Before each of the last few years I’ve looked at what our recruiting tells us about our expected win total. Without getting into the debate of how much recruiting rankings matter, there’s a lot of good data that shows there is good correlation.
I like to use 5 years of data to make my comparisons because that captures the maximum life cycle of a recruit. First, a refresher on Pitt’s recruiting the last five years.
Recall that the 2015 class was the transition class from Chryst to Narduzzi. Here are our final national recruiting ranks per Rivals. 2015: #65, 2016: #29, 2017: #38, 2018: #36, 2019: #50.
Until last year, Narduzzi had a nice thing going. As it stands, our five year average is #44 nationally good for 8th in the ACC. Focusing only on Narduzzi’s 4 full classes, we move up #38 nationally and move ahead of NC State to become 7th in the ACC.
Here’s our 2019 win-loss projection.
1. Pitt #44 vs. UVA #53 (2015: 43, 2016: 61, 2017: 58, 2018: 69, 2019: 33). From a recruiting rankings perspective, Pitt should be favored to beat UVA.
2. Pitt #44 vs. Ohio #97 (2019: 87 was their only top 100 class).
3. Pitt #44 vs. PSU #13 (2015: 15, 2016: 21, 2017: 12, 2018: 5, 2019: 11). Franklin sure can recruit.
4. Pitt #44 vs. UCF # 59. (2015: 63, 2016: 57, 2017: 53, 2018: 67, 2019: 55). No one out performs their recruiting like UCF. But even with all theirs wins, they still only recruit like Rutgers. From a recruiting perspective, this should be a win.
5. Pitt vs. Delaware. FCS, so no data, but it’s a Pitt “win.”
6. Pitt #44 vs. Duke #51. (2015: 62, 2016: 31, 2017: 46, 2018: 65, 2019: 49). Not as much of a gap as one might expect, but still a Pitt “win.”
7. Pitt #44 vs. Syracuse #58. (2015: 60, 2016: 54, 2017: 58, 2018: 64, 2019: 54). Considering what he’s done on the field, Babers has had zero positive impact on SU recruiting.
8. Pitt #44 vs. Miami #20. (2015: 26, 2016: 23, 2017: 11, 2018: 6, 2019: 36). If they ever actually get a good coach, they could win big again.
9. Pitt #44 vs. Georgia Tech #49. (2015: 39, 2016: 67, 2017: 41, 2018: 53, 2019: 43). It’ll be interesting to see what Geoff Collins can do recruiting wise.
10. Pitt #44 vs. UNC #27. (2015: 28, 2016: 22, 2017: 30, 2018: 23, 2019: 31). Even through awful seasons, UNC always recruits well. The power of a great brand, I guess. “Loss.”
11. Pitt #44 vs. Virginia Tech #30. (2015: 24, 2016: 49, 2017: 28, 2018: 22, 2019: 25). Like UNC, they always recruit well. Fuente is struggling so far this year, though. “Loss.”
12. Pitt #44 vs. Boston College #65. (2015: 60, 2016: 54, 2017: 58, 2018: 64, 2019: 54). BC is one of the hardest places to recruit.
Last year, this method predicted that Pitt would go 7-5 and it go 10 of 12 games right. The only misses were UCF projected to be a win and VT to be a loss. This year, Pitt is expected to go 8-4 with losses to PSU, Miami, UNC, and VT. We’ll see what happens.
I like to use 5 years of data to make my comparisons because that captures the maximum life cycle of a recruit. First, a refresher on Pitt’s recruiting the last five years.
Recall that the 2015 class was the transition class from Chryst to Narduzzi. Here are our final national recruiting ranks per Rivals. 2015: #65, 2016: #29, 2017: #38, 2018: #36, 2019: #50.
Until last year, Narduzzi had a nice thing going. As it stands, our five year average is #44 nationally good for 8th in the ACC. Focusing only on Narduzzi’s 4 full classes, we move up #38 nationally and move ahead of NC State to become 7th in the ACC.
Here’s our 2019 win-loss projection.
1. Pitt #44 vs. UVA #53 (2015: 43, 2016: 61, 2017: 58, 2018: 69, 2019: 33). From a recruiting rankings perspective, Pitt should be favored to beat UVA.
2. Pitt #44 vs. Ohio #97 (2019: 87 was their only top 100 class).
3. Pitt #44 vs. PSU #13 (2015: 15, 2016: 21, 2017: 12, 2018: 5, 2019: 11). Franklin sure can recruit.
4. Pitt #44 vs. UCF # 59. (2015: 63, 2016: 57, 2017: 53, 2018: 67, 2019: 55). No one out performs their recruiting like UCF. But even with all theirs wins, they still only recruit like Rutgers. From a recruiting perspective, this should be a win.
5. Pitt vs. Delaware. FCS, so no data, but it’s a Pitt “win.”
6. Pitt #44 vs. Duke #51. (2015: 62, 2016: 31, 2017: 46, 2018: 65, 2019: 49). Not as much of a gap as one might expect, but still a Pitt “win.”
7. Pitt #44 vs. Syracuse #58. (2015: 60, 2016: 54, 2017: 58, 2018: 64, 2019: 54). Considering what he’s done on the field, Babers has had zero positive impact on SU recruiting.
8. Pitt #44 vs. Miami #20. (2015: 26, 2016: 23, 2017: 11, 2018: 6, 2019: 36). If they ever actually get a good coach, they could win big again.
9. Pitt #44 vs. Georgia Tech #49. (2015: 39, 2016: 67, 2017: 41, 2018: 53, 2019: 43). It’ll be interesting to see what Geoff Collins can do recruiting wise.
10. Pitt #44 vs. UNC #27. (2015: 28, 2016: 22, 2017: 30, 2018: 23, 2019: 31). Even through awful seasons, UNC always recruits well. The power of a great brand, I guess. “Loss.”
11. Pitt #44 vs. Virginia Tech #30. (2015: 24, 2016: 49, 2017: 28, 2018: 22, 2019: 25). Like UNC, they always recruit well. Fuente is struggling so far this year, though. “Loss.”
12. Pitt #44 vs. Boston College #65. (2015: 60, 2016: 54, 2017: 58, 2018: 64, 2019: 54). BC is one of the hardest places to recruit.
Last year, this method predicted that Pitt would go 7-5 and it go 10 of 12 games right. The only misses were UCF projected to be a win and VT to be a loss. This year, Pitt is expected to go 8-4 with losses to PSU, Miami, UNC, and VT. We’ll see what happens.
