|
Post by ee1990 on Feb 7, 2019 15:56:02 GMT -8
Nemec goes crazy when uo flips a three-star DT from Minnesota, then is ho-hum when we flip a 3-star DB from Utah State, not a P5 school but certainly a quality program. We'll see who is the better flip in the long run, I guess. Row the Boat Man can't be real happy. I'd have pulled the kid's offer the second he said he was committed, but still gonna visit someplace else. That's how Petersen rolls and maybe Smith rolls the same way. You're with us, or you're not, and if you're looking someplace else, you're not. Kristian Williams is a 4 star on 247(not the composite) with offers from LSU, Tennessee, Missouri, Ole Miss, Kentucky, etc. He's literally the 2nd highest rated 3 star in their composite at .8897. If he were an 89 he'd be a 4 star. He'd be our highest rated commit. We flipped a guy with offers from WSU, USU, Howard and UNLV and that's it. Not all 3 stars are the same when it comes to rating.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Feb 7, 2019 16:00:54 GMT -8
It's not just thin it's non existent. Statistically speaking classes 35-70 are equal, equivalent, the same. Not similar, not close.... identical. But we live in a world that MUST order and rank things. It's like if I gave you this list of numbers and asked you to order them least to greatest: 1 2 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 15 15 15 15 Would you say that the 8 sevens are tied for fourth or that that last poor 7 is ranked 11th and has had the worst perfomace in it's history? Statistically speaking it would be a lot more useful to discuss these things in terms of "bins". In this case you would have the top bin (1,2,3) the middle bin (all the 7s) and the bottom bin (the 15s). Truth of the matter is that in general the pac 12 also has three bins, and yup us and half the other teams are all in the bottom bin, and probably always will be. Stiving to change your bin is probably futile. Now, striving to find excellent players that fit your mold, fit your scheme, and are coachable? THAT may actually change your out come on the field, that may actually effect wins and losses and that is exactly what Coach Smith is trying to do. Striving for higher rated "athletes" that end up transfering because they can't swivel their hips, or lower their shoulder, or get into school, etc? That does nothing to help you except impress an idiot recruiting reporter for about 30 seconds until you win 7 games in 3 years and quit abruptlty.... the 247 35th ranked class has an average score of 85.90 OSU is the 68th ranked class with an average score of 84.01 Even within 247's own evaluation system, there is zero functional difference between 86 and 84. Both scores equate to middle level 3*. Interestingly, OSU has a higher average score than four teams ranked ahead of us and within a half a point of about 20. OSU signed 19 recruits not including transfers and every one of them were at least a 3* athlete which 247 defines as the "top 10% of all football players in the country" Y'all make good arguments. Like UW could easily have the best class in the conference. The points system is better than stars because it allows for some nuance, but at the end of the day there's not a heck of a lot different as you guys said. On a macro level, year after year, it can add up, however. I also think there's a bigger difference in 84 to 86 than people are appreciating. UW's class would go from something like 17th to 3rd if their average went up 2 points. That's a big difference, but I agree with the reasoning in this thread. 247 also grossly over values the highest rated players. You could land three lowish 4 star players and not gain the points of one 5 star guy. It's weird. The way classes aren't normalized by size also makes it into a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 8, 2019 14:08:41 GMT -8
Most coaches do not put much stock into recruiting rankings at all. My guess is that CJS laid down some anti-recruitnik words to Nemec and now he's offended.
CJS biggest coaching influence? Petersen at UW. That guy does not suffer fools, especially the fools involved with covering recruiting and recruit ranking.
"Stars? Is that another joke question? Yeah, I'm really impressed with alot of their stars."
This is in response from a Dawgman.com "reporter."
|
|
|
Post by mauibeav on Feb 8, 2019 14:27:35 GMT -8
People need to protest with their pocketbooks. Cancel your subscription to the oregonian. When asked why, say Nemec. I did it when Moran wrote his articles about Heimlich. Cancelled and won't go back.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 8, 2019 15:17:23 GMT -8
People need to protest with their pocketbooks. Cancel your subscription to the oregonian. When asked why, say Nemec. I did it when Moran wrote his articles about Heimlich. Cancelled and won't go back. lol
|
|
|
Post by woodrow7525 on Feb 9, 2019 10:12:12 GMT -8
Nemec is a clown. I’m pretty sure he wants to have Crystalballs’ babies, judging by the way he delivers his syrupy diatribes about his recruiting prowess. He spends less time extolling his abilities to, I don’t know, coach. Maybe it was the pedestrian work he’s done in the bowl games or a less-than-scintillating overall record with all of that talent in Eugene, but never mind....that guy can sure recruit. The rankings are silly. Georgia stayed at the top because they hauled in a bunch of 5 star guys and really there were no 2 stars to be found. Oregon came down to earth because half of their class were 3 star and they had no 5 star guys, which is what most solid programs do. They ripped on USC early, but in the end they have another top 5 class so there’s Nemec’s reality and there’s, well, true reality. I wonder what he’d say about Fresno, who has done so well recently, yet split their class of 23 evenly between 3 and 2 star guys. No 4 stars. Was this a major fail by Tedford? I know that we are in a Power 5 conference and the Bulldogs aren’t, but virtually all of our signees are 3 star. How is that a “fail”? The Utes were up at 33, and I’m not sure that their actual group is much better than ours. It’s all speculation on signing day - DE used to say that you ciuldn’t evaluate a class for 2 to 3 years - but Nemec’s spin sure seems to be negative when it comes to our program. This is by no means a great class on paper, but the difference between 35 and 65 seems awfully thin. It's not just thin it's non existent. Statistically speaking classes 35-70 are equal, equivalent, the same. Not similar, not close.... identical. But we live in a world that MUST order and rank things. It's like if I gave you this list of numbers and asked you to order them least to greatest: 1 2 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 15 15 15 15 Would you say that the 8 sevens are tied for fourth or that that last poor 7 is ranked 11th and has had the worst perfomace in it's history? Statistically speaking it would be a lot more useful to discuss these things in terms of "bins". In this case you would have the top bin (1,2,3) the middle bin (all the 7s) and the bottom bin (the 15s). Truth of the matter is that in general the pac 12 also has three bins, and yup us and half the other teams are all in the bottom bin, and probably always will be. Stiving to change your bin is probably futile. Now, striving to find excellent players that fit your mold, fit your scheme, and are coachable? THAT may actually change your out come on the field, that may actually effect wins and losses and that is exactly what Coach Smith is trying to do. Striving for higher rated "athletes" that end up transfering because they can't swivel their hips, or lower their shoulder, or get into school, etc? That does nothing to help you except impress an idiot recruiting reporter for about 30 seconds until you win 7 games in 3 years and quit abruptlty.... In furtherance of your point, looking at 2019's class with our in conference direct recruiting competition, UA, ASU, Cal, Colo, Utah and WSU with average star rating: 2019UA .8491ASU .8473 Cal .8568 Colo .8499 Utah .8565 WSU .8425 OSU .8401 2018UA .8491 ASU .8638 Cal .8575 Colo .8555 Utah .8635 WSU .8496 OSU .8398 Show me the huge difference this year. There was a much more substantial spread last year and that was only 2.5 points. By the way, that doesn't take into account our four long term transfers (not including Eldredge since he's a 1 and done) at their ORIGINAL ranking levels. Don't give me the re-evaluation bullsh-t, these guys didn't just get worse by showing up in Corvallis. So, if you add them in at their original rankings then it takes us up to .8577, which puts us as the top of these 7. By the way, it's a BS argument to say that these four guys shouldn't be counted when they certainly count JC transfers into team rankings. With or without the transfers we improved from last year, plain and simple. Nemec can suck one.
|
|