From Signing Day to the 2009 Season
The table below includes the number of student athletes that signed LOIs in the spring of 2008 ( ); and the number of signees that were on the roster in 2009. [Keep in mind these are numbers and names provided by Rivals. Each recruiting service treats each category of student athlete differently. For example; they may or may not include transfers in their numbers, may or may not include Junior College or Community College athletes, etc.]
Illinois (20) 19
Indiana (19) 19
Iowa (20) 18
Michigan (22) 22
Michigan State (23) 22
Minnesota (20) 17
Nebraska (20) 20
Northwestern (18) 18
Ohio State (25) 24
Penn State (27) 24
Purdue (20) 19
Wisconsin (21) 20
As you can see from the list above, 8 of the 12 teams lost at least one member of their signing class between the spring signing period and their first season on campus. Some of those recruits showed up the following season, some greyshirted, and others went elsewhere (a junior or community college or some other place because of grades, etc.) and never showed back up at the school they originally signed with in the spring of 2008.
Looking back at different schools and conferences it is not unusual to lose a signee, but it seems very unusual to lose 3 (as Penn State and Minnesota both did in 2009). Just 4 schools (Michigan, Indiana, Nebraska, and Northwestern) had their entire signing class on campus the following fall. According to Rivals, Minnesota lost two 3 star recruits and one 4 star recruit (running back Hasan Lipscomb of Cypress Ridge HS in Houston, TX). None of those athletes ever reported to Minnesota. The Nittany Lions lost two 4 star recruits and one 3 star, but one of the 4 stars (linebacker Glenn Carson was on the roster for the 2010 season).
Keeping a class together over 4 years
In an ideal world, a college football coach would love to recruit a group of student athletes that performed well the moment they stepped on campus, did well in class, stayed out of trouble, were model student athletes and were willing to spend at least 4 years on campus before pursuing their NFL dreams.
As we know that never happens (it happens for individuals, but is virtually nonexistent as an entire class). We have variance in the group of young men that sign. Whether they "fit in", are able to perform and challenge for a spot on the field, or excel in the classroom varies from individual to individual. Still it is arguable that keeping a majority of a signing class together and having them contribute is important to the long term success of the team. Before we explore the relationship between conference wins and attrition - it is important to take a look at which schools had the best retention.
The list below includes the number of student athletes that signed LOIs in 2008 ( ); the number and percentage that were still on the roster 4 years later.
1. Northwestern (18) 15 83%
2. Wisconsin (21) 16 76%
3. Michigan State (23) 17 74%
4. Purdue (20) 14 70%
5. Penn State (27) 18 67%
6. Michigan (22) 14 64%
7. Ohio State (25) 14 56%
8. Nebraska (20) 11 55%
9. Indiana (19) 10 53%
10. Illinois (20) 10 50%
11. Iowa (20) 10 50%
12. Minnesota (20) 10 50%
As you can see from the chart below - the rate of attrition varies by program. It is impressive that Coach Pat Fitzgerald and his staff at Northwestern held a relatively small class together over the life of that classes eligibility. At this point it is unknown if 83% is very impressive, whether 50% is typical, or something else. We will look at the other BCS conferences to get a better understanding if the attrition rates in the B1G is typical.
It is important to note that presence doesn't equal either participation or performance. These are simply athletes that were present (listed on the team roster) during their "eligibility" as a college student athlete. To understand the type of impact those student athletes may or may not have had on their programs it is important to dive a little deeper - we will attempt to do that in a future post.
Context
In an attempt to give some context as we finish this post - the list provided below is the Rivals "Team Rankings" based on those 2008 signees. It is assumed that this list was constructed immediately following signing day 2009. The rank to the left is the team's national rank ... did that ranking equate conference wins from 2009-2012/2013? We will explore that further in another post.
3. Ohio State
8. Michigan
17. Michigan State
24. Penn State
28. Nebraska
35. Illinois
39. Minnesota
43. Wisconsin
58. Northwestern
59. Indiana
63. Iowa
75. Purdue
