'15 FL DE Marques Ford (FORMER UT commit)

#601
#601
marcusluvsvols said:
...for their top 300 high school players nationwide. Not sure how many we now have on that list but there are a bunch on the defensive side of the ball alone. Butch and co are the best recruiters i have ever seen on the hill. I have been a Vol since birth in 1977.
Click to expand...

The 90''s coaching staff disagrees with you till we see another Natty here..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#602
#602
Volz4lif3 said:
The 90''s coaching staff disagrees with you till we see another Natty here..
Click to expand...

They did a great job no doubt. In my opinion however they had it easier because they were selling a winner. CBJ and company came in at perhaps the lowest point in program history in at least 30 years and put together amazing classes. Excitement is back in Ktown!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#603
#603
marcusluvsvols said:
They did a great job no doubt. In my opinion however they had it easier because they were selling a winner. CBJ and company came in at perhaps the lowest point in program history in at least 30 years and put together amazing classes. Excitement is back in Ktown!
Click to expand...

This. Imagine the classes we will pull when we are winning ten or more games.
 
#606
#606
Excited to see if this kid makes huge jump in the Rivals rankings update tomorrow or next week... Whenever.
 
#608
#608
Volz4lif3 said:
The 90''s coaching staff disagrees with you till we see another Natty here..
Click to expand...

Yeah they didn't have nearly the battle Butch has had recruiting here. When you are winning it's easy to recruit.

Heck 90's coaching staff's lack of recruiting is what got us in our current situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#609
#609
Boston_Vol said:
Yeah they didn't have nearly the battle Butch has had recruiting here. When you are winning it's easy to recruit.

Heck 90's coaching staff's lack of recruiting is what got us in our current situation.
Click to expand...

Yes that was a bad coaching staff, all they did was win the 98 NC and a shot at 2 more, plus put a coach in the HALL OF FAME, boy that was a mess.:thud:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#612
#612
HwyChile said:
This kid's thread is not long enough. He should have been shown a lot more Vol love from Vol Nation.
Click to expand...

be careful what you ask for. most long threads are filled with asinine arguments and major tangents and drama of some sort. its nice that this thread has remained focused on someone who will be a good player for us.
 
#613
#613
What have they been feeding Marques? He does not look like a normal high school grad! Looks like all business all the time. Going to be fun reading this board when he gets his TOL.. Be like "you see that tackle MF made?!?!" 😁
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#614
#614
terrypedigo said:
Yes that was a bad coaching staff, all they did was win the 98 NC and a shot at 2 more, plus put a coach in the HALL OF FAME, boy that was a mess.:thud:
Click to expand...

Yeah man learn to stay on topic the argument wasn't if the 90's staff was any good. The debate was about Butch's staff being better recruiters than the 90's staff. :peace2:
 
#615
#615
Guys please stay on topic like the folks on the Richmond thread. We don't want to have useless threads for recruits who may never even go to UT.
 
#616
#616
His Rivals Profile is now showing him as a 5.8 4*.

Looks like he'll be in the top 250 today!

#BOOM!

Boom!.gif


boom.gif


tumblr_ma2kqlMlZu1qzw3av.gif


tennessee-vols-al-wilson-o.gif


Marques Ford - Yahoo! Sports
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#617
#617
Rivals point system makes absolutely no sense. I would like to see someone give a logical explanation of how UT can have the same number of 5 stars as Clemson, more 4 stars, more 3 stars, more total recruits, AND a higher average, yet have few points. Does Obama's economic council do the point calculations for rivals? :blink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#618
#618
Volfan76 said:
Rivals point system makes absolutely no sense. I would like to see someone give a logical explanation of how UT can have the same number of 5 stars as Clemson, more 4 stars, more 3 stars, more total recruits, AND a higher average, yet have few points. Does Obama's economic council do the point calculations for rivals? :blink:
Click to expand...

Clemson

3 - 6.1 5*'s

2 - 6.0 4*'s

6 - 5.9 4*'s

1 - 5.8 4*

Tennessee

3 - 6.1 5*'s

1 - 6.0 4*

3 - 5.9 4*'s

10 - 5.8 4*'s (Counting Ford)

The 6.0's and 5.9's count for much more than the 5.8's.

They are 100pts above us assuming they don't have any 4*'s bumped today I think Ford will get us 20 pts or so on them depending on how high he jumps.

Also they are done with their class, so if we land a couple more that move into our top 20 prospects we could jump them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#619
#619
Rivals has handcuffed themselves to their levels within the 4 and 5 star rankings. They got too myopic with that. They can't possibly differentiate that precisely.
 
#620
#620
Ericvol2096 said:
Clemson

3 - 6.1 5*'s

2 - 6.0 4*'s

6 - 5.9 4*'s

1 - 5.8 4*

Tennessee

3 - 6.1 5*'s

1 - 6.0 4*

3 - 5.9 4*'s

10 - 5.8 4*'s (Counting Ford)

The 6.0's and 5.9's count for much more than the 5.8's.

They are 100pts above us assuming they don't have any 4*'s bumped today I think Ford will get us 20 pts or so on them depending on how high he jumps.

Also they are done with their class, so if we land a couple more that move into our top 20 prospects we could jump them.
Click to expand...

I get that, but we have 62.5% more 4 stars than they do. The idea that a decimal point variance in a recruit ranking can make up for having over 60% more of the same caliber player makes no logical sense.
Edit..now they show them as having 9 4 stars. That makes it 55.5% but the point still remains.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#621
#621
Volfan76 said:
I get that, but we have 62.5% more 4 stars than they do. The idea that a decimal point variance in a recruit ranking can make up for having over 60% more of the same caliber player makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

You say that as if a decimal point is a negligible difference in the evaluation of a recruit. That would be true on a 100 point scale. Rivals has a 10 point scale, ranging from 5.2-6.1. A decimal place difference is a 10% difference.

It makes perfect logical sense if you focus on the fact that it is a 10% difference, and not, as decimals would be in a system them went from 0.1 to 99.9 (or 100) a 0.1% difference.

Take two hypothetical teams with 10 recruits each. If team A has 10 6.0 4 stars, and team B has 10 5.9 4 stars, and there is a 10% difference between a 5.9 and a 6.0, then every single player on team A's commitment list is 10% more valuable. Clearly having 60% more would be easily negated if each one that you had was worth 10% less, and each team had 10 total.

Also, we have 5 more 4 stars than they do. How is that 62.5%? They have 12 4 stars. 5 is not 62% of 12. It's closer to 42%.

Edit: We can disagree with Rivals making AS big of a deal out of the difference between a top 50 4 star and a bottom end of the top 250 4 star. But, it isn't a logical issue. It is a judgment that they made regarding the relative value of each type of commit.

Heck, would you think that it is a illogical for them to do the same with 6.0 and 6.1 players? Let's say we had 17 6.0 commits, and another team had 12 6.1. Would it be illogical to could 12 5 stars as as good, or better than, 17 top end 4 stars? I don't think so. Again, you could make an argument that the difference isn't *that* vast. But it isn't a matter of logic. It is a matter of evaluative standards.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top