‘23 AL OT Stanton Ramil (Michigan St. commit)

#404
#404
GUNTERSVOL said:
The statement was that Saban probably offered more three stars than 4 and 5. I don't think so. Don't think we do either or schools would fill up fast. May kick a lot of tires to be politically correct, but offers I am not buying.

I still hold that stars are a probability of success, not a guarantee of success OR failure. If it were more precise then the 4 and 5 star pools would consume most if not all of the 250 draft slots each year. 3 star draftees would be way less and lower star and no star guys would not exist. Not only do they exist, they exist prominently in the first round.

Vol fans I have seen post on this subject are not expecting 25 3 stars to get it done, but believe a staff can pick enough undervalued guys that can outperform some 4 star guys. Some get drafted every year somehow. And they are offering after evaluating them, not blindly reaching into the vast 3 star pool. It is a farce to include all three stars in any analysis like the 4's and 5's. Like to at least see analysis numbers on 3 star players with multiple p5 visits, offers are too vague and impossible to validate.
Click to expand...

Who gets drafted has zero to do with a ranking coming out of HS. HS kids haven’t got any coaching at the college level. The guys who get drafted have had 3+ years of college coaching. It’s not even comparable. Also there are simply more guus ranked as 3*. If there were a comparable amount of 4-5*, then you would likely see more drafted.

Here is the thing though. Nobody is saying 3* can’t be good players. Nor that even the best teams don’t recruit them. It’s just that the teams that win at the highest rate don’t have that many 3* players. Of course coaches aren’t just blindly offering players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182
#406
#406
BigOrangeTrain said:
Exceptions don’t prove the rule
Click to expand...
I think it’s even harder now for a lesser talented team to win a championship. Before you had to just get to the championship and win one game. You had years where certain teams got in that had no business being in there. (cough Notre Dame) You had a scenario where you could conceivably get lucky and win a championship. Now you have to win two games against good teams to win a championship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#407
#407
norrislakevol said:
No, Saban is able to attract the 4 and 5 stars. He is able to attract the best talent. The recruiting services see exactly what he does.
Click to expand...
The recruiting sites take their cues from coaches that know and sign talent. That makes their ratings self-fulfilling prophecies. There's a notion that these recruiting sites with limited staffing and knowledge of the recruits and talent are THE authorities on talent.

They copy those coaches which in a way is stealing from the REAL recruiting consultants that programs use. Then they hedge their bets by arbitrarily limiting the number of 4* and 5* ratings they hand out. And they STILL overrate a lot of players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols1221, Vol in Buckeye Land, TennMan101 and 1 other person
#409
#409
sjt18 said:
The recruiting sites take their cues from coaches that know and sign talent. That makes their ratings self-fulfilling prophecies. There's a notion that these recruiting sites with limited staffing and knowledge of the recruits and talent are THE authorities on talent.

They copy those coaches which in a way is stealing from the REAL recruiting consultants that programs use. Then they hedge their bets by arbitrarily limiting the number of 4* and 5* ratings they hand out. And they STILL overrate a lot of players.
Click to expand...

That's only a fraction of what they base it on. If you'll notice that some recruits that are underrated that commit to these bigger schools are under rated because they didn't go to a camp so that the services can get eyes on them. You are putting too much stock into star rating verses who has offered them, as well as not enough stock to the fact that the recruiting services themselves scout these players in the same manner that the coaches do. They physically send people to games, invite players to their camps, and watch film....just like coaches do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#412
#412
PlanetVolunteer said:
Yall we know because of Clemson, that if you have stud QB's and a top 20 tp 15 class and great coaches you can win it all.
Click to expand...

What other team besides Clemson has done that though? You COULD say Auburn but 2010 was just a lightning in a bottle, Cinderella year. I mean Bama was absolutely destroying them in the iron bowl that year and Auburn came back and won. I think if you could show a pattern of teams that follow your criteria here, you would have have something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BucksnortVol
#415
#415
BigOrangeTrain said:
Who gets drafted has zero to do with a ranking coming out of HS. HS kids haven’t got any coaching at the college level. The guys who get drafted have had 3+ years of college coaching. It’s not even comparable. Also there are simply more guus ranked as 3*. If there were a comparable amount of 4-5*, then you would likely see more drafted.

Here is the thing though. Nobody is saying 3* can’t be good players. Nor that even the best teams don’t recruit them. It’s just that the teams that win at the highest rate don’t have that many 3* players. Of course coaches aren’t just blindly offering players.
Click to expand...

Granted, but how can the draft results typically 3-4 years after signing day celebrations or the opposite have ZERO to do with whether or not a specific program has closed ground on the star blessed programs with the comparative net changes to their 85? Global I am only interested in 1. Including analysis on the masses is a worthless exercise.

Did each school use their counters wisely and improve their competitive position against the teams they have to play? Fewer misses and more superior evaluations to the services, especially by position group, can allow downstream teams to gain enough ground in the two deep to get you into winnable range on the field, even though the reloadable depth is not there and that is ALWAYS a factor.

Spouting star data including players from bottom feeder p5 and g5 teams and for the rest of the masses is a waste of time on a team specific board. Eeyore supporting data is what it is. How many of this years 3 star signees produce at above average 4 star level? When can that be assessed? It takes more to get a 4 and 5 star rating than just attending a camp or two. The threshold to becoming a 3 star is not nearly tough enough to include the entire group in significant prognosticative analysis before they set foot at a school.
 
#416
#416
Somewhere between "Never" and "Always" lies the truth. It is foolish to argue Never vs Always because both are clearly wrong. And yet, here we are again.
 
#420
#420
BigOrangeTrain said:
There are many more 3* players than 4 and 5* guys. Yes star rating is absolutely tied to success in college. It’s a statistical fact. Teams loaded with 3* don’t win jack squat. The teams with the most 4-5* players are the ones who win at the highest level. That’s not even debatable.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely abusing statistics. Your argument reminds me of Mark Twain's quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics". lol

Statistics are valid for general insight, yet break down as the argument/points get more specific. Statistics can reveal correlations between the use of artificial sweeteners and diabetes, but you can't use a questionnaire about artificial sweetener usage to diagnose diabetes in an individual. Heck, the group of people in the statistical studies may have been using artificial sweeteners to offset habits of eating three pies a day for breakfast. Or they may have been on artificial sweeteners because they'd already been diagnosed with diabetes. Again... Correlation doesn't equate to causation, and statistics lose meaning the closer we get to the individual.

You keep banging this statistical correlation drum as proof that we're doomed because we sign 3 star recruits. That's not how it works. They don't suck because they are a three star. That's like trying to diagnose a person with diabetes merely with historical group studies. If you tried to do that, even you'd see how stupid it was.

I genuinely recommend that you either learn to break down film and discuss actual players, or start doing that if you already know how to. What you've been arguing is lazy, and unproductive as hell.




Also, you're responses actually endorse your opponent's argument and undermine your own.

You opponents: "The sheer number of 0-3 stars in the NFL shows how flawed the rating system is, and how many really, really talented kids go under the radar and/or get under-rated."

"All these 0-3 stars are in the NFL because there are statistically more of them."

Your opponents: "Yah. That's our point. There are enough 0-3 stars out there to field NFL teams. There are enough to field a college team for UT, filled with all NFL--future talent."

"Well, statistics prove that we'll never win championships without a roster full of 4-5 stars."

"But the ranking system is flawed and artificially suppressed. The number of 0-3 star NFL talent shows that."

"Well, there are so many (underrated) players in the NLF because there are so many (underrated) players."

"..."
"..."
"..."

"Do you hear what you just argued? You're AGREEING with me!"
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mccage, Samthebam, YNWAvols and 2 others
#421
#421
GUNTERSVOL said:
The statement was that Saban probably offered more three stars than 4 and 5. I don't think so. Don't think we do either or schools would fill up fast. May kick a lot of tires to be politically correct, but offers I am not buying.

I still hold that stars are a probability of success, not a guarantee of success OR failure. If it were more precise then the 4 and 5 star pools would consume most if not all of the 250 draft slots each year. 3 star draftees would be way less and lower star and no star guys would not exist. Not only do they exist, they exist prominently in the first round.

Vol fans I have seen post on this subject are not expecting 25 3 stars to get it done, but believe a staff can pick enough undervalued guys that can outperform some 4 star guys. Some get drafted every year somehow. And they are offering after evaluating them, not blindly reaching into the vast 3 star pool. It is a farce to include all three stars in any analysis like the 4's and 5's. Like to at least see analysis numbers on 3 star players with multiple p5 visits, offers are too vague and impossible to validate.
Click to expand...
Great points, especially the bold.

Kudos, sir/ma'am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodlawn VOL
#425
#425
BigOrangeTrain said:
Who gets drafted has zero to do with a ranking coming out of HS. HS kids haven’t got any coaching at the college level. The guys who get drafted have had 3+ years of college coaching. It’s not even comparable. Also there are simply more guus ranked as 3*. If there were a comparable amount of 4-5*, then you would likely see more drafted.

Here is the thing though. Nobody is saying 3* can’t be good players. Nor that even the best teams don’t recruit them. It’s just that the teams that win at the highest rate don’t have that many 3* players. Of course coaches aren’t just blindly offering players.
Click to expand...

Is your argument that, "You can never win a championship with only 0-3 star recruits"? Or is you argument, "I want highly ranked classes because I want a bunch of kids that could contribute sooner"? Because there is somewhere between there that would include "I would be satisfied winning championships with talent that we developed, and there are obviously enough 0-3 stars that were developed into NFL talent."

As to the bold, would you begin taking insulin because you've drank diet softdrinks? Again, statistical arguments break down and lose usefulness at the level that you're using them. There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top