DOK Tramel Letter from OSU grad analyzes Recruitng

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jan 1, 2011
3,595
2,351
743
Houston
#1
Long read, but interesting read, not sure it reveals anything not discussed here. See what you think of it.

Here was his introduction: “My name is Barry Walker and I've pulled together an OSU recruiting analysis that you may find interesting. I received my B.S. in Geography from OSU in 2001 and have spent the last 18 years building a career in spatial analytics -- primarily assisting retail and restaurant brands to develop their expansion strategies through data mining and statistical modeling. I typically keep up with all Cowboy related news and of course have seen the recent dust-up regarding football recruiting or more specifically the criticism toward Gundy's inability to land '4 and 5 star' recruits.

https://newsok.com/article/5599801/does-osu-football-recruiting-need-to-improve
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,662
2,436
1,743
#3
It's an interesting analysis, but it seems a little slanted in a few ways.

My first issue is proximity to top 300 talent. He sets two different tiers of distance to top 300 talent. The first is 180 miles and the second is 360 miles. The first distance is conveniently set just short enough to keep us out of the DFW area or really any major population center in Texas. It isn't uncommon for kids to go anywhere that's within a days drive of their home. That's why we've consistently landed talent from Houston. This parameter would be much more realistic if it was set at a 500 mile radius.

My second issue is the way it addresses facilities. They rank them simply by capacity. Am I supposed to believe that teams like UTSA, UAB, Temple, etc. have nicer facilities simply because they have a larger capacity? Obviously that's a fallacy. I understand why he did it though. There isn't really a way to accurately measure the quality of facilities. We would be bumped up significantly if you could accurately measure the quality though.

My final issue is with the social scene. This is a relevant aspect, but it shouldn't hold nearly as much weight as the other aspects on the list. The university of Houston doesn't get a huge recruiting bump over the University of Texas simply because Houston is much larger population base than Austin. I'm sure we grade out terribly in this aspect of the study. But somehow we magically find a way to pull 4 and 5 star recruits consistently in basketball and other sports.

It's definitely an interesting study. But I think it's slanted to justify the results we've seen. I think we could easily be in the top 25 by making a few simple adjustments to the parameters.
 
Jan 1, 2011
3,595
2,351
743
Houston
#4
It's an interesting analysis, but it seems a little slanted in a few ways.
It's definitely an interesting study. But I think it's slanted to justify the results we've seen. I think we could easily be in the top 25 by making a few simple adjustments to the parameters.
Invictus, one of my favorites.
 
Oct 27, 2003
3,977
2,488
1,743
61
McKinney, TX
Visit site
#5
It's an interesting analysis, but it seems a little slanted in a few ways.

My first issue is proximity to top 300 talent. He sets two different tiers of distance to top 300 talent. The first is 180 miles and the second is 360 miles. The first distance is conveniently set just short enough to keep us out of the DFW area or really any major population center in Texas. It isn't uncommon for kids to go anywhere that's within a days drive of their home. That's why we've consistently landed talent from Houston. This parameter would be much more realistic if it was set at a 500 mile radius.

My second issue is the way it addresses facilities. They rank them simply by capacity. Am I supposed to believe that teams like UTSA, UAB, Temple, etc. have nicer facilities simply because they have a larger capacity? Obviously that's a fallacy. I understand why he did it though. There isn't really a way to accurately measure the quality of facilities. We would be bumped up significantly if you could accurately measure the quality though.

My final issue is with the social scene. This is a relevant aspect, but it shouldn't hold nearly as much weight as the other aspects on the list. The university of Houston doesn't get a huge recruiting bump over the University of Texas simply because Houston is much larger population base than Austin. I'm sure we grade out terribly in this aspect of the study. But somehow we magically find a way to pull 4 and 5 star recruits consistently in basketball and other sports.

It's definitely an interesting study. But I think it's slanted to justify the results we've seen. I think we could easily be in the top 25 by making a few simple adjustments to the parameters.
I think what the letter says is, “Gundy is kicking ass, no matter what Holder thinks”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
16,982
13,122
1,743
#6
Long read, but interesting read, not sure it reveals anything not discussed here. See what you think of it.

Here was his introduction: “My name is Barry Walker and I've pulled together an OSU recruiting analysis that you may find interesting. I received my B.S. in Geography from OSU in 2001 and have spent the last 18 years building a career in spatial analytics -- primarily assisting retail and restaurant brands to develop their expansion strategies through data mining and statistical modeling. I typically keep up with all Cowboy related news and of course have seen the recent dust-up regarding football recruiting or more specifically the criticism toward Gundy's inability to land '4 and 5 star' recruits.

https://newsok.com/article/5599801/does-osu-football-recruiting-need-to-improve
It reminded me of the time I saw a comedian and immediately recognized him as the unknown comic without the bag. I think I recognize this poster.

1530393770181.png
 

the truth

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Jul 9, 2004
1,426
723
1,743
#7
It's an interesting analysis, but it seems a little slanted in a few ways.

My first issue is proximity to top 300 talent. He sets two different tiers of distance to top 300 talent. The first is 180 miles and the second is 360 miles. The first distance is conveniently set just short enough to keep us out of the DFW area or really any major population center in Texas. It isn't uncommon for kids to go anywhere that's within a days drive of their home. That's why we've consistently landed talent from Houston. This parameter would be much more realistic if it was set at a 500 mile radius.

My second issue is the way it addresses facilities. They rank them simply by capacity. Am I supposed to believe that teams like UTSA, UAB, Temple, etc. have nicer facilities simply because they have a larger capacity? Obviously that's a fallacy. I understand why he did it though. There isn't really a way to accurately measure the quality of facilities. We would be bumped up significantly if you could accurately measure the quality though.

My final issue is with the social scene. This is a relevant aspect, but it shouldn't hold nearly as much weight as the other aspects on the list. The university of Houston doesn't get a huge recruiting bump over the University of Texas simply because Houston is much larger population base than Austin. I'm sure we grade out terribly in this aspect of the study. But somehow we magically find a way to pull 4 and 5 star recruits consistently in basketball and other sports.

It's definitely an interesting study. But I think it's slanted to justify the results we've seen. I think we could easily be in the top 25 by making a few simple adjustments to the parameters.
First, it is mentioned that the 180 and 360 mile distance doesn't carry as much weight as the distance Stillwater is from Tulsa and OKC.

Second, obviously it's very difficult to address facilities in a really meaningful way. Capacity is one way that isn't subjective. It's not a huge needle mover anyway.

Third, can't compare social scenes between schools like Texas and Houston, Power 5 schools. So Austin and Stillwater become more relevant.
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,662
2,436
1,743
#8
First, it is mentioned that the 180 and 360 mile distance doesn't carry as much weight as the distance Stillwater is from Tulsa and OKC.

Second, obviously it's very difficult to address facilities in a really meaningful way. Capacity is one way that isn't subjective. It's not a huge needle mover anyway.

Third, can't compare social scenes between schools like Texas and Houston, Power 5 schools. So Austin and Stillwater become more relevant.
This is the quote from the article:
I would argue that OSU’s geography is a plus, not a minus, as it pertains to proximity to recruiting grounds. As Walker well-noted, OSU’s geographic problem is not the distance to Dallas and Houston; it’s the distance to Oklahoma City and Tulsa

The story mentioned that we're ranked 62nd out of 65 power 5 teams in population within 20 miles of campus. I think this is what he was referring to when he wrote our geographic problem is how far we are from Tulsa & OKC. .

I missed that he just compared the Power 5 schools, but I still the argument I made is valid. The DFW area has nearly 8X the population of Austin. But who do you think is going to win in a recruiting battle between UT & TCU for a top prospect in Texas?

I'm sure our population base has an affect on how recruits view us. I'm just not sure it should have as much bearing on the metrics as the other aspects. I don't think we would've been able to consistently recruit 4 and 5 star talent including several all-americans in men's basketball if it was a major determining factor in recruiting.
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,662
2,436
1,743
#9
After rereading the article I have one more complaint. I find it odd that he looked at 2013-17 for players drafted and he excluded this year's draft. But when you thing about it, it's pretty clear why he did this. From 2013-17 we only had 6 players drafted. We had 4 players drafted this past year. He excluded this past draft because it would've bumped our ranking up too much.

Over the past 10 years we've had 19 players drafted for an average of 1.9 per year.
Over the past 5 years we've had 9 players drafted for an average of 1.8 per year.
From 2013-17 we had 6 players drafted for an average of 1.2 per year.

It' pretty clear that those 5 years were cherry picked because it pushed the narrative he wanted to push of justifying our recruiting ranking.