Recruiting Football Talk VII

#151,653
#151,653
Jackcrevol said:
Teachers teach to the ACT curriculum, same as to the State boards. Student success is school's success. Merit increases are directly correlated to these figures. Same for a schools budget.

Not every child learns in this capacity. I argue IQ is an abstract construct. The trades man is differently intelligent than the classical musician, than is the Landscape designer.
Click to expand...
Agreed. IQ is more about mental processing speed, problem solving, etc and that's what those tests try to quantify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX and Jackcrevol
#151,654
#151,654
jave36 said:
And no, at any decent level, you cannot put in a random athlete for football and expect them to be good. There's a LOT more knowledge needed to be good at football than baseball. Schemes and positions and assignments and plays and knowing what your teammates are doing simultaneously and reacting to all those variables from the defense as well.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ based on personal experience. Several times I have seen exceptional athletes with little or experience excel in football. A fast kid with hands can become a receiver in short order. One with no hands can be a RB.
We had a kid at running back who never ran one correct play and didn't really know the plays even though only ran about five plays on offense that year. He had to be told every play if he was getting the ball and how (right, left, toss, etc.) We rode him to the state final. Granted that can not be done with every position in football but it really can't be done any place in baseball, maybe pinch runner ( even there, secondary lead, reading the pitcher, reading the pitch, reading the catcher).
I had a baseball team that didn't have one of what I would call a great athlete and they won the State. They just knew how to play baseball.
 
#151,655
#151,655
Nash_Vol97 said:
I thought 52 sounded weird when I wrote it but didn't go verify. Thanks.

I didn't include the practice squad in roster size. That may be included in the NFL salary cap but it's usually less than 300-400k/year for an NFL team so easier to talk from active roster standpoint. PL teams also have practice squad players too but in different context, they are usually academy players. Still get paid but a lot less.

As for the 2.8M number, I saw that too but I also saw the below chart for 2020 and my thought here is that the average salary wouldn't go backwards with the cap increasing. Who knows though, maybe it just consistently hovers around $3M.

Another difference in salary reporting is European soccer have much less player bonus incentives. Most teams have basic incentives for players based on team objectives, but it's more rare to see a lot of player incentives in contracts. I think the numbers you see online for NFL are base and may have signing bonus included but idk if player incentives are included in those. So numbers may vary by different reporting based on those.

View attachment 635208
Click to expand...
The really wild numbers are in F1 racing😱
Drivers make multi millions in contract salary and much more in NIL/advertising
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nash_Vol97 and Orange_Crush
#151,656
#151,656
Orange_Crush said:
You are Siberian husky?
Click to expand...
Are you accusing me of being a communist???!!

R.b2cd9481f5eacb61883e1fb77041523d
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scvol7906, Big Orange#1, SweetasSoda and 4 others
#151,664
#151,664
rikberry31 said:
I beg to differ based on personal experience. Several times I have seen exceptional athletes with little or experience excel in football. A fast kid with hands can become a receiver in short order. One with no hands can be a RB.
We had a kid at running back who never ran one correct play and didn't really know the plays even though only ran about five plays on offense that year. He had to be told every play if he was getting the ball and how (right, left, toss, etc.) We rode him to the state final. Granted that can not be done with every position in football but it really can't be done any place in baseball, maybe pinch runner ( even there, secondary lead, reading the pitcher, reading the pitch, reading the catcher).
I had a baseball team that didn't have one of what I would call a great athlete and they won the State. They just knew how to play baseball.
Click to expand...
In high school? You use Jordan in the minors as your exhibit A then a high school league for the counter example? No amount of athleticism will make a receiver or running back successful if they don't know the play at any decent level of football. If the RB goes right while the OL blocks left, he's not going anywhere. If the wr runs a completely wrong route than what the play was called, he's not catching a pass most of the time.

Whereas a clueless baseball player who's had millions of reps and exceptional bat speed and coordination will be able to hit a pitcher no matter how clueless he is. Your team didn't win state just because they "knew" baseball, they won state because they were physically gifted hitters, which is all about reps/experience and raw talent. And probably some good in game coaching to tell them which pitches to expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and LaagerVol
#151,667
#151,667
jave36 said:
In high school? You use Jordan in the minors as your exhibit A then a high school league for the counter example? No amount of athleticism will make a receiver or running back successful if they don't know the play at any decent level of football. If the RB goes right while the OL blocks left, he's not going anywhere. If the wr runs a completely wrong route than what the play was called, he's not catching a pass most of the time.

Whereas a clueless baseball player who's had millions of reps and exceptional bat speed and coordination will be able to hit a pitcher no matter how clueless he is. Your team didn't win state just because they "knew" baseball, they won state because they were physically gifted hitters, which is all about reps/experience and raw talent. And probably some good in game coaching to tell them which pitches to expect.
Click to expand...
For sure. The fact that you can take 9 kids who have never played together before and turn them into a championship squad really kind of says it all. At anything but the MLB level, there's a correct way to play the game. Very little need for coordination or strategy.

Maybe the best way to drive that point home is to point out that, at any given time, like half of an MLB roster does not speak English lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and LaagerVol
#151,672
#151,672
SoilVol said:
That's not remotely true. ACT isn't an IQ test, so you can't use the change in ACT test difficulty to say IQ tests have changed in difficulty. The IQ test scale is the same.

Also, I assume by "a 36 today isnt the same as a 36 30 years ago" you mean because we have an increase in perfect scores in the last 10 years. Yes, because the population has increased and there's more resources available to students for test tutoring (its a huge business) and practicing. If they're normalizing the ditribution to the population like you say, then the same proportion of people are scoring perfect scores as it was 30 years ago. Theres just more people taking the test because 1. Theres more people and 2. There's more people going to college than 30 years ago.

ACT scores have actually also been following the same trend as IQ tests. The mean score increased to a peak in 2007 and has declined gradually since. Yet, the millenial and Z scores are still above the mean of 30 years ago. Regardless, ACT isn't an IQ test. It's a college-readiness test to see how prepared you are.

You are also making a massive error in comparing the 1920s and 2020s. Let's say for arguments sakes the average high schooler today couldn't get a 70% on a 1920s eight grade math test. Lets play that game. You've made a huge error if you then assume that the average 8th grader in 1920 is more intelligent than the average 2020's high schooler.

Because the average 8th grader in 1920 wasn't even in school. Today, everyone has to go until they're 16. Most stay at least until 18. Back then very few (not to mention when the Depression started) were going to school. Public schooling hadn't even begun. Only the wealthy and highly intelligent were getting an education in 8th grade. The average 8th grader hadn't been in a classroom for a few years at that point.

Its the same mistake people male today arguing that India's children are more intelligent than America's. Because India's students are doing higher level schooling at a younger age than ours are. The problem is that the vast majority of India's youth arent in school or get kicked out for poor scores or behavior. So the average income and education level in India is below ours. 1920s education was like that.
Click to expand...
You putting words in my mouth. I never said people were not as intelligent now, just less educated, dumber. Intelligent does not equal smart. I said as whole society is not smart enough to get into baseball. I never mentioned intelligence.
The difference between intelligence and wisdom (smarts) is about 20 years of hard work and experience. The difference between intelligence and ignorance is twenty foolish wasted years.
And as far as education that is not the same as going to school. In the world of "education" I have met some of the dumbest people, just because you work at school doesn't mean your smart.. And as far as compulsory public education not coming til the 1920's, in my opinion that is where the problem started.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top