|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 2, 2017 14:51:37 GMT -8
Yet another pissing match. When baseba1111 gets here it'll really be exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 2, 2017 15:02:25 GMT -8
I was looking at 2015 recruit list. Have we lost a lot of guys from that season?
|
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 15:07:23 GMT -8
Yet another pissing match forum thread. When baseba1111 gets here it'll really be exciting. FYP |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 2, 2017 15:48:25 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. Humans want an ordered delineation. We like that ordinal data! we crave it! Truth is, with recruiting you likely have maybe... 4 tiers. you have Tier 1. Arguably your 10 OR SO teams that are essentially the same. they have great classes loaded with sure fire talent. Teams that basically have 85% of their class ready to start on nearly any team in the nation. But withing that group, the undisputed #1 is unclear usually and this can be argued until everyone is blue in the face. The clear cream of the crop schools that this year include Alabama, USC, tOSU, Michigan, Clemson and maybe a couple others. then Tier 2. a wider group of maybe #10ish to about #30. Teams that have solid classes featuring a handful of 4 star talent and 3 star talent. little to zero lower ranked talent, little to no "flyers" or "academic risks". maybe 50% are worthy of immediately starting if needed. Again, top team here is up for debate and it is all six of one, half dozen of another. Tier 3 is the middle. average. all the guys fighting for normal. teams 30 to around 60 or 70. usually only 1 or 2 4* talent, and those guys are often risks as well. Mostly 3* up and down with an occasional 2* player coming in. maybe 25% are quality day 1 starters if called to action. Tier 4 is the bottom. domain of mid majors. doubtful a 4* is to be found, and likely a DNQ if signed. maybe half of the players are 3* players and most of the rest are 2*. 70 to the end. average star ratings below 2.5 maybe only 10% are starter worthy on day 1 on a power 5 field. That is more of the long and short of it. because in the end, there are too many variables. this is not, nor will it ever be an objective conversation. It is a fools errand to lean on objective measures for something that is affected in so many ways. Oregon State should fight to be a Tier 2 school. SO far, even with "improved" recruiting, we are a middling tier 3 school. |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 2, 2017 15:59:25 GMT -8
Oregon State should fight to be a Tier 2 school. SO far, even with "improved" recruiting, we are a middling tier 3 school. IF OSU can be a middling tier 3 school and start getting results like Boise State, Iowa, Kansas State, WSU, Utah...I'll be thrilled |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 2, 2017 15:59:49 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. , 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... I'll give you a hint... click on his profile... of his 80 posts about 75% are argumentative in some way. He reads what he wants and interprets it in anyway he chooses. LOL Not only a crap shoot... but truly meaningless in terms of the kids turning out. Just look at the bulk of the NFL. I believe someone posted earlier that 61% of the two SB teams are 3* or below HS recruits. Ranking "potential" is impossible... and like LL to HS ball a lot of kids mature very early and are never heard from again. HS to college to NFL is the same... maturing physical, mental development can't be measured. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 2, 2017 16:45:20 GMT -8
Humans want an ordered delineation. We like that ordinal data! we crave it! Truth is, with recruiting you likely have maybe... 4 tiers. you have Tier 1. Arguably your 10 OR SO teams that are essentially the same. they have great classes loaded with sure fire talent. Teams that basically have 85% of their class ready to start on nearly any team in the nation. But withing that group, the undisputed #1 is unclear usually and this can be argued until everyone is blue in the face. The clear cream of the crop schools that this year include Alabama, USC, tOSU, Michigan, Clemson and maybe a couple others. then Tier 2. a wider group of maybe #10ish to about #30. Teams that have solid classes featuring a handful of 4 star talent and 3 star talent. little to zero lower ranked talent, little to no "flyers" or "academic risks". maybe 50% are worthy of immediately starting if needed. Again, top team here is up for debate and it is all six of one, half dozen of another. Tier 3 is the middle. average. all the guys fighting for normal. teams 30 to around 60 or 70. usually only 1 or 2 4* talent, and those guys are often risks as well. Mostly 3* up and down with an occasional 2* player coming in. maybe 25% are quality day 1 starters if called to action. Tier 4 is the bottom. domain of mid majors. doubtful a 4* is to be found, and likely a DNQ if signed. maybe half of the players are 3* players and most of the rest are 2*. 70 to the end. average star ratings below 2.5 maybe only 10% are starter worthy on day 1 on a power 5 field. That is more of the long and short of it. because in the end, there are too many variables. this is not, nor will it ever be an objective conversation. It is a fools errand to lean on objective measures for something that is affected in so many ways. Oregon State should fight to be a Tier 2 school. SO far, even with "improved" recruiting, we are a middling tier 3 school. Agreed, thats all I was trying to say, with the caveat that since it is more of a grouping and not a great ordinal list it is silly to fret over 39th vs 49th "place", they are both still in tier 3, just like the bulk of the Pac-12. I also agree we should strive for tier 2, but even TSDTR barely limps into Tier 2 and that is with all of their advantages. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 3, 2017 9:29:41 GMT -8
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... I'll give you a hint... click on his profile... of his 80 posts about 75% are argumentative in some way. He reads what he wants and interprets it in anyway he chooses. LOL Not only a crap shoot... but truly meaningless in terms of the kids turning out. Just look at the bulk of the NFL. I believe someone posted earlier that 61% of the two SB teams are 3* or below HS recruits. Ranking "potential" is impossible... and like LL to HS ball a lot of kids mature very early and are never heard from again. HS to college to NFL is the same... maturing physical, mental development can't be measured. Now to be fair, that is because the overwhelming majority of college players are 3* and below. I think this year, Rivals only rated something like 28 players in the nation a 5* then around 300 as 4*. Proportionally speaking, more 5* hit the NFL than 3*. speaking in terms of volume, yes... of course. 3* dominate because there are thousands of them! I think recruiting is accurate enough that you can rate the elite with reasonable accuracy. but delineating among the very good to just plan good? no way. and then predicting what 17 year old 6'0 220 kid can grow into a 6'3 300 war daddy DT? no way. we have all seen it over time. every year. players come in as small safeties and leave as first round pick OLBs (Nick Barnett...) Recruiting judgement is only good enough to carve out fairly large groups. Elite, Good, Average, not so great. that is about it. wanting more just is not possible. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 3, 2017 9:53:36 GMT -8
Yet another pissing match. When baseba1111 gets here it'll really be exciting. Not classy. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 3, 2017 11:17:44 GMT -8
Yet another pissing match. When baseba1111 gets here it'll really be exciting. Not classy. Yeah, well .... |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 3, 2017 11:21:48 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. |
|
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...
