Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not today, but other fights I’ve sat in the exit row, requiring me to do mighty exploits if things ever got sideways on a flight. It’s never happened yet, but I just want you to know that pretty much makes me a hero and I’m kind of a big deal
I told the attendant that I'll leave all these clowns hanging and take the raft as my own if we land in water.
 
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

Prayers for comfort Nick. My wife and I have 3 remaining grandparents, all 90 or over. We pray daily thanking God for so much time with them and the blessing they have been in our lives. Safe travels and celebrate your grandmother well.
 
No. I never said any different. The top 5 are pretty easy. Find out who Saban, Smart, Dabo, and Day are recruiting... Almost anyone could do that.

LOL... maybe you should "just stop". They're accurate when they can "copy someone else's work" and get MUCH less accurate when it is more THEIR evaluations.


Nope. I made a point and backed it up. You made a claim then took shots at me rather than proving it out.

Just try the SEC to make the numbers easy. Outside of Bama and UGA, how well did team talent rankings predict winners and losers?
Because of course their are no other factors in determining who finishes in the top 25 besides recruiting rankings, right? Coaching, injuries, none of that matters, just recruiting rankings. LOL
 
Because of course their are no other factors in determining who finishes in the top 25 besides recruiting rankings, right? Coaching, injuries, none of that matters, just recruiting rankings. LOL
Of course it matters but if the recruiting rankings were the ironclad predictor of talent that people like BOT claim then they would also predict quality depth as well. There could be anomalies RE injuries but it wouldn't be enough to account for what I posted.

There are some here who would have you think that recruiting rankings are all that matter. You don't have to hang out here too long before someone suggests that UT will never be competitive again unless they start taking 5* guys away from UGA and Bama. They are the ones that discount coaching... and the fact that there's a lot of talent out there waiting to be discovered and developed with a 3* stamp on it.

Their proof for the all authoritative power of the recruiting rankings consists of pointing to Bama and a few others because they've won the NC. So that is "THE PROOF" but the fact that recruiting rankings do a relatively poor job of predicting other things... is out of bounds?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
It's always fun to see which players confound the ratings system and succeed (or fail) against the odds. But statistically speaking, assuming normal distributions of correct evals (which is not unreasonable) and a large enough sample size, the ratings should predict future football success pretty well. Obviously that doesn't mean they're infallible in the case of one player, or even a dozen players, but over time and numbers (probably less than the 85 roster size) the rating system is a reliable predictor of team success.

It's true that the services depend on team evals in part, because as you say they don't have the manpower to evaluate all of those players. But, they consider evals of all the teams collectively, not just one team. In fact, It's extremely unlikely that one team, including Alabama, or Clemson, Ohio State, etc., could efficiently do an independent evaluation and beat the rankings either. They also don't have the manpower. Those teams investigate who other teams are pursuing, either by word of mouth or by reading 247sports.com. There are too many variables and too many athletes on too many teams to reasonably expect any single entity to consistently beat the consensus ratings system.

In other words, Alabama gets good talent because they pay attention to the recruit rankings, and the recruit rankings are good because the services pay attention to Alabama and other teams from around the country. This holds true unless bias becomes prevalent in the ratings process. If one or more services excessively and repeatedly overrate one team's recruits, to the exclusion of what other teams think, then that service data becomes less useful as a predictor for all teams. I don't think that's very likely by accident, but it may happen in the case of corruption.




MAJOR EDIT TO REDUCE VERBAGE

Services are establishing player ratings based on their on field play, camps and competitions, and validating this with info on offers and visits primarily up to their entry into their Sr year. They do a good job given what they have to work with. They are not comprised of Kreskins.

The NFL draft is based on their on field play typically through three to five years of college with a better picture of their sustained physical capabilities, with better coaching and access to training tables and weight programs against squads of more consistent peer level ability. Much closer to a science.

The composition of the draft and rosters points out that there are significant numbers of lower rated guys that CAN pass the 4 and 5 star guys and are selected with the other guys still on the board.

Projecting probabilities of success or failure on stars on signing days is fun, but measuring signing classes as they complete their eligibility is a better study. High stars will statistically be better bets, but not the end all. If you get to celebrate your staff's evaluation efforts based on productive output from lower star group THEY TARGETED, it can be more fulfilling, especially if your higher star guys you could get pan out as a group too. The objective has to be to reduce the overall talent differential with those above with each class.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
Of course it matters but if the recruiting rankings were the ironclad predictor of talent that people like BOT claim then they would also predict quality depth as well. There could be anomalies RE injuries but it wouldn't be enough to account for what I posted.

There are some here who would have you think that recruiting rankings are all that matter. You don't have to hang out here too long before someone suggests that UT will never be competitive again unless they start taking 5* guys away from UGA and Bama. They are the ones that discount coaching... and the fact that there's a lot of talent out there waiting to be discovered and developed with a 3* stamp on it.

Their proof for the all authoritative power of the recruiting rankings consists of pointing to Bama and a few others because they've won the NC. So that is "THE PROOF" but the fact that recruiting rankings do a relatively poor job of predicting other things... is out of bounds?
I think that is actually the point. the recruiting rankings are a good general rule of ranking how "good" a class is. But they don't take into account fit, or coaching, or heart, or injuries. So telling me that only 8 of the top 25 teams were ranked in the top 25 of the recruiting rankings doesn't mean the recruiting rankings were wrong. It doesn't take into account that some teams have tougher schedules than others. Some teams had their QB injured. Mullen was to loyal to bench Emory Jones, but Florida was still one of the top 25 most talented teams. Jimbo didn't count on Haynes King getting injured but they were still talented enough to beat Bama. Recruiting ranking tell "A" story, not the "whole" story of how good a team is, nor is it meant to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winchester73
Waiting for my knife fight
waiting-patiently.gif
 
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. 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".




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.
So the top 2 made the natty. Interesting how that works. You need blue-chip talent and an actual coach that can develop that talent
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNash17
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top