Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

[volfaninpa]

My grandmother had passed away. I leave for Knoxville tomorrow morning. It’s the longest I’ve been away from K-Town so it’s mixed emotions to say the least

Sorry Nick.

Praying for you and your family.

 

[sjt18]

But the services DO exist. Essentially the stats system measures talent. Of course they are going to miss. The law of averages says that will happen. But can you not see it? Yes Saban is excellent at evaluating talent. Don’t you find it odd that year in and year out that the talent he evaluates just so happens to be mainly highly ranked 4* and 5* players?

No. And that has been explained to you repeatedly. You just stubbornly choose not to accept it.

 

[drvenner]

Any ideas on who it may be…..Wilkerson?

I think he is a possibility. I think he would do great.

 

[sjt18]

Talent can be thought of as something underlying, such as a construct. In this scenario, stars would be the subjective measurement of talent. College stats would be an objective measure of talent. Saying that talent and not stars is critical is an argument of semantics. Ideally we would throw several of these a priori variables into a factor analysis to see which ones hung together to make up the “talent” construct and which ones weren’t related. Then we could use “talent” to predict wins. But unless someone wants to do that, let’s keep arguing about the differences in talent and stars.





That’ll be 9.95.

No. Honestly you missed it worse than BOT.

 

[drvenner]

My grandmother had passed away. I leave for Knoxville tomorrow morning. It’s the longest I’ve been away from K-Town so it’s mixed emotions to say the least

Very sorry for your loss, Nick. Prayers for all of you

 

[SergeantVol]

prove it!

Copperheads are seldom FOUND in the wild.

Been off this board too long and dont know the inside joke on this...

 

[RiseToTheTop]

What a thread lol yikes

 

[VolNRaleighNC]

I can almost taste the fall practice updates from Fingers

 

[Orange_Crush]

Been off this board too long and dont know the inside joke on this...

Find the copperhead and we'll tell you...

 

[allvolrecruiting]

Auburn's last Nattie == 2010

They had 54 three stars on that team. That's a load of them.


Clemson Nattie == 2016

2012 class == 11-3 stars and 9-4 stars
2013 class == 10-3 stars and 10-4stars
2014 class == 12-3 stars, 7-4 stars and 1-5 star
2015 class == 10=3 stars, 9-4 stars and 3-5 stars.

For a grand total of 43 three stars, 35 four stars and 4 five stars.

That team was loaded with three stars.

You are usually naturally going to be filled with 3 stars to fill out a class unless you are a Bama or UGA or Texas A&M last year. But the playmakers are usually 5 stars and high profile 4 stars. Obviously, there will be more 4 stars because of the volume of them compared to 5 stars.

2016 Clemson Champs:
QB - Deshaun Watson was the #1 DT QB recruit in the nation and top-50 recruit
RB - Wayne Gallman was a 4 star
RB - Tavien Feaster was the #1 APB and a top-30 recruit
WR - Mike Williams was a 4 star
WR - Deion Cain was a 5 star and the #2 WR recruit
WR - Artavis Scott was a 4 star and the #8 WR recruit
WR - Hunter Renfrow was a walk on as a quarterback, which his story was so rare he became a national phenomenon after that catch
TE - Jordan Leggett was a high 3 star
ATH - Ray-Ray McCloud was a 4 star and top 75 recruit

DL - Carlos Watkins was a 4 star and the #8 DT in his class
DL - Dexter Lawrence was a 5 star, the #1 DT in his class, and the #2 player overall
DL - Christian Wilkins was a 5 star, and a top-25 recruit
EDGE - Clelin Ferrell was a high 4 star and the #7 WDE in his class
LB - Ben Boulware was a 4 star who was the #8 LB in his class
LB - Kendall Joseph was a 3 star in-state kid that was the #26 LB in his class
CB - Cordea Tankersley was a 4 star
CB - Mark Fields, high 4 star that was top-100 in his class
S - Van Smith was a 4 star

As you can see the majority of their impact players were blue chip recruits. Usually the blue chip recruits will be the guys that win you the big games. Look at the dominance of Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, etc

 

[VOLSONLY]

Find the copperhead and we'll tell you...

 

[Enki_Amenra]

Find the copperhead and we'll tell you...

I know where it's at and still almost missed it,

 

[Jackcrevol]

Been off this board too long and dont know the inside joke on this...

 

[Orange_Crush]

I know where it's at and still almost missed it,

Same.

Here's a fresh one:

 

[swchandler1988]

Watching the Georgia game. Man, can’t wait to see what we do against them this year. We’ll be a better conditioned team and deeper, I could see that being a W if we play like we did in the first half

 

[Orange Studs]

My grandmother had passed away. I leave for Knoxville tomorrow morning. It’s the longest I’ve been away from K-Town so it’s mixed emotions to say the least

Praying for you and the family. May the Lord comfort you like only He can.

 

[overseasorange2]

I know where it's at and still almost missed it,

Unless he is the size of a worm, there is no snake in this pic.

 

[theutvolunteers]

Unless he is the size of a worm, there is no snake in this pic.

Oh there is

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

No. And that has been explained to you repeatedly. You just stubbornly choose not to accept it.

Yep and you won’t see where your thinking is completely wrong.

 

[SugarCC]

My grandmother had passed away. I leave for Knoxville tomorrow morning. It’s the longest I’ve been away from K-Town so it’s mixed emotions to say the least

My sympathies for you and yours, brother.
May she rest in peace.

 

[bullet20]

Unless he is the size of a worm, there is no snake in this pic.

Keep looking its there

 

[engineerVOL]

I know where it's at and still almost missed it,

Same.

 

[sjt18]

Are they not merely the same (to a large degree)? It seems pointless to make a delineation.

Not at all. As someone else pointed out, a lot of the 3* of certain recruiters get bumps. But they also have 3* players who are elite talents and the recruiting sites STILL miss them.

Stars are closely correlated to actual talent. Thus why the best have proven higher draft rates.

Well... not exactly. They miss on about 40% of their 5* if you use the NFL draft as a measure. Obviously some get injured or have some other issue but that should be factored in... and shouldn't be much more than 10% or so. But the bigger thing is that they hedge their results to make them look better than they truly are. They arbitrarily limit the number of 5* they hand out. They still miss 40% but how high would that be if they tried to use a single standard and give every player deserving of 5* the rating whether there were 50 or 5?

If they truly attempted to give every deserving player 4* then they wouldn't even have the 20% hit ratio they have.

We have no better system. No different than the draft. 1st rounders correlate with more talent, despite busts. You'll take a team of 1st rounders over a team of 7th rounders any day.

We? It isn't essential for fans to have any system much less a better one. Much like the NFL, big programs use recruiting consultants. They're tasked with finding and/or doing initial evaluations of talent. If I understand correctly, UT was one of the first to use one. They're paid to give coaches accurate assessments. The coaches then do their own evaluations but from a smaller set of recruits.

The public recruiting sites indirectly steal their work by recognizing which programs have more success and taking special care to "evaluate" the players they're pursuing the hardest.

Another proof of their inaccuracy is that while they correspond reasonably well with the top 5 teams but get significantly worse after that.

Last year's top 25 teams and their composite talent according to 247:

1. Georgia (14-1) ---------------------2
2. Alabama (13-2)--------------------1
3. Michigan (12-2)------------------ 15
4. Cincinnati (13-1)------------------54
5. Baylor (12-2) ---------------------41
6. Ohio State (11-2) -----------------3

7. Oklahoma State (12-2)----------47
8. Notre Dame (11-2)--------------12
9. Michigan State (11-2)-----------37

10. Oklahoma (11-2)----------------6
11. Ole Miss (10-3) ----------------27
12. Utah (10-4)---------------------32
13. Pittsburgh (11-3) -------------36
14. Clemson (10-3) ----------------4
15. Wake Forest (11-3)------------65
16. Louisiana-Lafayette (13-1)-----85
17. Houston (12-2)-----------------71
18. Kentucky (10-3) ---------------31
19. BYU (10-3) ------------------- 108
20. NC State (9-3) ----------------35
21. Arkansas (9-4)----------------28
22. Oregon (10-4) -----------------9
23. Iowa (10-4) -------------------43
24. Utah State (11-3)------------ 116
25. San Diego State (12-2)-------101

Even if you only look at P-5 schools... they aren't all that accurate after the first few. Missing from that list are #5 LSU, #7 UF, #8 TAM, #10 USC, #11 Texas, #13 Miami, #14 Auburn, #16 Penn St, #17 Washington, #18 UNC, #19 UT, #20 FSU, #21 Wisconsin, #22 USCe, #23 Nebraska, #24 UCLA, and #25 Stanford. ONLY 8 of the top 25 have composite talent ranked in the top 25. There are 9 teams outside the top 40 in talent according to 247's composite.

That is just not very accurate.... and serves as evidence that the recruiting sites do indeed depend on watching certain programs to help their "accuracy".

This just seems like a pointless argument. Stars reflect talent. Sure Saban would win without the recruiting sites, don't see the point though. It's merely a way for all of us to see who is recruiting the best raw talent with a good degree of fuzziness. Who cares?

But for the reasons mentioned above... it isn't that accurate. Dabo a few years back found a way to identify talent but the recruiting sites didn't catch on for a while. Eventually, he was competing with Bama with a team that averaged around 11th in the recruiting rankings.

The point is that some hang on to recruiting rankings as if they definitively show who is or is not getting talent. There are a lot of great players who for whatever reason do not get the attention of the recruiting sites.

 

[sjt18]

Yep and you won’t see where your thinking is completely wrong.

Because it isn't. See my last post. It blows your belief completely apart.

 

[Devo182]

Not at all. As someone else pointed out, a lot of the 3* of certain recruiters get bumps. But they also have 3* players who are elite talents and the recruiting sites STILL miss them.

Well... not exactly. They miss on about 40% of their 5* if you use the NFL draft as a measure. Obviously some get injured or have some other issue but that should be factored in... and shouldn't be much more than 10% or so. But the bigger thing is that they hedge their results to make them look better than they truly are. They arbitrarily limit the number of 5* they hand out. They still miss 40% but how high would that be if they tried to use a single standard and give every player deserving of 5* the rating whether there were 50 or 5?

If they truly attempted to give every deserving player 4* then they wouldn't even have the 20% hit ratio they have.

We? It isn't essential for fans to have any system much less a better one. Much like the NFL, big programs use recruiting consultants. They're tasked with finding and/or doing initial evaluations of talent. If I understand correctly, UT was one of the first to use one. They're paid to give coaches accurate assessments. The coaches then do their own evaluations but from a smaller set of recruits.

The public recruiting sites indirectly steal their work by recognizing which programs have more success and taking special care to "evaluate" the players they're pursuing the hardest.

Another proof of their inaccuracy is that while they correspond reasonably well with the top 5 teams but get significantly worse after that.

Last year's top 25 teams and their composite talent according to 247:

1. Georgia (14-1) 2
2. Alabama (13-2) 1
3. Michigan (12-2) 15
4. Cincinnati (13-1) 54
5. Baylor (12-2) 41
6. Ohio State (11-2) 3

7. Oklahoma State (12-2) 47
8. Notre Dame (11-2) 12
9. Michigan State (11-2) 37

10. Oklahoma (11-2) 6
11. Ole Miss (10-3) 27
12. Utah (10-4) 32
13. Pittsburgh (11-3) 36
14. Clemson (10-3) 4
15. Wake Forest (11-3) 65
16. Louisiana-Lafayette (13-1) 85
17. Houston (12-2) 71
18. Kentucky (10-3) 31
19. BYU (10-3) 108
20. NC State (9-3) 35
21. Arkansas (9-4) 28
22. Oregon (10-4) 9
23. Iowa (10-4) 43
24. Utah State (11-3) 116
25. San Diego State (12-2) 101

Even if you only look at P-5 schools... they aren't all that accurate after the first few. Missing from that list are #5 LSU, #7 UF, #8 TAM, #10 USC, #11 Texas, #13 Miami, #14 Auburn, #16 Penn St, #17 Washington, #18 UNC, #19 UT, #20 FSU, #21 Wisconsin, #22 USCe, #23 Nebraska, #24 UCLA, and #25 Stanford. ONLY 8 of the top 25 have composite talent ranked in the top 25.

That is just not very accurate.... and serves as evidence that the recruiting sites do indeed depend on watching certain programs to help their "accuracy".




But for the reasons mentioned above... it isn't that accurate. Dabo a few years back found a way to identify talent but the recruiting sites didn't catch on for a while. Eventually, he was competing with Bama with a team that averaged around 11th in the recruiting rankings.

The point is that some hang on to recruiting rankings as if they definitively show who is or is not getting talent. There are a lot of great players who for whatever reason do not get the attention of the recruiting sites.

All you showed was great amounts of correlation to success

60% is great. Probably better than the draft.

AP top 25 is notoriously bad (compared to Vegas that puts their money where their mouth is) and yet even your (1 year lol) ap poll shows a strong correlation to success.

You're just digging your hole greater and greater. Maybe looking for perfection. As any NFL front office will tell you, there's no such thing. But there are strong predictive measures. Bet against the blue chip ratio all you want. Take all the 3 stars. Lose again with your ignorance. Hopefully you don't gamble real money...all like "this market index doesn't go up EVERY day...it's clearly a loser"