Butch says it takes 6 to 7 years to build a program in the SEC

[bowlinggreenvol]

How many 4 stars were in that class? Could've sworn North was the only one...maybe Carr? That class was destined for a dumpster fire if Dooley had stayed...you'll admit that? Sutton was heavily rumored to be flipping to Auburn.

This is why you're worthless to argue with you don't even know what's going on and argue on pure emotion and speculation. JRM, Carr, North, Paul Harris, Austin Sanders.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Paul Harris and Carr huh? That's a foundation. Saw this was purely Rivals...got the 247 composite? May be only North and maybe Carr.

So it's Dooley's fault they left on Butch's watch? Your savior has had 20 recruits leave in 3 years. You want to to blame depth and attrition, look to the leader on the sidelines.

 

[Iam4utalways]

It's like people don't understand the simultaneous implications of recruiting and attrition. Picture it like this: If I have a stack of 100 dollar bills, and you have a stack of 100 dollar bills, I could lose 20 percent or more of my stack and still have more Benjamins than you have in yours, even if you lost nothing. It's because I started with a bigger stack than you did. The amount I lost is therefore inconsequential to our relative wealth. And, because I have managed money poorly in the past, it doesn't make each of the stack of 100s that I continue to have any less valuable.

So what your saying is that I could have more bills, but they could be worth less than what you have due to the value of each bill.

It's like subtraction by addition, if I add to my stack, those are bills you can't have in your stack. So I can limit your stack just by adding to mine.

Go Vols!
Beat SC!

 

[butchna]

You're the one who said Shula had decent classes (on paper, you forget he was fired like Dooley) therefore Saban had talent. So you can keep spinning that he outrecruited Dooley despite having lower ranked classes his entire tenure.

Shula took over after the Dubose failure and Mike Price fiasco...so Dooley like in being an unproven desperation hire. He didn't recruit AGAINST Dooley...he recruited against Fulmer. He managed to patch together some recruiting classes after that first mess and he had bowl team talent for Saban to work with versus the 5-7 talent that Dooley left Butch. Just a recognizable difference in talent. We can quibble over recruiting rankings and whatnot but Saban inherited a lower standard but still legitimate roster...Butch inherited a mess. Obviously you disagree. Guess we'll have to live with that. :hi:

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

It's like people don't understand the simultaneous implications of recruiting and attrition. Picture it like this: If I have a stack of 100 dollar bills, and you have a stack of 100 dollar bills, I could lose 20 percent or more of my stack and still have more Benjamins than you have in yours, even if you lost nothing. It's because I started with a bigger stack than you did. The amount I lost is therefore inconsequential to our relative wealth ( I still have more money than you, and in this particular football economy, that is all that matters). And, just because I have managed money poorly in the past, it doesn't make each of the stack of 100s that I continue to have any less valuable.

Confusing example. You said both parties would start with 100 Benjamin's. Therefore, one wouldn't have more than the other to begin with.

 

[butchna]

So it's Dooley's fault they left on Butch's watch? Your savior has had 20 recruits leave in 3 years. You want to to blame depth and attrition, look to the leader on the sidelines.

Now calm down...Butch isn't my "savior"...he's my coach. I'm not going to let you fire him until he has a proper chance.

I know Paul Harris changed his name...how's he doing? Carr setting records too?

 

[daj2576]

Confusing example. You said both parties would start with 100 Benjamin's. Therefore, one wouldn't have more than the other to begin with.

I reread it and I see the confusion, and edited the original post to try to clear that up.

It is a stack of 100's with no quantification of the amount in the stack, not a stack of 100 singles. To be fair, to read it the way you see it, each party would have had to start with 100 dollars, and end up with multiple benjamins. How could that work with attrition of 20%?

 

[volunteerfan]

Shula took over after the Dubose failure and Mike Price fiasco...so Dooley like in being an unproven desperation hire. He didn't recruit AGAINST Dooley...he recruited against Fulmer. He managed to patch together some recruiting classes after that first mess and he had bowl team talent for Saban to work with versus the 5-7 talent that Dooley left Butch. Just a recognizable difference in talent. We can quibble over recruiting rankings and whatnot but Saban inherited a lower standard but still legitimate roster...Butch inherited a mess. Obviously you disagree. Guess we'll have to live with that. :hi:

Shula went 10-2 in 2005 with a cotton bowl win and went 6-6 in 2006 so butchna might be right

 

[butchna]

This is why you're worthless to argue with you don't even know what's going on and argue on pure emotion and speculation. JRM, Carr, North, Paul Harris, Austin Sanders.

Now you're being emotional and throwing words around. I know that we usually go with the 247 Composite when we reference our signees star rankings. I don't think I expressed EMOTION when I asked the question. You sound very cranky in response...that's emotional. If you don't find VALUE in arguing with me...don't. Have a great day BG...Go Vols! :wavey:

 

[Iam4utalways]

I reread it and I see the confusion. It is a stack of 100's with no quantification of the amount in the stack, not a stack of 100 singles. To be fair, to read it the way you see it, each party would have had to start with 100 dollars, and end up with multiple benjamins. How could that work with attrition of 20%?

Now I'm confused, I thought you were saying we both had 100 bills(players), but they can be of different values(benjamins = $100 bill, franklins= $50 bills), if I'm holding only washingtons and lincolns, and your stack loses 20%, now you have 80 bills, but have a bunch of Benjamins then your 80 is greater than my 100. It's about the stars next to the players that makes them more valuable. On the same line of thinking, a jr 3 star could be able to out perform a fr 5 star, that's where the old money is worth more. A real silver dollar is worth more than a new one that is not made of silver. But that is bringing coins into the conversation, that didn't help.

My bad.

Go Vols!

 

[Iam4utalways]

It's like people don't understand the simultaneous implications of recruiting and attrition. Picture it like this: If I have a stack of money, and you have a stack of money, I could lose 20 percent or more of my stack and still have more money than you have in yours, even if you lost nothing.

It's because I started with a bigger stack than you did. The amount I lost is therefore inconsequential to our relative wealth ( I still have more money than you, and in this particular football economy, that is all that matters). And, just because I have managed money poorly in the past, it doesn't make each of the stack of money that I continue to have any less valuable.

EDIT: for clarification.

It can apply the other way better, change it back. We all get the same # of scholarships(not counting probation), to have a larger stack would mean walk-ons, they would create additional wealth, by having a bigger stack, not discounting walk-ons, they matter, but that's like found money.

 

[Iam4utalways]

So, daj, how long have you been picking at 70%? And have you tracked your picks vs the spread? That's a great system, those in the business brag about 65% vs the spread.

I'm close to that, and I don't have a system, and I don't do much more research than read the names of the teams and remember who was good back in the 90s.

 

[daj2576]

Now I'm confused, I thought you were saying we both had 100 bills(players), but they can be of different values(benjamins = $100 bill, franklins= $50 bills), if I'm holding only washingtons and lincolns, and your stack loses 20%, now you have 80 bills, but have a bunch of Benjamins then your 80 is greater than my 100. It's about the stars next to the players that makes them more valuable. On the same line of thinking, a jr 3 star could be able to out perform a fr 5 star, that's where the old money is worth more. A real silver dollar is worth more than a new one that is not made of silver. But that is bringing coins into the conversation, that didn't help.

My bad.

Go Vols!

No, I'm saying that people over value attrition without looking at a starting point.

A team that starts out with 100 gold bars, and loses 20% is still going to be better than a team that has 70 gold bars and loses nothing. People will focus on the value of the 20% lost, without seeing the inherent value of what remains.

 

[butchna]

No, I'm saying that people over value attrition without looking at a starting point.

A team that starts out with 100 gold bars, and loses 20% is still going to be better than a team that has 70 gold bars and loses nothing. People will focus on the value of the 20% lost, without seeing the inherent value of what remains.

Gold bar post ! :thumbsup:

 

[daj2576]

So, daj, how long have you been picking at 70%? And have you tracked your picks vs the spread? That's a great system, those in the business brag about 65% vs the spread.

I'm close to that, and I don't have a system, and I don't do much more research than read the names of the teams and remember who was good back in the 90s.

I've been tracking this system since back in the Dooley days, but have ran the numbers as far back as Rivals recruiting will allow you to create 4 year averages (2005). I don't typically track this against Vegas, but the times I have it has been around the break even point (though I would absolutely not recommend that anyone should use this data to gamble). Remember, to beat Vegas you need to win something like 52.7% of the time. What this evaluation has done is gotten me very close to people who do sports invest for a living. I have done some work on far more complex and predictive systems. It has been fascinating.

 

[Iam4utalways]

No, I'm saying that people over value attrition without looking at a starting point.

A team that starts out with 100 gold bars, and loses 20% is still going to be better than a team that has 70 gold bars and loses nothing. People will focus on the value of the 20% lost, without seeing the inherent value of what remains.

It sounds like the Vols had 50 gold bars when Butch took over, and now we have 70 gold bars.

 

[Iam4utalways]

I've been tracking this system since back in the Dooley days, but have ran the numbers as far back as Rivals recruiting will allow you to create 4 year averages (2005). I don't typically track this against Vegas, but the times I have it has been around the break even point (though I would absolutely not recommend that anyone should use this data to gamble). Remember, to beat Vegas you need to win something like 52.7% of the time. What this evaluation has done is gotten me very close to people who do sports invest for a living. I have done some work on far more complex and predictive systems. It has been fascinating.

For me, if I'm gonna gamble, my choice is throwing dice. I've heard that by placing bets on games, it makes them more interesting.

Go Vols!
Beat SC.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Shula took over after the Dubose failure and Mike Price fiasco...so Dooley like in being an unproven desperation hire. He didn't recruit AGAINST Dooley...he recruited against Fulmer. He managed to patch together some recruiting classes after that first mess and he had bowl team talent for Saban to work with versus the 5-7 talent that Dooley left Butch. Just a recognizable difference in talent. We can quibble over recruiting rankings and whatnot but Saban inherited a lower standard but still legitimate roster...Butch inherited a mess. Obviously you disagree. Guess we'll have to live with that. :hi:

Says you. Rankings disagree as does Shula's 3 .500 or less seasons. Dooley left a mess and Butch needs time because it fits your narrative. Shula left a gold mine and Saban walked into a great situation cause it fits your narrative. Our turmoil in 10 years was nothing close to Bama's over a 10 year period (mind you they were on probation during that span) yet Saban took 2 yrs to compete for a NC.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Now you're being emotional and throwing words around. I know that we usually go with the 247 Composite when we reference our signees star rankings. I don't think I expressed EMOTION when I asked the question. You sound very cranky in response...that's emotional. If you don't find VALUE in arguing with me...don't. Have a great day BG...Go Vols! :wavey:

You say we had two 4* and Butch took over a ****ty foundation. You fail to research he inherited five 4* in that class. That's a baseless post and you using your disdain for Dools to justify Butch's shortcomings.

 

[Iam4utalways]

Says you. Rankings disagree as does Shula's 3 .500 or less seasons. Dooley left a mess and Butch needs time because it fits your narrative. Shula left a gold mine and Saban walked into a great situation cause it fits your narrative. Our turmoil in 10 years was nothing close to Bama's over a 10 year period (mind you they were on probation during that span) yet Saban took 2 yrs to compete for a NC.

Did I see the ranking correct, Bama #1 for the past 7 years? And he still lost to ole miss. Saban had Bama rolling, then he hired Kiffen.
He needs to get Kiffen hired somewhere for Bama to win another NC. Kiffen is like a used car, everybody knows something is wrong with it, that's why it's for sale.

 

[igotworms]

Says you. Rankings disagree as does Shula's 3 .500 or less seasons. Dooley left a mess and Butch needs time because it fits your narrative. Shula left a gold mine and Saban walked into a great situation cause it fits your narrative. Our turmoil in 10 years was nothing close to Bama's over a 10 year period (mind you they were on probation during that span) yet Saban took 2 yrs to compete for a NC.

Very underrated post

 

[butchna]

Says you. Rankings disagree as does Shula's 3 .500 or less seasons. Dooley left a mess and Butch needs time because it fits your narrative. Shula left a gold mine and Saban walked into a great situation cause it fits your narrative. Our turmoil in 10 years was nothing close to Bama's over a 10 year period (mind you they were on probation during that span) yet Saban took 2 yrs to compete for a NC.

Yeah...I could see where you got "gold mine" out of BOWL TEAM. :lol: Somehow in their 10 year "turmoil" they were going to bowls and we weren't so THAT fits my nefarious "narrative". . When you go overboard and mischaracterize my words or flat out MAKE THEM UP, you don't get closer to convincing people that disagree with you that you're on point...it is fun for us tho.

 

[butchna]

You say we had two 4* and Butch took over a ****ty foundation. You fail to research he inherited five 4* in that class. That's a baseless post and you using your disdain for Dools to justify Butch's shortcomings.

So you're a fan of Dooley's fine work? Even MORE fun for us! :lol:

I asked a QUESTION about the four stars...when you calm down (no hurry). I couldn't find the site...happens. :hi:

 

[volunteerfan]

Says you. Rankings disagree as does Shula's 3 .500 or less seasons. Dooley left a mess and Butch needs time because it fits your narrative. Shula left a gold mine and Saban walked into a great situation cause it fits your narrative. Our turmoil in 10 years was nothing close to Bama's over a 10 year period (mind you they were on probation during that span) yet Saban took 2 yrs to compete for a NC.

Are you not seeing the 2005 season where Shula went 10-2?

 

[KBVol]

"it takes 6-7 years to install a new offense." butch jones

fyp