Before we get started, I think "roster mgmt" is generally used as an all-encompassing term that can pertain to numerous personnel items like recruiting, roster need, attrition (in various forms), development, player motivation, etc. In this post, I'm not going to single out any one area. I'm simply using the term generically.
That said, I took similar profile programs (NU and Wisc) and went back to 2012 to capture data for all players who could/should be currently contributing on each roster. I think it's worth noting that both programs went through a coaching change during this period (Wisc did it twice).
If you primarily look at (and rely on) recruiting rankings as a metric to form opinions, you'd conclude that NU should currently be a better roster based on their 5 year results of having a 25.8 avg team ranking compared to Wisconsin's 45.2 and having a 3.12 star avg compared to Wisconsin's 2.97. Period, end. It's all on the coaches. No excuses based on "talent".
But what if you actually drill down and look at the "roster mgmt" for a position group like the o-line?
What you find on the surface is that during this period NU signed 17 OL recruits with an avg Rivals ranking of 5.69, 3* (w/4 - 4*'s signed) compared to Wisconsin's 18 OL recruits with an avg Rivals ranking of 5.61, 3* (w/3 - 4*'s signed). Data that is pretty much in support of the team rankings so the "rankings guy" calls it good. Again, no excuses based on "talent".
However, what you find if you drill down another layer is that of the 17 OL recruits signed by NU, only 6 have yet to start a game (and it looks like up to 5 probably never will). NU has played 66 games since the close of the 2012 recruiting cycle which means with 5 OL positions, there were 330 potential starts to have been made by this group.
Of the 17 guys NU signed to a scholarship during this period, the 6 who have started a game have only accounted for 57 total starts out of the 330 opportunities (17.3%). Compare that to Wisconsin who has also played exactly 66 games since 2012 and yet their scholarship OL recruits from this period already account for 122 of their 330 potential starts (37.0%). That is easily more than double the production the NU scholarship recruits have provided.
NU has had 6 or the 17 recruits (35.3%) actually make a start with one (Gates) becoming a multi-year starter while Wisconsin has had 9 of 18 (50.0%) make a start with three (Voltz, Deiter, Benzschawel) becoming multi-year starters.
Both programs have had their share of attrition but the fact remains that at this point, NU has had more starts during this 5 year period from walk-on OL than they have scholarship players signed during these last five cycles.
Pick whichever "roster mgmt" reason you want to determine why NU is experiencing the results it has along the o-line but the one thing we need to quit doing is throwing everything under the "no excuses, NU has recruited better" umbrella to try and explain just why it's been such a struggle lately.
JMO
Edited to correct Wisc's 5 year average star ranking of recruits to 2.97. Fat fingered the data.
That said, I took similar profile programs (NU and Wisc) and went back to 2012 to capture data for all players who could/should be currently contributing on each roster. I think it's worth noting that both programs went through a coaching change during this period (Wisc did it twice).
If you primarily look at (and rely on) recruiting rankings as a metric to form opinions, you'd conclude that NU should currently be a better roster based on their 5 year results of having a 25.8 avg team ranking compared to Wisconsin's 45.2 and having a 3.12 star avg compared to Wisconsin's 2.97. Period, end. It's all on the coaches. No excuses based on "talent".
But what if you actually drill down and look at the "roster mgmt" for a position group like the o-line?
What you find on the surface is that during this period NU signed 17 OL recruits with an avg Rivals ranking of 5.69, 3* (w/4 - 4*'s signed) compared to Wisconsin's 18 OL recruits with an avg Rivals ranking of 5.61, 3* (w/3 - 4*'s signed). Data that is pretty much in support of the team rankings so the "rankings guy" calls it good. Again, no excuses based on "talent".
However, what you find if you drill down another layer is that of the 17 OL recruits signed by NU, only 6 have yet to start a game (and it looks like up to 5 probably never will). NU has played 66 games since the close of the 2012 recruiting cycle which means with 5 OL positions, there were 330 potential starts to have been made by this group.
Of the 17 guys NU signed to a scholarship during this period, the 6 who have started a game have only accounted for 57 total starts out of the 330 opportunities (17.3%). Compare that to Wisconsin who has also played exactly 66 games since 2012 and yet their scholarship OL recruits from this period already account for 122 of their 330 potential starts (37.0%). That is easily more than double the production the NU scholarship recruits have provided.
NU has had 6 or the 17 recruits (35.3%) actually make a start with one (Gates) becoming a multi-year starter while Wisconsin has had 9 of 18 (50.0%) make a start with three (Voltz, Deiter, Benzschawel) becoming multi-year starters.
Both programs have had their share of attrition but the fact remains that at this point, NU has had more starts during this 5 year period from walk-on OL than they have scholarship players signed during these last five cycles.
Pick whichever "roster mgmt" reason you want to determine why NU is experiencing the results it has along the o-line but the one thing we need to quit doing is throwing everything under the "no excuses, NU has recruited better" umbrella to try and explain just why it's been such a struggle lately.
JMO
Edited to correct Wisc's 5 year average star ranking of recruits to 2.97. Fat fingered the data.
Last edited:
