|
|
Post by ochobeavo on May 9, 2017 8:30:19 GMT -8
Really I'm just waiting to see how many of those guys end up switching sides of the ball in 2019. We need some Vegas prop bets on things like: Sumner Houston getting moved to MLB by Week 6. Luton to TE by Week 8? Moran to RB by Week 10? Elu Aydon to QB? Anything is possible! |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on May 9, 2017 9:00:11 GMT -8
OK... now you are just blind, or just being purposely obtuse... you QUOTED the stinking list... But here it is ONCE AGAIN, just for you, all parsed out of the surrounding text since you can't be bothered to read the whole paragraph: | Recruit | Schools that offered that he rejected to choose us: | | Isaiah Hodgins | UW, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a dozen others | | Quantino Allen | Almost 20 offers ASU, Miami, Utah a couple highlights | | Kolby Taylor | ASU, Notre Dame, Wisconsin and Louisville | | Trevon Bradford | ASU, WSU, BSU | | Christian Wallace | UT, TCU, MSU | | Trajon Cotton | Nebraska, Cal, Oregon, UCLA, Utah and Colorado | | Jeffrey Manning | UCLA, Utah, WSU, Boise State, Colorado |
To find those type of comparable "recruiting wins" you have to go back to the 2013 class (which was our best class since they started keeping track of ratings, and ironically was a class of almost ALL busts) BTW, still waiting for you to produce anything other than bluster and put downs... To be honest that list covers two classes of about 50 kids... you list 7. On top of that the published list of "offers" is not factual. They may have had interest, but I know for a fact that two on your list were never offered by all the schools your list/source claims. "Offers" and what happens come LOI day is a much different story. I some cases kids sign with the best option they have left. The recruiting debate on every level is lame. Alm the numbers, "offers" are completely subjective (some sites actually have the kids tell them who has offered) It comes down to kids that have signed that actually produce on the field and it leads to team successes. That is a truly objective measure. Can the coach evaluate, sign, coach to their scheme, and have success. So far GA has not been successful... evaluation and signing is lacking in key areas. Not sure how they can coach to a scheme if it's constantly changing. The book is still out, but there is really no debate. " ... but I know for a fact ..." Obi Wan knows all. |
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on May 9, 2017 10:58:32 GMT -8
That's evidence of what? Let me remind you again what the question is. How many P12 teams are we beating out now versus prior. Which ones. I don't see that list, where is it? OK... now you are just blind, or just being purposely obtuse... you QUOTED the stinking list... But here it is ONCE AGAIN, just for you, all parsed out of the surrounding text since you can't be bothered to read the whole paragraph: | Recruit | Schools that offered that he rejected to choose us: | | Isaiah Hodgins | UW, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a dozen others | | Quantino Allen | Almost 20 offers ASU, Miami, Utah a couple highlights | | Kolby Taylor | ASU, Notre Dame, Wisconsin and Louisville | | Trevon Bradford | ASU, WSU, BSU | | Christian Wallace | UT, TCU, MSU | | Trajon Cotton | Nebraska, Cal, Oregon, UCLA, Utah and Colorado | | Jeffrey Manning | UCLA, Utah, WSU, Boise State, Colorado |
To find those type of comparable "recruiting wins" you have to go back to the 2013 class (which was our best class since they started keeping track of ratings, and ironically was a class of almost ALL busts) BTW, still waiting for you to produce anything other than bluster and put downs... One more time. The question is, how does your list compare to prior to GA's arrival. You're giving half an answer to the question. How can we measure if there's been progress, or not without measuring against where we were at. Just looking at the 2014 class it looks like we landed a lot more players in that class with solid P12 offers and other P5 offers than your list above. It's water under the bridge at this point. What I care about now is how we do going forward. Can GA put together a better class this year than what MR did in 2014, can he do it again in future classes? 2014 Class Reported offers: Guyton: Syracuse, Miss St, Iowa St. Delp: ASU, WSU, UA, Boise, CU, Illinni, UCLA, Utah, UW Soesman: ASU, WSU, NW'stern, Fresno, Houston McMaryion: rock solid early commit so offer list is misleading. Was recruited by long list of who's who of P5 teams Williams: Wisky, CU, Utah, WSU, #3 rated player in Hawaii Morris: Wisky, Indiana, K St., Utah, Cal Liuchan: Cal, ASU, SC, UA, SD St. Ugwoegbu: Illinois, Houston, Fresno Javon Williams: UCLA, W. Virginia Nall: LOL..... PSU, Wyoming, N. Colorado J. Willis: Ok St and if I recall correctly had a lot of late interest after his senior season Fisiiahi: Utah, WSU, Nevada, Hawaii Vakameilalo UW, WSU, UK, Pitt #1 rated player in Hawaii |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on May 10, 2017 21:50:58 GMT -8
OOPS! My bad, 24/7 bounces around while it's loading on my computer and I was doing it quickly, probably hit the wrong player as the page moved. I was off by 5 on the no offers and a couple on the lack of power five offers. Calvin Tyler, Charles Watson, Justin Garner, Clay Cordasco and Jake Luton all got offers, not all got power 5 offers. 6 still got no offers, over a quarter of our class. Shouldn't pick and choose when making a point. The real point is the amount of competitive recruits is increasing in the last 2 classes. 3-6 years ago we were getting 5-6 of these competitive recruits per class. Now it is closer to 8-9 and hopefully that continues to improve. Cordasco was offered by Texas Tech, Watson by Washington State, BYU and many others, Tyler had many offers, Flemmings had offer from Washington State, Baylor had other offers (though none P5), Dunn had other offers. It may come off as justification, but it is not fair to condemn JC recruits that commit early as being lightly recruited. Many schools do not recruit JC and the offers come later due to schools waiting for grades (as qualification is much more difficult). JC players are not like high schoolers often as they do not broadcast their offers as much and when they find the right fit they have much less desire to entertain future offers. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on May 11, 2017 10:26:22 GMT -8
I went through (using Rivals as the source) and carefully compiled all of the other offers all of the recruits in the 2014 and 2017 classes got and the results were close, but clear: | Year | Class Size | # Recruits "competed" for | Average | | 2014 | 29 | 8 | 28% | | 2017 | 24 | 9 | 37.5% |
I defined "competing for a recruit" as winning a commitment from a kid having offers from AT LEAST 2 other Pac-12 or P5 schools. So sure, both nominally and proportionally we are "competing" against and winning more recruits with better schools... but it is just a slight difference, and honestly the exercise taught me more, than these results do. My final analysis is.... mixed. I agree with Nemec, both anecdotally and objectively we are competing for "better" recruits based on their other offers and interested schools. Although the improvement would be best described as incremental or gradual... certainly NOT dramatic. I also have fully embraced baseba1111 view... this whole thing is a giant crapshoot, a shim sham, a load of hooey. Some quick observations (all anecdotal): The data we have is the data we have... and it sucks... is sparse, made up, unverified, nonsensical, and TOTALLY ruled by circumstance.- All the things below affected the rating, and offers and such, but another thing that clearly affected offers specifically was how much the recruit "played the game". A guy like Ryan Nall or Jake Luton commits early and rebuffs others interested... well of course they have very few offers. Meanwhile a guy like Xavier Crawford or Quantino Allen keep their "options open" for the entire cycle, including wavering at the last seconds, and offers start rolling in, both got double digit offers!
- JC's are recruited differently it seems, people aren't as interested in their recruitment and therefore the data is just not there for many of them. Plus they are older and less inclined to be dramatic about it, or gather offers as a status symbol.
- # of offers is a status symbol now, so if that matters to you, you will work for them and court them as a player as well.
- Offers seem to be contagious... A kids offer list, especially chronologically, often reads like a social media trend, as schools hop on the bandwagon. Starting with lower mid majors and escalating to, before you know it, the big boys sniffing around interested. This also requires the kid to WANT that attention and play the game.
Rating, Other schools offers, and actual game impact are all unrelated?- A quick trio of examples
Bobby Keenan, if you said "who?" you are correct, but this 2* OL got 3 Pac-12 offers!
3* (5.5 rating) Ryan Nall gets.... PSU and Northern Colorado, that's it...
3* (5.7 rating) Kammy Delp, Highly rated, Tons of offers (SEVEN Pac-12 offers!) - So,
Ryan Nall, lightly recruited, under rated, big impact,
Bobby Keenan, low rated, highly recruited, no impact
Kammy Delp, highly rated, highly recruited, little impact
Location, Location, Location- The players from the South and South East get a TON of interest and offers, across the board. And plenty of offers from West and North. But the favor does NOT seem to go the other way. Not a lot of S or SE schools coming N, W to poach, not even Southern California. Or maybe North and West players just don't accept the interest from S, SE?
Position matters
- If you play a position that is hard to recruit/requires special size... well you are going to have more offers! Bobby Kennan is not the only example, but if you are a tall, heavy, male playing football... you WILL get a handful of offers, Robert Olsen got NINE! D1 college football teams are DESPERATE for OL and DL!
Bottom Line, I hope GA finds us some players that are AWESOME, win the Pac-12 and the National Championship other than that I think I am OUT of the reading the recruiting tea leaves game! Go Beavs! |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on May 11, 2017 10:56:29 GMT -8
obf - well done. You explained everything and yet proved nothing. Thanks for laying it out so thoughtfully.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on May 11, 2017 11:07:06 GMT -8
I also have fully embraced baseba1111 view... this whole thing is a giant crapshoot, a shim sham, a load of hooey. He's not the only one. Most sane people avoid the recruiting game all together. |
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on May 11, 2017 11:27:27 GMT -8
I went through (using Rivals as the source) and carefully compiled all of the other offers all of the recruits in the 2014 and 2017 classes got and the results were close, but clear: | Year | Class Size | # Recruits "competed" for | Average | | 2014 | 29 | 8 | 28% | | 2017 | 24 | 9 | 37.5% |
I defined "competing for a recruit" as winning a commitment from a kid having offers from AT LEAST 2 other Pac-12 or P5 schools. So sure, both nominally and proportionally we are "competing" against and winning more recruits with better schools... but it is just a slight difference, and honestly the exercise taught me more, than these results do. My final analysis is.... mixed. I agree with Nemec, both anecdotally and objectively we are competing for "better" recruits based on their other offers and interested schools. Although the improvement would be best described as incremental or gradual... certainly NOT dramatic. I also have fully embraced baseba1111 view... this whole thing is a giant crapshoot, a shim sham, a load of hooey. Some quick observations (all anecdotal): The data we have is the data we have... and it sucks... is sparse, made up, unverified, nonsensical, and TOTALLY ruled by circumstance.- All the things below affected the rating, and offers and such, but another thing that clearly affected offers specifically was how much the recruit "played the game". A guy like Ryan Nall or Jake Luton commits early and rebuffs others interested... well of course they have very few offers. Meanwhile a guy like Xavier Crawford or Quantino Allen keep their "options open" for the entire cycle, including wavering at the last seconds, and offers start rolling in, both got double digit offers!
- JC's are recruited differently it seems, people aren't as interested in their recruitment and therefore the data is just not there for many of them. Plus they are older and less inclined to be dramatic about it, or gather offers as a status symbol.
- # of offers is a status symbol now, so if that matters to you, you will work for them and court them as a player as well.
- Offers seem to be contagious... A kids offer list, especially chronologically, often reads like a social media trend, as schools hop on the bandwagon. Starting with lower mid majors and escalating to, before you know it, the big boys sniffing around interested. This also requires the kid to WANT that attention and play the game.
Rating, Other schools offers, and actual game impact are all unrelated?- A quick trio of examples
Bobby Keenan, if you said "who?" you are correct, but this 2* OL got 3 Pac-12 offers!
3* (5.5 rating) Ryan Nall gets.... PSU and Northern Colorado, that's it...
3* (5.7 rating) Kammy Delp, Highly rated, Tons of offers (SEVEN Pac-12 offers!) - So,
Ryan Nall, lightly recruited, under rated, big impact,
Bobby Keenan, low rated, highly recruited, no impact
Kammy Delp, highly rated, highly recruited, little impact
Location, Location, Location- The players from the South and South East get a TON of interest and offers, across the board. And plenty of offers from West and North. But the favor does NOT seem to go the other way. Not a lot of S or SE schools coming N, W to poach, not even Southern California. Or maybe North and West players just don't accept the interest from S, SE?
Position matters
- If you play a position that is hard to recruit/requires special size... well you are going to have more offers! Bobby Kennan is not the only example, but if you are a tall, heavy, male playing football... you WILL get a handful of offers, Robert Olsen got NINE! D1 college football teams are DESPERATE for OL and DL!
Bottom Line, I hope GA finds us some players that are AWESOME, win the Pac-12 and the National Championship other than that I think I am OUT of the reading the recruiting tea leaves game! Go Beavs! To add more variables to the list, from what I've observed numerous time, what part of the country the player is from has a lot to do with the number of offers he's received as well. For example lets say there are two very similar players, heck lets just say equal players for sake of discussion. One's from Florida, the other from Nor-Cal. I submit the one from Florida will have a longer list of total offers. Cooks for one example had 5 other P12 offers according to 247 and no other P5 listed offers. Had he played in Florida, Texas, or even SoCal his P5 offer list outside the P12 would be a lot higher. My theory, using total offers as a comparison is flawed for many reasons in first place, and with the new staff focusing recruiting efforts on different regions than the old staff(Florida for example) it is an even a more flawed comparison. P12 class ranking may be the best indicator. A big maybe. The best indicator? Wins, All Conference selections, AA's, draft picks. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on May 12, 2017 11:09:12 GMT -8
The recruiting analyses does prove 1 thing to me. Currently anyone completely dissatisfied with current the staffs' performance in recruiting does not have a leg to stand on. It is unrealistic to believe that the current coaching staff would dramatically improve recruiting from prior standards. Only a marginal improvement could be expected until win/loss record and/or recent reputation dictate otherwise unless; as Oregon State does not have the inherent advantages or history, media exposure, and large donor backing.
Right now there is some momentum towards the win/loss record and recent reputation. I am excited to see where this leads. If the results are negative this next year in win/loss and recruiting, then at which point I can see having some information to be upset with the subjective recruiting results.
|
|
|
|
Post by zebraworks on May 12, 2017 23:18:25 GMT -8
I think that this staff is better (overall) at recruiting (especially in light of how horrible the win loss record has been to sustain a positive outlook for future classes). If they can ever engineer the x and o's to get back to upper 1/3 of the PAC I expect we will really be surprised at how good the results will be recruiting against other p5 schools compared to what we saw previously getting to that level and subsequent results in recruiting.
while getting early commits doesn't equate ending up with a stellar class I love that GA has gotten early commits compared to previously not seeing any till sometime in the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on May 20, 2017 12:55:50 GMT -8
Apparently one was right in front of our noses! Check main board.
|
|
