Recruiting Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,628
#6,628
BigZiti09 said:
I would almost bet you clicked the link then restructured your argument then acted like you finally got around to looking at the link.
Click to expand...

Dude you are pathetic sometimes.


I have said many many times there is no difference between being ranked 80 and 120. Your data made that point for me. Thanks
 
#6,632
#6,632
BruinVol said:
So glad you called this to me attention again.

Your chart shows exactly the gap I am
Saying.

The awards are 14-top 50 players, only 2 50-100 and 14 over 100.

Thanks so much for providing exactly my point
Click to expand...

And in 2017 it was

15 top 50
9 50-100
8 over 100

So your little bs theory is gone again.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about and haven't all day. Go check scout.com and bring me some rankings from them there Bru bru.

I'm signing out for the day.
 
#6,633
#6,633
BigZiti09 said:
And in 2017 it was

15 top 50
9 50-100
8 over 100

So your little bs theory is gone again.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about and haven't all day. Go check scout.com and bring me some rankings from them there Bru bru.

I'm signing out for the day.
Click to expand...

Huh?

8 and 9 prove my point as well dude. No difference again in 50-100 and over 100 thanks again for making my point more valid
 
#6,634
#6,634
Ziti in your time away tonight signed off use all 4 rankings systems to make the 50-100 rankings look better. It's your only hope
 
#6,635
#6,635
BruinVol said:
Huh?

8 and 9 prove my point as well dude. No difference again in 50-100 and over 100 thanks again for making my point more valid
Click to expand...

50-100 means 50 kids total on the planet per class.

100 and above is literally thousands. See the post about NFL draft picks I made earlier.

You are senile and you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Literally everything you’ve said today is wrong. You’re clueless.
 
#6,636
#6,636
BigZiti09 said:
50-100 means 50 kids total on the planet per class.

100 and above is literally thousands. See the post about NFL draft picks I made earlier.

You are senile and you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Literally everything you’ve said today is wrong. You’re clueless.
Click to expand...

Lol

Must have been a quick evening

Take your L and go to bed dude
 
#6,637
#6,637
This entire discussion is simple. Top 50 players are usually correctly ranked. The results prove it. After the top 50 the various services have many discrepancies and the rankings aren't nearly as accurate. At that point (outside the top 50) getting a player that fits your system is much much more important than getting the higher ranked guy. The results (thanks to Ziti) prove it isn't worth getting worked up over the difference in getting Tyler Harris(top 100), Jordan Bone(150ish) or JJ Frazier(200ish).
 
Last edited:
#6,638
#6,638
BruinVol said:
This entire discussion is simple. Top 50 players are usually correctly ranked. The results prove it. After the top 50 the various services have many discrepancies and the rankings aren't nearly as accurate. At that point (outside the top 50) getting a player that fits your system is much much more important than getting the higher ranked guy. The results (thanks to Ziti) prove it isn't worth getting worked up over the difference in getting Tyler Harris(top 100), Jordan Bone(150ish) or JJ Frazier(200ish).
Click to expand...

I didn’t read through it all so maybe it’s been answered, but what is the success rate of players ranked 50-125 vs. 126-200?
 
#6,639
#6,639
bleedingTNorange said:
I didn’t read through it all so maybe it’s been answered, but what is the success rate of players ranked 50-125 vs. 126-200?
Click to expand...

In the Limited data seen here better for the 125-200 but it isn't enough data to ne fair and was only using rivals

I take that back it was the same but it stopped at 150 because of rivals. If you add the non ranked guys it's better
 
#6,640
#6,640
BruinVol said:
In the Limited data seen here better for the 125-200 but it isn't enough data to ne fair and was only using rivals

I take that back it was the same but it stopped at 150 because of rivals. If you add the non ranked guys it's better
Click to expand...

But there’s thousands of “lower than 150” guys, so not the most accurate picture if we are talking hit %

I’ve been one of the biggest supporters of finding a fit over ranking, but I’ll take a guy ranked 99 that’s is a perfect fit over a guy ranked 175 that’s a perfect fit. Good example is Burns, I have higher hopes for him than I do Walker(who I am high on).

Is any ranking range 100% hit, no, but I’m guessing you’ll find more hits in that 50-125 range than 126-200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,642
#6,642
cncchris33 said:
I guess now that the excitement of the season has worn off, Chicken Little is back to believing the sky is falling. I suspect that in 8-9 months, when we are rolling again, he'll be back to "trusting Barnes".
Click to expand...

You think that's what I meant by concerned? I'd explain myself, but why bother?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,643
#6,643
Using the 50-125 & 126-200, and 247 rankings simply for ease of finding this info...last 10 years classes at Tennessee:

50-125...
Renaldo Woolridge, Phillip Jurick, Kenny Hall, Trae Golden, Detrick Mostella

126-200...
Darius Thompson, Tariq Owens, Lamonte Turner, Jalen Johnson, Jordan Bone, Kwe Parker, Grant Williams, Yves Pons


I would say Hall & Golden were good players, so 2/6 at best on 50-125 ranked guys.

Turner, Bone, Williams are definitely hits, Johnson and Pons TBD, so at worst 3/8 on 126-200 guys.

Pretty similar percentage as far as finding successful SEC players...and you could definitely say Williams is far and away better than anything in that other group and make a car Turner and Bone also will be when it’s said and done.

Obviously just 10 classes at Tennessee is a small sample size, but I was curious.
 
#6,644
#6,644
bleedingTNorange said:
Using the 50-125 & 126-200, and 247 rankings simply for ease of finding this info...last 10 years classes at Tennessee:

50-125...
Renaldo Woolridge, Phillip Jurick, Kenny Hall, Trae Golden, Detrick Mostella

126-200...
Darius Thompson, Tariq Owens, Lamonte Turner, Jalen Johnson, Jordan Bone, Kwe Parker, Grant Williams, Yves Pons


I would say Hall & Golden were good players, so 2/6 at best on 50-125 ranked guys.

Turner, Bone, Williams are definitely hits, Johnson and Pons TBD, so at worst 3/8 on 126-200 guys.

Pretty similar percentage as far as finding successful SEC players...and you could definitely say Williams is far and away better than anything in that other group and make a car Turner and Bone also will be when it’s said and done.

Obviously just 10 classes at Tennessee is a small sample size, but I was curious.
Click to expand...

It’s also using a ranking system for a company that didn’t exist 10 years ago.

Philip J went on to have a good career IIRC. (Edit: or maybe not. He played at OSU but probably had his best game against us in a preseason tourney)

Mostella’s problem wasn’t talent. There’s a reason he was available late. Same reason he’s sitting at home right now.
 
Last edited:
#6,645
#6,645
BigZiti09 said:
It’s also using a ranking system for a company that didn’t exist 10 years ago.

Philip J went on to have a good career IIRC.

Mostella’s problem wasn’t talent. There’s a reason he was available late. Same reason he’s sitting at home right now.
Click to expand...

He’s actually in school somewhere
 
#6,646
#6,646
BigZiti09 said:
It’s also using a ranking system for a company that didn’t exist 10 years ago.

Philip J went on to have a good career IIRC. (Edit: or maybe not. He played at OSU but probably had his best game against us in a preseason tourney)

Mostella’s problem wasn’t talent. There’s a reason he was available late. Same reason he’s sitting at home right now.
Click to expand...

Well feel free to use rivals for same time period, The issue with that is that it’s also impossible to tell above 150+ with rivals so the parameters I was using wouldn’t work.

Do rivals last 10 years splitting it...

50-100 and 101-150
 
#6,647
#6,647
50–100: Woolridge, Jurick, Hall, Golden, Mostella,

101-150: Richardson, Thompson, Turner, Johnson, Bone, Pons



Again I think the 2nd group produced better players and a higher hit %
 
#6,648
#6,648
bleedingTNorange said:
50–100: Woolridge, Jurick, Hall, Golden, Mostella,

101-150: Richardson, Thompson, Turner, Johnson, Bone, Pons



Again I think the 2nd group produced better players and a higher hit %
Click to expand...

That’s just bad luck. We haven’t had great luck with our 5* recruits in football over the past 15 years but I’d take a whole team of them.

Our basketball 5* haven’t played like 5* either except Tobias.
 
#6,649
#6,649
BigZiti09 said:
That’s just bad luck. We haven’t had great luck with our 5* recruits in football over the past 15 years but I’d take a whole team of them.

Our basketball 5* haven’t played like 5* either except Tobias.
Click to expand...

Is it bad luck, or is that gonna be similar across the board?

I’m not saying 50-100 is the same as unranked, just saying maybe the gap isn’t quite that big in those areas of the rankings? I’m not gonna look up 100 prospects in each class for the last 10 years, I picked Tennessee to look and see what the results said, I’m not sure 10 years of data can all be credited to bad luck though.
 
#6,650
#6,650
Bruin is just spraying all over the place trying to find something.

He didn’t know scout was gone. Thought rankings were just through 100. He tried the old more 3* are successful than 4*. Well yeah. There’s a million of them.

He is lost. He finally find a talking point that I can’t even wrap my mind around his point or why he’s arguing with me about it. And would bet dollars to doughnuts he crafted this dumbass argument after he read my chart and then pretended to read it later.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top