The 2023 recruiting class is the first recruiting class with NIL (players being paid for Name, Image, and Likeness) being allowed for at least a year. (It was allowed starting in the summer of 2021, but many recruits had already committed by then.) Now that the 2023 recruiting cycle is practically over (technically kids could sign for a couple of months, but almost all have already committed or signed), now is a good time to look at the recruiting rankings and ratings to see if it can answer questions around the impact of NIL. This is something that I first looked at last summer. (You can find that FanPost here: https://www.uwdawgpound.com/2022/7/13/23211733/impact-of-nil-on-recruiting) Specifically, there are two assertions that this article will look to address:

1) UW is falling behind the top teams because it can't compete with the teams that have people (NIL 'collectives') throwing around lots of money to ‘buy' recruits.

2) The rich are getting richer. In other words, the teams at the top of the recruiting rankings are now getting more of the top recruits than they were before NIL.

Before I get into the analysis, I want to address what this is NOT going to look at. There is no way to know which recruits have chosen (and signed with) their school because of a NIL deal that they were offered. There are likely to be some recruits where that was a deciding factor. However, I know of no recruits that have specifically said that it was the reason for their commitment to a school, and I've heard several recruits say that they turned down larger NIL deals at one school to sign with a different school-so NIL was obviously not the reason in those cases.

Regardless of whether this is happening with individual recruits, the question is whether there is enough of this, especially among the top recruits, that it is impacting the distribution of top-rated recruits and whether that is causing UW to fall behind. If there is enough of this going on, and it is concentrated to a select few schools, then the recruiting rankings would reflect it.

For this analysis I'm comparing the current recruiting rankings and ratings on 247Sports with their rankings and ratings over the previous 10 years (2013-2022). (Even though NIL was allowed for a small portion of the 2022 recruiting cycle, I included it with the years before NIL since it wasn't as developed as a strategy until after a lot of recruits had chosen their school.) Ten years' worth of data seemed like a good amount to account for other changes (like with coaching staffs) which can also impact recruiting.

Comparing UW's Recruiting

Between 2013 and 2022 UW's recruiting ranking varied considerably-from a high of 16 (in 2018, 2019, and 2020) to a low of 96 (in 2022). UW's average recruiting rank over the 10 years was 30.7; and the median was 24. (For those who don't remember their statistics, a median of 24 means that there were 5 years when UW was ranked above 24 and 5 years when they were ranked below that.)

Currently UW's rank is 29. So their current rank is in between the average and the median. It should not be a surprise that UW's rank is lower this year given how high UW's recruiting ranking was after 3 straight NY6 bowl games, and that it is much higher that it was with DeBoer's cobbled-together first recruiting class (2022). While not necessarily a great comparison (for a number of reasons like early signing and the Transfer Portal), Petersen's first full recruiting class (2015) was ranked #26.

The recruiting rank can be influenced by the number of recruits there are in a class. Teams with more commits can have higher rankings. That's part of the reason that the 2022 class was ranked so low-they didn't have as many recruits as most other teams. Even UW's 2023 class has fewer commits/signees than most of the teams above them in the rankings; over 2/3rds of the teams above UW have more recruits.

One way to compare classes, that isn't effected by the number of recruits as much, is to look at the average rating for the recruits in a class. 247Sports includes the average recruit rating (based on their composite rating) with their team rankings. (https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/)

Over the previous 10 years, UW's average recruit rating was 87.59. This was as high as 90.21 in 2018 and as low as 84.34 in 2014 (Petersen's first year). UW's current average rating is 87.92, which is slightly higher than the average before NIL. The median value for the previous 10 years was 87.73, so the current average rating is slightly higher than that as well. And the current average is higher than Petersen's first full recruiting class (2015) which had an average of 85.77. So, UW's current average rating is not behind where it has been over the previous 10 years; it is slightly ahead.

A third way to compare recruiting classes is to look at the number of blue chip (4-star and 5-star) recruits in the class. Some of that is factored in with the average rating, but the average can be misleading if, for example, there are some 4-stars along with some 2-stars. That average would be about the same as if they were all 3-stars.

Between 2013 and 2022, UW had 73 blue chip recruits for an average of 7.3 per year. Again, this varied from just 1 in 2022 to 15 in the 2019 class. The median was 7. UW's 2023 class currently has 7 blue chip recruits, which is right in line with where it has been in the past.

Overall, in looking at those 3 areas (rank, average rating, and blue chips), it is not clear that UW's recruiting this year is much different than in the past; it is clearly not much worse. So the hypothesis that UW is "falling behind" does not seem to be valid based on these numbers-at least not by any significant extent. And for the first full class with a new coach, the recruiting should be considered very good.

Are the Rich Getting Richer?

UW's ranking and average may not be much different, but if the top teams are improving more, than that would indicate that UW is falling behind. To check that, here's a look at the teams above UW and whether this year is any different for them compared to the past.

Five programs stand out as being much better this year (their rank being higher) than over the previous 10 years: South Carolina, TCU, Utah, Michigan State, and Texas Tech. It's not hard to understand why TCU and Utah would be recruiting better this year than in the past given how they've done on the field-especially this last year. Given South Carolina's season in 2022, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that they are recruiting a little better this year, too. Texas Tech just finished their best season since 2013, which probably contributed to their boost. Michigan State didn't have a good 2022 season, but they did have a stellar 2021 season; that and their coach probably contributed at least to some extent to their boost.

And while it appears that a few teams passed UW this year, a few teams fell behind as well. Kentucky, Stanford, and UCLA are teams that had an average ranking above UW over the previous 10 years (between 2013 and 2022) and that are behind them in the current (2023) ranking. So that is 5 teams that moved above UW in the rankings and 3 that moved down. The rest of the teams above UW in the ranking, especially the top 15-20, are largely the same ones that have been above UW in previous years.

Most of the teams on that list have a higher average recruit rating this year than their average over the previous 10 years. The exceptions are Clemson, USC, Michigan, Auburn, and Florida State. Does that indicate that "the rich are getting richer"? Maybe, but a deeper look indicates that may not be the case.

While Alabama's average this year may be above their average of the previous 10 years, it isn't the highest average recruit rating that they've had in a class. Last year (2022) their average was 95.27 and the year before it was 94.99. So it actually dropped a little this year compared to the previous 2 years. Similarly Georgia's average was as high as 94.23 in 2018, and above 93 in 4 of the last 5 years, so being 94.07-the year they win their second national championship-doesn't seem significant compared to their recent classes. Of the 76 programs that I got data for (all of the previous 10 years plus this year), all but 5 have a higher average recruit rating this year than their average in the previous 10 years. The ones that don't have a higher average are Michigan, Stanford, Auburn, Florida State, and Clemson. Stanford shouldn't be a surprise, but the others might be. So, it isn't just the few teams at the top that are improving their recruiting rating-it seems to be a trend across most of the Power-5 schools.

There are a few teams above UW in the rankings whose average recruit rating this year is higher than in any of the previous 10 years. Here's a look at some teams above UW and their minimum and maximum average per recruit during the previous 10 years and how this year's average compares to the maximum recruit average that they have.

The difference between the previous maximum recruit rating for Miami, Tennessee, TCU, and Arkansas seem relatively insignificant. Miami does have more blue chip recruits in this class than they've had in any of the previous 10 years. Some of that is possibly due to NIL (given the stories around NIL at that program), but some of that is probably just as much due to Mario Cristobal's recruiting ability compared to the previous coaches there. The improvements at Texas, Texas Tech, South Carolina, and Michigan State may also be due as much to the coaches at those programs compared to previous coaches. And Utah's is very likely attributable to winning the last 2 Pac-12 Championships. Florida's average this year is much higher than it has been, although their ranking is consistent with what it has been (their average rank is 11.7 over the previous 10 years). And Florida has had an average recruit rating above 90 in 5 of the previous 10 years, so having an average above 90 this year is not unusual. And Florida has a new coach, too.

Here are all of the teams whose average this year is higher (by 0.5 or more points) than it has been over the team's maximum average recruit rating from the previous 10 years:

• Louisville (+2.56)
• Colorado (+1.92)
• Kansas (+1.64)
• Utah (+1.41)
• Florida (+1.29)
• East Carolina (+1.28)
• Kansas State (+1.03)
• BYU (+1.03)
• Cincinnati (+0.97)
• Texas (+0.87)
• Texas Tech (+0.83)
• Michigan State (+0.82)
• South Carolina (+0.80)
• UCF (0.76)

A few of those may be due to NIL, but many can be explained more by coaching changes (like Colorado) or improvements on the field (like Utah, Kansas, and Kansas State) or the fact that the team will be changing conferences (like BYU, UCF, and Cincinnati). I don't think that anyone is accusing East Carolina of ‘buying recruits' using NIL. That leaves Louisville, Florida, Texas Tech, Michigan State, South Carolina, and Texas as possibly capitalizing on NIL. We all know that Florida has been trying to do it, but Louisville, Texas Tech, Michigan State, South Carolina, and even Texas may be more about their coaches.

But when thinking about "getting richer", especially with respect to NIL, the common thinking is around blue chip recruits. Are they being drawn more to the top schools and their NIL money? To understand if that might be the case, here's a look at the percentage of blue chip recruits that have signed with the top-25 ranked (in the recruiting rankings) teams this year and each year over the last 10 years.

There are still a (very) few blue chip recruits that have yet to sign (or commit) during this recruiting cycle, but so far it appears that the percentage of blue chip recruits that are signing with the top teams is very consistent with the previous 10 years; they do not appear to be any more concentrated among the top schools than they have been in the past.

Observations

Despite fears that NIL would mean that the top teams would hoard the top talent, that has not been the case this year. The top teams in the recruiting ranking this year are largely the same that they have been over the previous 10 years. There were some teams that moved into the top-25 of the rankings, but others that have moved down; but this has happened every year, so it is nothing new.

Even as the top teams this year may be different than in the past, the percentage of the top talent is not being ‘hoarded' at the top. The top teams have always gotten the top recruits, and the percentage of blue chip recruits at the top schools this year is not any different than in years past.

What this seems to suggest is the ‘rich getting richer' may be true-if applied to all of the Power-5 programs and not just the top 10-20 of the Power-5. The recruiting at most of the Power-5 teams improved this year. But this is probably due to a trend across college football from having the playoffs more than because of NIL. The top recruits that want to play for a national championship will continue to be attracted to the Power-5 schools, and some of the best Group-of-Five schools.

There may be a few teams like Miami and Texas A&M that may have ‘bought their way to having a top recruiting team', but you have to wonder how long that will be sustainable if the performance on the field does not correspond to those recruiting rankings. There are other teams, like Utah, that have improved their recruiting this year when it is doubtful that NIL was a primary factor. Overall, factors like improved on-the-field results, new coaches, and changes in conferences appear to have more impact on recruiting rankings and average ratings than NIL.

Here's an article which argues the same point about NIL not being as much of a factor as was feared by some, including using some analysis from a Nobel Prize winning economist whose analysis reached a similar conclusion: https://sports.yahoo.com/despite-fears-and-sky-is-falling-rhetoric-signing-day-proves-nil-didnt-ruin-college-football-000705316.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

This doesn't mean that many players will not benefit financially from NIL. And it doesn't mean that people associated with some schools won't try to entice players to their school-and even succeed in getting some players. But that also doesn't mean that enough of this is happening that it is affecting the distribution of recruits. And those schools where that happens will not necessarily end up with better teams-or even better players.

Will NIL become more of a factor impacting recruiting in the future? Maybe. Is one year's data just not enough? Maybe not. But with the expanded playoffs and the Transfer Portal, those will likely impact the distribution of talent across college football in the future much more than NIL.

And finally, as was mentioned above, it isn't clear that UW is being ‘left behind'. UW's recruiting this year is down from its peak a few years ago, but in most respects it is right in line where it has been over the previous 10 years. Most of the teams in front of them this year have been in front of them for most of the previous 10 years. And there is no reason to believe that UW's recruiting won't improve with the staff they have in place and with continued success on the field. Maybe it won't be enough to get UW into the top-10 of the recruiting rankings, but top-20 rankings should be possible-especially if double-digit wins continue. And even with the recruiting rankings that UW has had, UW is obviously good enough to be ranked in a final top-10 football ranking-like they were this year in the AP and Coaches polls. In a couple of years, that ranking should be good enough to get them into them playoffs and we'll see what happens after that.