All 128 Division I college football teams are just wrapping up spring training. The senior players are only memories. The incoming class hasn’t yet arrived. And hopes for a successful season are as plentiful as flower blossoms and tree buds.
This flow of players through college football teams is a microcosm of the flow of people and talent through corporations today. The promise of thirty-year employment has long vanished, and with the arrival of the millennial workforce, corporations are struggling with the reality of a “learn-and-leave” mindset. The importance of continuously recruiting new players for college football programs and modern corporations alike has become paramount.
The notion of recruiting has always fascinated us. The most common mantra heard in the hallways of companies today is “hire only the best.” At first blush, this seems to make perfect sense. The implication is that hiring only the best will result in top performance. How true is this assertion? As examining this premise across corporations proves difficult, let’s take a look through the world of college football.
The 2015 college football season ended with Alabama regaining its throne after a convincing victory over Clemson in the title game. Using the final season rankings as our measure of performance, let’s examine the performance ranking of all 128 Division I teams. What influence did recruiting have on this ultimate result?
Every year around this time, each college football program is ranked on the number and quality of its incoming recruits. We’ve compared these two sets of rankings in the chart below. The final standing is based on the 2015 win–loss records. The recruiting rankings are from 2013. We picked this year as the very best players in the college game only stay around for two of the four years they are eligible to play.
Last year’s recruiting headlines might read:
Alabama #1 in Both Recruiting and Final Standings
As you can see, Alabama has a perfect correlation. The team was ranked number one in recruiting and number one in performance. This result, of course, gives credence to the adage, “hire only the best.”
But another significant headline regarding recruiting might read
Navy Finishes the Season at #17 despite Ranking 112th in Recruiting
Navy’s program provides a strong counterargument to the adage that recruiting is the number one priority. Not only does this ranking indicate that factors exist beyond recruiting, Navy’s particular story demonstrates that there are ways to succeed that do not rely on recruiting. When we look at the full spectrum of 128 schools, we can clearly see that while success can be positively impacted by recruiting, it is dependent on more than simply hiring the best.
Let’s look closer:
- Three top twenty-five schools had a strong correlation between their recruiting and their final rankings: Alabama, Ohio State, and Notre Dame
- Of the top twenty-five recruiting schools, nine (or 36 percent) finished the season within +/- 10 percent of their recruiting ranking
- This breakdown holds for all 128 teams:
- 34 percent fell within the +/- correlated recruiting range
- 32 percent outperformed their recruiting expectations
- 34 percent underperformed their recruiting expectations
- Four schools in addition to Navy significantly outperformed their recruiting rankings
- Houston (7th in performance/76th in recruiting)
- Utah (18th in performance/67th in recruiting)
- Iowa (8th in performance/59th in recruiting)
- TCU (9th in performance/43rd in recruiting)
- Five schools had some clear issues and significantly underperformed their recruiting rankings
- Auburn (60th in performance/6th in recruiting)
- Texas A&M (45th in performance/5th in recruiting)
- Texas (74th in performance/16th in recruiting)
- South Carolina (95th in performance/19th in recruiting)
- Kentucky (83rd in performance/22nd in recruiting)
The story painted by this data indicates that while top talent is important, what happens to these potentially high performers when they arrive is equally important: How strong is the program they enter? Does it continue to develop top performers? Is leadership aligned around a clear strategy?
Questions to ponder:
- How would you rate your recruiting program?
- What does your development program look like for your critical roles?
- Are your leaders aligned around your strategy?
Originally published on Outcomes Thinking Blog