Why UT wins 9 + in 2020

[G8R8U2]

They also had a head start.... and A LOT more instate talent.

That will be proven on the field... not because a journalist at 247 got a tingle.

UF's class is no more than 2 players short of being full. UT has to fill 7 or 8 more. Last year according to 247, UF finished with 276.85 points while UT had 267.07. That is well within the margin of error of the expertise of the journalists who hand out "stars". At this point, UT trails UF by 56 points. So how UT finishes really comes down to who they end up with in those 7-8 remaining spots. They won't finish 56 points behind UF even if they sign all 3* guys... which doesn't look likely.

Huh? We have room for five more plus one saved for a surprise commitment.

 

[I40flyer]

SEC-our Conference, or at least it is as of this writing. I am far more interested in how we play in our own conference, more than anything else. Beating a Chattanooga is great and all that (rah-rah), but anyone being honest, will agree, it's nothing like winning in the SEC. For those posting that they believe we will "pick off" a couple of the better ranked SEC teams, GA, LSU, BAMA, FL, I hope they are correct. If this happens, we are getting better- and CJP is coaching, if not, not so much. We spend far to much time talking about bowl games, as if we don't belong to the best conference in NCAA Football. There is nothing like the SEC, we were once a powerhouse in this conference, why? Because we cared! We had a great coach or two, phil comes to mind, and fans that knew what was going on in the SEC. Now, even before the season starts, we hear, "What bowl do you think we can get", or, "I don't care as long as we make a bowl". We have got to start winning against SEC teams-for me next year would be a great time to start-posting a W against FL and Bama, yes sir, that would be okay with me.

 

[I40flyer]

Huh? We have room for five more plus one saved for a surprise commitment.

according to 247 THIS year, as we stand 12/17/2019, Florida is 4th with 24 commits 16 of those are 4 star (264.54), we are 8th with 18 commits 9 of those are 4 stars(228.50), I hope you're right, we get 7 more 4 and 5 star players, we could over take FL in the rankings, or at least tie, as they too have one more slot to fill. All of this, as we all know, hinges on who decides to Decommit, there is always drama. We never know who is playing for who, until the first team meetings...
These are the rankings for the SEC
National Ranking (247) are: FL #7 Tennessee #20

 

[norrislakevol]

UF has a significant advantage at skill positions and a substantial depth advantage on the offensive and defensive lines. This is particularly true on the offensive line, where UF recruited heavily last year and has managed to red shirt a few players to build depth, let them work out and work on conditioning. Despite having a ton of issues there this year as that went on, UF managed to do pretty well, losing only to UGA and LSU, and performing respectably in those games.

With Franks bowing out and relieving some internal political pressure on the team that we've heard about for awhile, UF should be better offensively, and hopefully with improved run blocking we might be a whole lot better in terms of scoring. WR remains strong position for UF.

Defensively we lose Henderson, but we have plenty of depth on this team on that side of the ball. People have been predicting big fall offs for us every year and it has yet to materialize. We just reload.

Its a long way off, but barring major injury I would expect UF to be the preseason favorite by many to win the SECe

These two teams really aren't as far off as you think. Florida seems like a 9 - 3 or a 10 - 2 team every year (probably a game better than the Vols next year) with the way they have been recruiting and with the solid coaching staff that they have. Tennessee is in about the same boat. The Vols have recruited well and are developing good depth on the defensive side of the ball. I like the Gators better at WR and it's a draw at RB and QB. If Tennessee pulls all those speed guys they are recruiting at WR then that is probably a wash as well. Tennessee's OL class last year was tops in the country.

 

[sjt18]

Huh? We have room for five more plus one saved for a surprise commitment.

247 shows you with 24 commits including today's signees. There is a hard 25 cap. You can work around it by one or two but not five or more. So which of the guys listed will not be signing in your class?

 

[G8R8U2]

247 shows you with 24 commits including today's signees. There is a hard 25 cap. You can work around it by one or two but not five or more. So which of the guys listed will not be signing in your class?

Between back counters, guys going pro, and transfers we'll sign 28 or 29. Looks like McDaniel went ahead and signed today too, which was unexpected.

 

[05_never_again]

what do you think of Holiday in spite of his 3* ranking?

IMHO, the recruiting sites have missed him in part because TCU probably was recruiting him as a full time QB. If he flips, I think he's the steal of the class... and will potentially bring UT's NSD ranking down.

Don't know enough about him specifically to have an opinion. I'll completely agree with you that the services miss on individual players all the time.

 

[sjt18]

Between back counters, guys going pro, and transfers we'll sign 28 or 29. Looks like McDaniel went ahead and signed today too, which was unexpected.

Some of the experts here may correct me but I believe the new rules restrict back counting. Guys going pro or transferring does not allow you to sign more in a class. You have more available spots but you can only sign 25

 

[sjt18]

Don't know enough about him specifically to have an opinion. I'll completely agree with you that the services miss on individual players all the time.

If a coach like Dabo and hopefully Pruitt we’re good enough to find 3-4 3* guys who should have been ranked higher what does that do to that top5 class argument? If they are consistently just that much better than recruiting sites then they could be signing championship caliber talent

 

[05_never_again]

If a coach like Dabo and hopefully Pruitt we’re good enough to find 3-4 3* guys who should have been ranked higher what does that do to that top5 class argument? If they are consistently just that much better than recruiting sites then they could be signing championship caliber talent

They miss on individual guys all the time. They don't miss on enough guys, over a period of time. IMO they don't consistently and systematically, over a period of time, underrate or overrate players. If they did, then there would be no or very little correlation between teams with great recruiting classes and teams that compete for titles.

 

[sjt18]

They miss on individual guys all the time. They don't miss on enough guys, over a period of time. IMO they don't consistently and systematically, over a period of time, underrate or overrate players. If they did, then there would be no or very little correlation between teams with great recruiting classes and teams that compete for titles.

But you keep missing the point. They have a decent hit rate. Most of the guys the rate 4/5* are great talents. But they miss at least as many with similar or better talent every year. If a coach is good enough at evals to find 3-4 of those guys then he is getting top 5 or 10 talent while being ranked outside the top 10.

That’s what Dabo did. I hope that’s what Pruitt does.

A coach doesn’t have to sign whole classes of 3* guys to disprove the rule you suggest. He just has to find 3-4 overlooked guys in addition to the his own 4/5* guys.

 

[05_never_again]

But you keep missing the point. They have a decent hit rate. Most of the guys the rate 4/5* are great talents. But they miss at least as many with similar or better talent every year. If a coach is good enough at evals to find 3-4 of those guys then he is getting top 5 or 10 talent while being ranked outside the top 10.

That’s what Dabo did. I hope that’s what Pruitt does.

A coach doesn’t have to sign whole classes of 3* guys to disprove the rule you suggest. He just has to find 3-4 overlooked guys in addition to the his own 4/5* guys.

If that was the case, then you'd routinely have teams ranked in the 20s and 30s who were competing with the teams with the top ranked classes, and that doesn't really happen.

You think the recruiting services are juicing Dabo's class rankings now that the word's out he's a good coach. I think he reached the CFP those first couple times with less than elite classes, and now that he's won a couple titles he actually is able to land upper crust talent that perhaps he wasn't in 2015 and before.

 

[sjt18]

@05_never_again

Our conversation took an interesting turn today. I can't find where 247 posts their class rankings based solely on their evals. I'm guessing that Rivals, 247, and ESPN are the heaviest weighted in the 247 composite... or at least they are a good indicator of the spread of anyone else included. Since ESPN isn't impressed with a 20 ranking and UT is 15th in the composite... 247 ranked UT at or above 15 to go with Rivals at 11.

If the rankings were as accurate as you claim... how could the spread be so great between Rivals and ESPN? Which ranking do you use to say Pruitt is now a "great recruiter"... or he sucks? You can use this signing day to argue either way if you trust the expertise of these recruiting sites. If you believe ESPN then the Memphis trio aren't very good prospects. If you believe Rivals, they're all 4*. 247 says that 2 are very good and top 15 in the country but McDonald is ho-hum.

If they are actually evaluating these kids... they aren't seeing the same thing and apparently radically different things.

 

[Tennesseefan2019]

Tennessee will go 9-3 in 2019 with losses to Florida,Alabama and Georgia

 

[05_never_again]

@05_never_again

Our conversation took an interesting turn today. I can't find where 247 posts their class rankings based solely on their evals. I'm guessing that Rivals, 247, and ESPN are the heaviest weighted in the 247 composite... or at least they are a good indicator of the spread of anyone else included. Since ESPN isn't impressed with a 20 ranking and UT is 15th in the composite... 247 ranked UT at or above 15 to go with Rivals at 11.

If the rankings were as accurate as you claim... how could the spread be so great between Rivals and ESPN? Which ranking do you use to say Pruitt is now a "great recruiter"... or he sucks? You can use this signing day to argue either way if you trust the expertise of these recruiting sites. If you believe ESPN then the Memphis trio aren't very good prospects. If you believe Rivals, they're all 4*. 247 says that 2 are very good and top 15 in the country but McDonald is ho-hum.

If they are actually evaluating these kids... they aren't seeing the same thing and apparently radically different things.

They aren't as accurate as any particular site claims, which is why I like the 247 Composite. 247 includes their own ratings, plus the ratings of other services, in that composite if I remember correctly.

It isn't surprising that ratings on individual players can vary, sometimes vary widely, between sites. It's a subjective exercise. Everything I'm talking about in reference to recruiting rankings are class (not player) rankings over an extended period of time, like 3-5 years. I'm talking about large sample sizes from multiple sources. The recruiting services get those right for the most part. In other words, the rankings aren't likely to say that over a period of 5 years that a team's recruiting was bad when in reality it was excellent, or vice versa. They aren't going to systematically and consistently get a program's level of recruiting wrong over an extended period of time. Like I said, there are exceptions (e.g., USC being overrated based on recent classes, Wisconsin seemingly being perpetually underrated) but for the most part they're right.

Ratings about things of a smaller sample size (e.g., one player in particular, even one team's class for one year in particular) are harder to judge, of course. IMO, the fact that 5-stars bust all the time or one team's entire class one year ended up being over or underrated doesn't mean the recruiting sites are wrong.

 

[sjt18]

If that was the case, then you'd routinely have teams ranked in the 20s and 30s who were competing with the teams with the top ranked classes, and that doesn't really happen.

Not sure how you got that out of what I said. It isn't even the conversation we're having. The conversation we're having is about whether a team that averages say 12th can compete with one that averages in the top 5. The difference between Washington and TAM right now is three 4* players. Both have 22 commits. Both have a 5* commit. UW has 9 4* players while TAM has 12. UW is ranked 14th. TAM is 6th.

So are you certain that UW's staff hasn't found three 3* guys who are better than or equal to three of TAM's 4* guys?

You think the recruiting services are juicing Dabo's class rankings now that the word's out he's a good coach.

No. I think they are showing respect for his ability to identify talent... like they have Saban and others. Not all of the players Dabo has shown interest in will sign with Clemson. Even he won't win every battle. But guys he pursues will gain credibility with the recruiting sites... because he's proven he knows talent better than most.

The only way this is different is if Dabo actually subscribes to Rivals and 247 to figure out who to recruit.

I think he reached the CFP those first couple times with less than elite classes, and now that he's won a couple titles he actually is able to land upper crust talent that perhaps he wasn't in 2015 and before.

So his talent was only talented after the recruiting sites said so (who by the way make money by subscriptions and advertising that could easily bias them toward programs with large fan interest)? Before he just got "luck" with a bunch of scrubs?

 

[sjt18]

They aren't as accurate as any particular site claims, which is why I like the 247 Composite. 247 includes their own ratings, plus the ratings of other services, in that composite if I remember correctly.

It isn't surprising that ratings on individual players can vary, sometimes vary widely, between sites. It's a subjective exercise. Everything I'm talking about in reference to recruiting rankings are class (not player) rankings over an extended period of time, like 3-5 years. I'm talking about large sample sizes from multiple sources. The recruiting services get those right for the most part. In other words, the rankings aren't likely to say that over a period of 5 years that a team's recruiting was bad when in reality it was excellent, or vice versa. They aren't going to systematically and consistently get a program's level of recruiting wrong over an extended period of time. Like I said, there are exceptions (e.g., USC being overrated based on recent classes, Wisconsin seemingly being perpetually underrated) but for the most part they're right.

Ratings about things of a smaller sample size (e.g., one player in particular, even one team's class for one year in particular) are harder to judge, of course. IMO, the fact that 5-stars bust all the time or one team's entire class one year ended up being over or underrated doesn't mean the recruiting sites are wrong.

The evaluations are largely subjective as you said and nowhere near comprehensive or consistent... or in some cases reasonable.

An arbitrary limit is set on the number of guys who can receive a high rating. That's the equivalent of saying the standard for an A in chemistry using the same test questions in one year need not be the same as any other year.... because you've limited the number of A's arbitrarily.

Yet you're saying that they become MORE objective when you compound them by time?

I appreciate your tone btw even as we've disagreed.

 

[05_never_again]

Not sure how you got that out of what I said. It isn't even the conversation we're having. The conversation we're having is about whether a team that averages say 12th can compete with one that averages in the top 5. The difference between Washington and TAM right now is three 4* players. Both have 22 commits. Both have a 5* commit. UW has 9 4* players while TAM has 12. UW is ranked 14th. TAM is 6th.

So are you certain that UW's staff hasn't found three 3* guys who are better than or equal to three of TAM's 4* guys?

No. I think they are showing respect for his ability to identify talent... like they have Saban and others. Not all of the players Dabo has shown interest in will sign with Clemson. Even he won't win every battle. But guys he pursues will gain credibility with the recruiting sites... because he's proven he knows talent better than most.

The only way this is different is if Dabo actually subscribes to Rivals and 247 to figure out who to recruit.



So his talent was only talented after the recruiting sites said so (who by the way make money by subscriptions and advertising that could easily bias them toward programs with large fan interest)? Before he just got "luck" with a bunch of scrubs?

You're talking about one year. I'm not sure how many times I have to say I don't put stock in any single year's results, much less their evaluations of individuals. What I do know is that teams consistently in title races year after year don't consistently recruit outside of the top 10.

The only statement I have made this whole time is that teams that consistently compete for titles don't consistently recruit outside the top 10 or so. That isn't to say that a team outside the top 10 can't compete for a title one year, and it isn't to say that recruiting in the top 10 guarantees that a team will compete for titles. I'm saying that every team that consistently is in the mix for titles over an extended period of time consistently recruits in the top 10.

What you're basically saying is that the recruiting services are kind of lazy, don't really do their homework, and just "follow" coaches that have had a recent run of success. And/or they claim to be able to put accurate ratings on players to more of a degree than they do. Dabo has been in the CFP 4 straight years now, so they just look at players Dabo is interested in and go "Oh, Clemson wants him? Jack his rating up then - he must be good if Clemson wants him." That's why I brought up Kirby. Georgia's ratings got jacked as soon as Kirby arrived, to the point where he was just a smidge behind Saban, over multiple classes. He had zero track record as a head coach, but the jump in recruiting was seen immediately. Were the sites "following" Kirby (unlikely - what exactly would they be following), or was Kirby coming in there and legitimately landing more talented players than Richt was?

If all the sites do is "follow" the past performance of a coach, then that would be borne out over time in results on the field relative to the rankings.

 

[05_never_again]

The evaluations are largely subjective as you said and nowhere near comprehensive or consistent... or in some cases reasonable.

An arbitrary limit is set on the number of guys who can receive a high rating. That's the equivalent of saying the standard for an A in chemistry using the same test questions in one year need not be the same as any other year.... because you've limited the number of A's arbitrarily.

Yet you're saying that they become MORE objective when you compound them by time?

I appreciate your tone btw even as we've disagreed.

Yes - because ultimately they get more right than they get wrong. It's like playing blackjack the way you're mathematically supposed to play it. If you do that, are you going to win every hand? Of course not - you're actually going to lose a ton of hands. But you maximize your odds of winning over time by doing that. Say a team lands nothing but 4 and 5-star recruits. Are all of them going to be stars? No - many of them will underachieve or outright bust. But nowhere near all of them are going to, and you maximize your chances of winning by landing as many of them as possible over time. In general, the 4-stars have better chances of making it than the 3s, the 5s more than the 4s. But I'd never look at a single 5-star, a single 4-star, and say something like "the 5-star is absolutely going to be a better college player."

 

[sjt18]

You're talking about one year. I'm not sure how many times I have to say I don't put stock in any single year's results, much less their evaluations of individuals. What I do know is that teams consistently in title races year after year don't consistently recruit outside of the top 10.

Except that Clemson did all the way up to this year.... It doesn't just happen one year. It happens every year. The difference in 5th and 15th is usually 2-4 guys. The difference between 10th and 1st is usually about the same. Often teams will have equal numbers of 4/5* guys and the sites just "like" those from one program a little more than others. That can easily be a difference of more than 5 spots.

The only statement I have made this whole time is that teams that consistently compete for titles don't consistently recruit outside the top 10 or so.

And that is an objectively false statement. Clemson has and this year will be their first top 5 finish under Dabo. He's only had a few top 10 classes.

What you're basically saying is that the recruiting services are kind of lazy, don't really do their homework, and just "follow" coaches that have had a recent run of success.

No. I am saying they do not have the resources to find and accurately evaluate every kid who might be worthy of 4/5*... and even if they did they have subjectively and arbitrarily said that some worth of the ranking won't get it.

They DO give deference to coaches and programs that have a history of finding great talent. I'm not sure why you would object to that. If they are considering two kids for one of their limited 4* slots, have evaluated them as roughly equal, but one is being recruited by Bama, UGA, UF, ND, USC, tOSU, etc... and the other's offers include Auburn, UT, and a bunch of lower tier programs... the one being recruited by the big names will get the nod almost every time. TJ Watt was a 3* TE according to Rivals... Carl Lawson in the same class was the #1 DE... how does that look now?

And/or they claim to be able to put accurate ratings on players to more of a degree than they do. Dabo has been in the CFP 4 straight years now, so they just look at players Dabo is interested in and go "Oh, Clemson wants him? Jack his rating up then - he must be good if Clemson wants him."

Not what I said... so I don't think I'm going to respond again.

That's why I brought up Kirby. Georgia's ratings got jacked as soon as Kirby arrived, to the point where he was just a smidge behind Saban, over multiple classes. He had zero track record as a head coach, but the jump in recruiting was seen immediately. Were the sites "following" Kirby (unlikely - what exactly would they be following), or was Kirby coming in there and legitimately landing more talented players than Richt was?

Smart took over UGA.... arguably the best recruiting situation in all of college football. UGA IS the state team of Georgia. GT isn't even an afterthought to most people in Georgia. He went to UGA and simply got the players that Richt had stopped getting. Coaches like Saban were raiding Richt. It would not have been Smart's credibility at that point that pushed those player rankings up.

If all the sites do is "follow" the past performance of a coach, then that would be borne out over time in results on the field relative to the rankings.

Where did I say that's all they do? I haven't. I haven't said or suggested that teams consistently recruiting in the 20's and 30's were getting enough talent to beat those in the top 5. I simply think you are trying to make relatively modest differences that are well within the margin of error for these sites... bigger than it is. A lot bigger than it is.

I also think you are placing way too much faith in the expertise of fan based recruiting sites.

All teams use recruiting services. They are paid for confidential and exclusive info. Some of their work translates through recruiters to the fan sites.... and they are MUCH better at it than Rivals or 247. And when you consider the nod given to Saban... that's also a nod to the consultant he uses.

 

[sjt18]

Yes - because ultimately they get more right than they get wrong.

In any year, half or more of the NFL draft will consist of players who were 3* or below. In the same draft, less than half of the guys who got 4* in the respective recruiting class will be drafted. They are generally right about the players they give more stars to.... but they miss as many or more as they find.

It's like playing blackjack the way you're mathematically supposed to play it.

No. It is nothing like blackjack. It isn't a game of chance. The players have talent and potential that can be assessed. That's not similar to blackjack.

Say a team lands nothing but 4 and 5-star recruits. Are all of them going to be stars? No - many of them will underachieve or outright bust. But nowhere near all of them are going to, and you maximize your chances of winning by landing as many of them as possible over time. In general, the 4-stars have better chances of making it than the 3s, the 5s more than the 4s. But I'd never look at a single 5-star, a single 4-star, and say something like "the 5-star is absolutely going to be a better college player."

Say a coach who is exceptional at evaluating talent signs several of those players that everyone likes but not as many as the guy you are talking about BUT... has a knack for finding great talent that no one else finds/sees. His ranking will be several spots lower. He will still compete against those with the high rankings.... thus you have Dabo.

 

[sjt18]

Last five class rankings for the four teams in this year's playoff starting with 2014 and going to 2018.

OU- 14, 15, 19, 8, 9
CU- 16, 9, 11, 16, 7
OSU- 3, 7, 4, 2, 2
LSU- 2, 5, 2, 7, 15

Bama during the same period was 1, 1, 1, 1, 5. They lost to the only two ranked teams they played. The other team Auburn has finished 6, 8, 9, 9, and 12

Two of 4 participants "consistently" recruit outside the top 5. LSU has been inside the top 5 twice and outside the top 10 once.

To preempt the use of hyperbole.... the lowest rated class was 19th so no the argument isn't that the recruiting sites know nothing or that you don't have to known talents to win. Conclusion- if Pruitt is great at evaluating talent his last two classes are potentially good enough to lift UT into competition with the top teams but he has to keep doing it.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

...

 

[chrismc1000]

Can we atleast wait till the bowl games have concluded before we start with this ?

 

[Tnman1]

12-0, 11-1 at worst (bookmark thread)