What matters to college football recruits? Here's what the statisticians say...

[Klinglerware]

I thought the study was kind of interesting. They also attempt to validate their model by seeing how well it predicts athletes' actual school choices (scroll far to the right to see their recruit board). Could be useful for "certain" game designers (ahem), in modeling recruit decision-making.

Anyway the highlights of the study:

We were a bit surprised by the results. There were a number of factors that we thought would significantly impact the decision of the high school athlete that didn’t. For example, factors like the school’s graduation rate, the number of Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bowl appearances, the current roster depth at the recruited player’s position, the number of players from a specific college drafted by the NFL, and even the number of national championships won by a particular program don’t systematically influence the decisions of high school athletes. Surprised? So were we.

What, then, does matter? As it turns out the following factors DO significantly impact the decision of high school athletes:

- Whether the athlete made an “official visit” to a specific college
- Whether the school is in a BCS conference
- The distance from the high school athlete’s hometown to a specific school
- Whether the recruit is in the same state as a specific school
- The final AP Ranking of a specific school in the previous year of competition
- The number of conference titles a school has recorded in recent years
- Whether the school is currently under a “bowl ban” for violating NCAA rules
- The current number of scholarship reductions a school faces for violating NCAA rules
- The size of the team’s stadium (measured in terms of seating capacity)
- Whether the school has an on-campus stadium
- The current age of the team’s stadium

So, in a nutshell, high school athletes prefer winning programs that are
close to home, are in possession of good physical facilities, and are in good
graces with the NCAA. Interestingly enough however, reduced scholarships increase the likelihood of choosing a particular school, holding all else constant. This is likely because reduced scholarships imply reduced competition for exposure and playing time in the future.

http://ssbea.mercer.edu/lynch/CFRPM.htm

[sachmo71]

I hope Jim is reading this.

[waltwal]

I can't disagree with this study but i wonder if when you ask a young recruit what influenced his decision if he really knows what the key factors are. Of the factors that are listed tho the only one i would be inclined to disagree with is the importance of the stadium. It would seem to be that the training facilities would be a bigger factor than the stadium except for the size of the stadium.

But one pretty successful program comes to mind- Oregon. Oregon plays in 40,000 on campus Autzen stadium (which is relatively small) but has state of the art practice and training facilities and does very well in recruiting. No real disagreement but i think the training and practice facilities might be more important.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by waltwal

I can't disagree with this study but i wonder if when you ask a young recruit what influenced his decision if he really knows what the key factors are. Of the factors that are listed tho the only one i would be inclined to disagree with is the importance of the stadium. It would seem to be that the training facilities would be a bigger factor than the stadium except for the size of the stadium.

But one pretty successful program comes to mind- Oregon. Oregon plays in 40,000 on campus Autzen stadium (which is relatively small) but has state of the art practice and training facilities and does very well in recruiting. No real disagreement but i think the training and practice facilities might be more important.

You raise a very good point.

I would think that the stadium variables are acting as a statistical surrogate for training facility quality, which can be difficult to quantify. You would figure that there must be some (though of course not a perfect) correlation between the quality of the stadium and the quality of the training facilities. Presumably, administrations that are likely to invest in football stadium improvement are also likely to invest in improving the other "facility" elements of the football program.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by waltwal

But one pretty successful program comes to mind- Oregon. Oregon plays in 40,000 on campus Autzen stadium (which is relatively small) but has state of the art practice and training facilities and does very well in recruiting. No real disagreement but i think the training and practice facilities might be more important.

Autzen actually seats 54,000 now after the 2002 renovation, but your point stands - recruits almost always comment on the great "facilities" at Oregon, highlighted by their indoor practice facility (the Casanova Center). Oregon is also helped by the design and reputation of the stadium - given how close to the field the stands are, Autzen is known as a very loud stadium.

Interestingly enough, Oregon doesn't usually pull in highly ranked recruiting classes. More often than not they are ranked in the middle or lower part of the Pac-10, with a few seasons here and there where they crack the top-20. Obviously Bellotti and co. have done pretty well in their evaluations and their ability to develop their players.

[JPhillips]

How many recruits are going to say, "The strippers I got hooked up with"?

[cartman]

The study is clearly invalid since 'Prime, Grade A poonanni' isn't one of the reasons.

[cthomer5000]

Whether the athlete got laid during an “official visit” to a specific college

fixed

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

fixed

Isn't this pretty much guaranteed for any school serious about D-1 football?