|
|
Post by ostate on Feb 2, 2017 7:56:11 GMT -8
Largest positive change in two-year recruiting rankings (Power 5)1) Iowa State (19 spots, from 68th to 49th) 2) Maryland (15 spots, from 47th to 32nd) 3) Florida (12 spots, from 20th to eighth) 4) BYU (11 spots, from 66th to 55th) 5) Michigan (10 spots, from 14th to fourth) 6) Illinois (10 spots, from 67th to 57th) 7) Oregon State (nine spots, from 52nd to 43rd) It's a good trend
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Feb 2, 2017 8:47:23 GMT -8
We also have the 5th largest drop among P5 over a five year period according to the same data (-5). The two year is pretty skewed, since we changed coaches two offseasons ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by fumblerooski on Feb 2, 2017 9:04:22 GMT -8
We also have the 5th largest drop among P5 over a five year period according to the same data (-5). The two year is pretty skewed, since we changed coaches two offseasons ago. I think the better point to take from this is that GA's first recruiting class was not indicative of what he's capable of. Which should be pretty obvious because he had a short amount of time to put that class together. On a somewhat related note, I'd like to us get to a bowl game next year and then hopefully 8-10 win season and see what GA can do with recruiting after a winning season or two. |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Feb 2, 2017 9:07:09 GMT -8
We also have the 5th largest drop among P5 over a five year period according to the same data (-5). The two year is pretty skewed, since we changed coaches two offseasons ago. Yeah, saw that, if I read it right - The transition from MR to GA occurred during in those 5 years. I contend that the 2 year trend (2016 - 2017) is not skewed since it reflects the impact GA has had on recruiting (comparative to the national scene)... |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 2, 2017 9:15:12 GMT -8
Largest positive change in two-year recruiting rankings (Power 5)1) Iowa State (19 spots, from 68th to 49th) 2) Maryland (15 spots, from 47th to 32nd) 3) Florida (12 spots, from 20th to eighth) 4) BYU (11 spots, from 66th to 55th) 5) Michigan (10 spots, from 14th to fourth) 6) Illinois (10 spots, from 67th to 57th) 7) Oregon State (nine spots, from 52nd to 43rd) It's a good trend The trend is your friend! |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Feb 2, 2017 9:22:31 GMT -8
That was kind of my point...we're coming from a pretty bad place in that we switched coaches right in the middle of a recruiting cycle coming off a 5-7 record when the VFC expansion was just a conceptualized drawing on posterboard. If there was going to be a low point in recruiting for the program, 2015 was going to be it. I still don't see us ever being a perennial top 30 recruiting class school - weather, location (with respect to where the talent is), size of fan base (and the level at which they donate)....these things are all sort of working against us with a majority of recruits. I think 35-40 is about what we can expect during a normal year. Gary Andersen's two recruiting classes at Wisconsin ranked 38 and 33, respectively, which is kind of where they have ended up most years before and since his stint there.
Also, Wisconsin has been ranked at some point in every season since 1996, played in five Rose Bowls and one Cotton Bowl, and have only had one top 25 recruiting class during that time (22nd in 2001.) Some places are not going to bring in highly ranked recruits regardless of success or support. I think we're one of those places.
|
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 10:37:50 GMT -8
Why are we so focused on our ranking?  How many ways and how many times does it have to be shown that by in large the star process (and thus the resulting rankings) is a giant crap shoot?! The reality is that their are a handful of top teams that get the premium recruits (USC, Bama, tOSU, NOT the *ucks BTW), there is a large muddied middle who get a spectrum of recruits and no one really knows how they will turn out but by in large ALL of their classes are essentially equivalent, and then there are the bad Power 5 teams and the small schools who get to pick through the dregs... As long as we are staying comfortably in that muddied middle it doesn't really matter where in it we are. As long as we don't drop back into "picking through the dregs" like we had to in the 80's then what we really need to do is concentrate on the recruits we do get and their stories and not worry about anyone else. For the muddied middle, fit to scheme and coachability are WILDLY more important than being a .8687 three star vs a .8646 three star... And let's be honest with ourselves, we will never get out of the muddied middle and into the privileged few. If TSDTR can't do it with all of their money, facilities and underhandedness (seriously how in h*ll does George Moore take the last second offer from uo over all of the other great offers he had?!?!?), then we will never get there either. Now, if you are still yet unconvinced about the silliness and ridiculousness of the rating and ranking process let me give you two more statistical arguments for why it is all senseless: Bottom line is we had a great day yesterday, we have some great recruits coming in, and we should learn everything we can about them and cheer them on for the next 4 years. We would be better off if these lists just went away! Go Beavs! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 2, 2017 10:56:59 GMT -8
^^^^^^^ That plus...
Everyone seems to forget the coaching factor come recruiting day. Once you get you team together it is your "family", for the most part your hand picked them (GA will have mostly HIS recruits in house now). Now there is no guarantee a kid turns out... athletically, socially, academically, coach-ability... it a pretty tough thing to glean from just a recruiting process. BUT, once the "family" is in house it's all on the coaches to teach, acclimate, mentor, lead, toughen, weed out, and ultimately produce a highly consistent and competitive team.
Recruit and class rankings are about as bogus an industry as you can find. Not only is the statistical analysis of players and their potential playing D1 football impossible to measure, it has very little to do with what makes a kid tick. The industry feeds off kids and parents wanting to find a place to play football, but also in many cases the desperation of funding their future education. Will the system go away? Not in today's "look at me" society. But, really, who cares! The bottom line is can our coaching staff take their "family" and cajole, push, guide, support, and mold them into quality young men while at the same time forming a "winning" football team... on the streets, in the classroom, and on the field.
Loving the early Spring ball... but March 18 til August is going to DRAG ON....
|
|
sabzi
Freshman
Posts: 157 
|
Post by sabzi on Feb 2, 2017 11:05:38 GMT -8
Inexact science but at the end of the day stars matter. Link Link |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 12:38:40 GMT -8
Inexact science but at the end of the day stars matter. Link LinkI have no doubt that the individual stars for an individual kid is important. Undoubtedly, in general, the aggregate 5 star will do better than the aggregate 3 star. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about trying to take one teams recruit class and compare it to the other, in a specific descending, 42 is better than 43 way. Which is silly, unnecessary and a fools errand. Seriously go compare Baylor's class to WSU's and to ours... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You could compare then in eight different ways and claim each is better than the other in each of them! So trying to have an argument over where we place nationally from year to year is even MORE asinine! We can talk about which general group we landed in (Elite, Muddied middle, dregs), but trying to parse the fact that last year we were 52nd and this year we are 42nd is patently ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 12:40:17 GMT -8
BTW, looking at the actual classes, and the actual individual rankings I am STILL unsure how in the world Baylor ranks better than either us or the cougs. There is definitely some pseudo science magic going on...
|
|
|
|
Post by osubeavs721 on Feb 2, 2017 12:54:25 GMT -8
Why are we so focused on our ranking? How many ways and how many times does it have to be shown that by in large the star process (and thus the resulting rankings) is a giant crap shoot?! It's been proven time and time again, that higher the rankings the better off you are. Sure there are outliers but it's also no coincidence that every team that has made the CFP features a top 25 class average. Anyone who thinks the rankings are a total crap shoot is an idiot. So is the person who thinks they are the be all end all. Rankings are a good indicator of the level of talent the school is recruiting. Especially since the past couple of years, 247 has taken the composite rankings from sites and not basing the rankings on overall points ie more players you have usually the higher class. It's now based on composite stars from all the sites and averaging what caliber of player your class has. It's not perfect but again it's a rough base to go from. So with a rough idea of how much talent each team has you can now base how good coaches are by what they do with said talent. This is where Dave Bartoo's cfbmatrix.com is awesome. They have a coach rating system so all their predicitons factor in coach rating, recruiting talent and then of course home/road ect. But to think recruiting rankings mean nothing and are a "total crapshoot" is just plain wrong and misinformed. With that mindset you would think the beavs recruit on the same level as Bama or USC and that's the furthest from the truth. We are in two different worlds but where we lack in recruiting rankings our coaches have to develop our talent, which that's what MR was so good at OSU and it seems like GA is pretty good at it too. This year will be a decent barometer with 3 classes under his belt. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 13:28:21 GMT -8
It's been proven time and time again, that higher the rankings the better off you are. Sure there are outliers but it's also no coincidence that every team that has made the CFP features a top 25 class average. Top 25 is too generous, try top 10... It has been shown that in the aggregate stars are important for an individual player... in general of course you would rather have a 5 star than a 3. And it has been shown that in general you want to be ranked higher than not, but that is only in the larger sense of elite vs. middle class vs. poor recruits. NOT in the way we use it, which is to nit pick, compare and worry over a 40th ranking vs a 50th. There is no data and no study anywhere that shows moving up 1 spot in the rankings means anything, or even five, or even ten. Like I said from my original post, it is about the group you are in not the ranking number. Moving from the middle class group to the elite is meaningful... moving from 49th to 39th? means nothing. Anyone who thinks the rankings are a total crap shoot is an idiot. So is the person who thinks they are the be all end all. Rankings are a good indicator of the level of talent the school is recruiting. Especially since the past couple of years, 247 has taken the composite rankings from sites and not basing the rankings on overall points ie more players you have usually the higher class. It's now based on composite stars from all the sites and averaging what caliber of player your class has. It's not perfect but again it's a rough base to go from. I guess I am an idiot then  Let's use a quick thought experiment to illustrate why these rankings are silly, and the fretting over placement in the rankings is even more silly... consider 10 HS students... | Student | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | | GPA | 4.0 | 3.98 | 3.97
| 3.65 | 3.59 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.45 | 2.15 | 1.9 |
Does it make sense to rank and compare these kids in a classic descending order? Does it make sense to say student 5 is better off than student 6? or that student 4 is better than student 7??? NO! OF COURSE NOT! There are three obvious groups it makes more sense to talk about which group the student fell into! Call them Ivy league, college bound, and Tradesmen Same with CFB, there are the elites, the muddied middle and the poor, trying to differentiate between baylor's class, WSU's and ours is a fool's errand because THEY ARE EQUIVALENT, and the results from them will have nothing to do with their rank, but with their hard work, their fit into the system and their coachability! So with a rough idea of how much talent each team has you can now base how good coaches are by what they do with said talent. This is where Dave Bartoo's cfbmatrix.com is awesome. They have a coach rating system so all their predicitons factor in coach rating, recruiting talent and then of course home/road ect. But to think recruiting rankings mean nothing and are a "total crapshoot" is just plain wrong and misinformed. With that mindset you would think the beavs recruit on the same level as Bama or USC and that's the furthest from the truth. We are in two different worlds but where we lack in recruiting rankings our coaches have to develop our talent, which that's what MR was so good at OSU and it seems like GA is pretty good at it too. This year will be a decent barometer with 3 classes under his belt. You clearly didn't read my post and just got hung up on teh crap shoot line... the crap shoot is in trying to make WAY to much soup off this one oyster... YES OF COURSE alabama is better than use, they are in a different grouping, but like I said above trying to differentiate between the 39th best class and the 49th is impossible, and so all of our arguments about where we are ranked are ridiculous and silly. Lets argue and wonder about how to become elite, but trying to figure out how to raise our rank by 10 spots is useless. |
|
|
|
Post by osubeavs721 on Feb 2, 2017 14:06:09 GMT -8
It's been proven time and time again, that higher the rankings the better off you are. Sure there are outliers but it's also no coincidence that every team that has made the CFP features a top 25 class average. Top 25 is too generous, try top 10... It's top 25 cause Oregon's made it. They've never had a top 10 class. To win the the NC it's top 10 or bust but to make it's top 25ish. And with the rest of your long winded nothingness, you're hung up on the actual exact ranking instead of using it as a reference. Instead of thinking intelligently about rankings you're taking them for an absolute. So keep thinking it's a crap shoot. Because it is tiered. The rankings are merely suggestions not absolutes. I'm glad by the end of the post you finally grasped what I was telling you, that the rankings are just tiers, but they are anything but crap shoots. They aren't ever meant to be perfect, which is why we take the rankings with a grain of salt but again it's a rough estimate of the level of talent each program is bringing in. It's a macro not a micro. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 14:46:38 GMT -8
It's top 25 cause Oregon's made it. They've never had a top 10 class. To win the the NC it's top 10 or bust but to make it's top 25ish. And with the rest of your long winded nothingness, you're hung up on the actual exact ranking instead of using it as a reference. Instead of thinking intelligently about rankings you're taking them for an absolute. So keep thinking it's a crap shoot. Because it is tiered. The rankings are merely suggestions not absolutes. I'm glad by the end of the post you finally grasped what I was telling you, that the rankings are just tiers, but they are anything but crap shoots. They aren't ever meant to be perfect, which is why we take the rankings with a grain of salt but again it's a rough estimate of the level of talent each program is bringing in. It's a macro not a micro. You clearly didn't read my first post, the whole point of my first post is that the actual team ranking number is fairly meaningless, and it is only the group you end up in (regardless of where you want to draw the line) that matters. My whole point was to NOT get hung up on the actual exact ranking! However, if you read the OP on this thread, as well as a preponderance of the other threads about team rankings on this recruiting board, you will see mots people ARE hung up about it... My first post was a treatise against that, not sure how you could have read it any other way... |
|
How many ways and how many times does it have to be shown that by in large the star process (and thus the resulting rankings) is a giant crap shoot?! 
Let's use a quick thought experiment to illustrate why these rankings are silly, and the fretting over placement in the rankings is even more silly... consider 10 HS students...