team analysis.

First, I collected all of the recruiting data available from two of the most respected sources in the college football recruiting industry: Scout, Inc. and Rivals. Both Scout and Rivals’ data goes back to 2002, so I collected all of the team rankings in recruiting from 2002 to 2012 from each site and inserted them into an excel file. Then, I averaged the rankings together to come up with an objective “composite score” to represent each team for each year.

For example, in 2003 Scout ranked Florida State’s recruiting class 12th in the nation, while Rivals ranked them 21st in the nation. Thus, their composite score was a ranking of 16.5.

Next, I devised a formula to account for all of the recruiting classes on an individual team. After examining several depth charts, I determined the following weights for each class:

Freshman- 12.5%
Sophomore (or Redshirt Freshman)- 22.5%
Junior (or Redshirt Sophomore)- 25%
Senior (or Redshirt Junior)- 27.5%
5th Year Senior- 12.5%

So,the formula to determine, what I will call, the “talent quotient” on a particular team is:

( .125 x Composite Score of Freshman Class ) + ( .225 x Composite Score of Sophomore Class ) + ( .25 x Composite Score of Junior Class ) + ( .275 x Composite Score of Senior Class ) + ( .125 x Composite Score of 5th Year Senior Class ) = Talent Quotient

For instance, to determine the talent quotient of the 2006 Florida State team, we simply need to plug in the composite scores of each recruiting class into the formula. Here’s Florida State’s 2002 – 2006 recruiting class ranks:

Year	Scout, Inc.	Rivals	Composite Score
2002	6	4	5
2003	12	21	16.5
2004	4	3	3.5
2005	3	2	2.5
2006	12	3	7.5

So, inputting the 5 composite scores into the formula would give us the following:

( .125 x 7.5 ) + ( .225 x 2.5 ) + ( .25 x 3.5 ) + ( .275 x 16.5 ) + ( .125 x 5 ) = 7.5375

Thus, the 2006 Florida State team had a talent quotient of 7.5375, which was the 5th lowest score in the nation. Hence, according to the formula, the 2006 Florida State Seminoles had the 5th most talented team in all of college football.

Once I had determined the talent quotient for every team in the FBS for the 2006 season, I ranked each team by their talent quotient, with the lowest score ranked number 1, the second lowest ranked number 2, and so on. Then, I repeated the process for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 seasons.

The logic behind this process is simple: the teams with more talent should beat the teams with less. So, the higher ranked “talent quotient,” the more talent a team can field in a game. In other words, the number 1 ranked team in talent, all other things being equal (they’re not), should beat the number 2 ranked team in talent.

After ranking every FBS college football team from 2006 until 2012, I compared these ranks to how the teams finished in the final college football polls. In an effort to make this process more objective, I averaged the final AP polls with the final USA Today polls to determine a general end of the year ranking for each team. The purpose of this method is to compare how a team performed relative to the talent on the team.

So after inventing a “talent quotient,” ranking teams by that invented number, comparing those ranks to the ranks of plausibly inaccurate year end poll rankings, I came up with the most overachieving and underachieving college football programs over the last 7 years…

*Drumroll*

The Most Overachieving Programs

Four teams stood far above the rest in regards to their ability to play at a level far above what the talent on their team would indicate they were capable of. Fans and analysts offer up a multitude of reasons for these teams’ success, such as: coaching, strength of schedule, and a plethora of other factors, both negative and positive, in an attempt to explain these teams’ habits of winning seemingly far beyond their talent level. Yet, no matter what your biased opinion may be, you have to admit, what these 4 teams have done with the talent on their rosters is nothing short of impressive.

4. BYU

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	59th	15th*
2007	59th	14th*
2008	59th	25th*
2009	56th	12th
2010	54th	NR
2011	53rd	25th*
2012	51st	NR

3. Cincinnati

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	91st	NR
2007	88th	18th
2008	80th	17th
2009	74th	8th
2010	67th	NR
2011	59th	25th
2012	57th	24th

2. TCU

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	62nd	21st*
2007	62nd	NR
2008	68th	7th
2009	71st	6th
2010	74th	2nd
2011	65th	13th
2012	53rd	NR

1. Boise State

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	75th	5th
2007	67th	NR
2008	67th	12th
2009	68th	4th
2010	70th	8th
2011	73rd	7th
2012	71st	16th

And onto the more entertaining part of this column…

The Most Underachieving Programs

A.K.A. the laughing stock of college football. These teams recruit some of the most talented players in the country year in and year out, but over the past 7 years, they’ve had an extraordinarily hard time making that talent translate to success on the field. An important factor to take into consideration is that I have adjusted the formula that I used to determine these rankings to add more weight to higher ranked teams. The logic behind this adjustment is simple. Without the adjustment, a team that finishes the season ranked 67th and has a talent quotient ranking of 49th is a bigger letdown (or “underachiever”) than a team that has the number 1 ranked talent quotient and loses 3 games to finish the season ranked 17th. And, in my opinion, the team that has the most talent in the country, but manages to lose 3 games and wind up out of the top 15, is a bigger underachiever than a team with mediocre talent performing a little less than mediocre. Thus, this adjustment gives much more weight to teams with higher ranked talent quotients. So, without further ado, here’s your top 7 most underachieving college football programs over the last 7 years…

7. Notre Dame

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	15th	NR
2007	19th	NR
2008	14th	NR
2009	9th	NR
2010	9th	NR
2011	10th	NR
2012	12th	3rd

6. Tennessee

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	9th	24th
2007	10th	12th
2008	11th	NR
2009	14th	NR
2010	14th	NR
2011	14th	NR
2012	13th	NR

5. Georgia

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	3rd	25th
2007	3rd	3rd*
2008	3rd	12th*
2009	3rd	NR
2010	6th	NR
2011	6th	20th*
2012	7th	5th

4. Michigan

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	8th	9th*
2007	4th	19th*
2008	4th	NR
2009	6th	NR
2010	8th	NR
2011	12th	11th*
2012	11th	25th

3. Florida State

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	5th	NR
2007	7th	NR
2008	7th	22nd
2009	12th	NR
2010	13th	17th*
2011	9th	23rd
2012	5th	9th

2. USC

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	1st	4th
2007	1st	3rd*
2008	1st	3rd*
2009	1st	21st
2010	1st	NR
2011	2nd	16th
2012	3rd	NR

1. Miami (FL)

Year	Talent Quotient Ranking	Final Poll Ranking
2006	4th	NR
2007	8th	NR
2008	9th	NR
2009	11th	19th
2010	12th	NR
2011	13th	NR
2012	15th	NR

*Rounded numbers

One last interesting fact to consider is that no team in the past 7 years has won a National Championship without a talent quotient ranking below 10th. So, while it is very possible for teams to crack the Top 25 without Top 25 talent, it is much more difficult to make it to, and win, the National Championship without elite talent.

So, in conclusion… as if you didn’t already whine about your college football team enough, I hope that I’ve provided you with further information to sulk about— the 7 years of your life that you’ve been continuously letdown as a fan.

————

By: Tyler Raborn