Basillio's X says UT coaches kicking themselves

#51
#51
The coaches are not gonna ask a guy to lookelse where. They r just gonna lay off big time and let some of their other coaching buddies to come on strong. Its easy forthem to turn a kid away without making it look like they did.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#52
#52
I would venture to say that UT probably does not recruit a kid that they don't at least have a plan for what they would do if they got him. For example, "Okay, we're going to recruit this guy, if push comes to shove and we get him with no room left, we're going to ask this guy to look around."

I also see this staff being upfront with kids telling them, "Look we want you to play football for us, but if we find another guy at your position and we feel like he is a better fit for us, we have to do what's best for our football team. It's not what we necessarily want to do, because we really want to have you on our team, but because of rules, sometimes its what has to happen. So we want you to take your visits, and to see what else is out there, and if it ever happens where we have to let you go, we want you to have somewhere to fall back to."

I could see them putting it something like that. I mean, every kid who is not a 5* has to know that they could be replaced by someone better. That's why the senior season and camps are so important to maintaining their stock.

Dunno. I hope we don't have to turn anyone away, but if we do, that will mean a very good thing, and I would hope that those other players would land on their feet.
 
#54
#54
Vol423 said:
I agree. It's funny how high character isn't quite so important anymore.
Click to expand...

High Character is STILL important but if you can get character and BETTER talent, you have to try to find a way to make it happen. People here don't realize how much recruiting is about hype and contolling the hype. A big part of the hype machine is what the current commits are feeling and whether their out there recruiting for you. Recruits listen to other recruits (and what they grandmama be sayin).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
JZVOL said:
But I thought we needed all these 3* guys because of their high character?
Click to expand...

orangeblooded2 said:
I thought it was not about stars, but young men with character. According to this staff.....
Click to expand...

Vol423 said:
I agree. It's funny how high character isn't quite so important anymore.
Click to expand...

Nashvol2 said:
High Character is STILL important but if you can get character and BETTER talent, you have to try to find a way to make it happen. People here don't realize how much recruiting is about hype and contolling the hype. A big part of the hype machine is what the current commits are feeling and whether their out there recruiting for you. Recruits listen to other recruits (and what they grandmama be sayin).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Yeah, its pretty simple, but some seem a little slow when it comes to the ole football!

We have to have a full class, we cant have ten guys not make it in or get in trouble. So just to clarify....we need the highest character players with the most talent!
You CAN have both!!!
 
#58
#58
it's funny how a lot of people on here were saying this staff can't recruit back in the summer and early season cause we only had 1 commit, and now we're in on so many quality recruits
 
#59
#59
KnoxVillain said:
Who said that? Also, there is no correlation between an athlete's rating and their character.
Click to expand...

Absolutely none? Tell me how this is wrong:

1) Assume that the character of all recruits is the same, regardless of stars. Let's say that 20% of all recruits are low-character guys who will potentially hurt your program in some way. The exact % isn't important.

2) Assume that star ratings are absolutely reliable and regarded as such by coaches.

3) Assume there are 50 five stars, 150 four stars, and 750 three stars (think this is the approximate Scout model, though the precise numbers aren't important, just the relative amounts of each. There are many more three stars that four or five.)

4) Assume that coaches would not want a lot of guys with bad character and that they can reliably get a sense of a recruit's character through all the information they can gather. This is not perfect for sure and my argument doesn't assume that it is. Just that the character evaluation by a staff is significantly better than throwing darts.

First, if you are the head coach at a prestigious D1 University like Tennessee, how many of the 150 low-character 3 stars are you willing to take a chance on? Me? Zero - there are plenty others to choose from at this talent level, so if I see a red flag in a three star I don't pursue him at all. Didn't have time to consider 750 of them anyway, so this filter is most definitely ON.

How many 30 four stars with red flags would you take a chance on? Not so sure for me. If I've got a position of need and feel particularly good about a four stars talent level, I might take some a few chances here. Might pursue the 15 that I think have the best combination of needed talent and acceptable character risk.

What about 5 stars? There's 10 of them that have some red flags. How many do you pursue? Shoot, I like my job and need talent. I might decide that 7-8 of them are acceptable risks, even though I see red flags. Figure the risk is manageable, because I'm not going to get anywhere near all of them anyway. Can live with 2-3 guys here that I consider character risks.

Now, if you agree with all of that, great. What does your committment list look like with respect to character? The lower the star rating of a guy who is committed or signed by a high level program that has choices, the better the character ON AVERAGE. Doesn't say a thing about any particular highly-rated guy and says nothing at all about the entire pool of recruits (remember - all groups are exactly equal with respect to character). It just says that programs are not as likely to take recognized chances on lower talent guys than on guys who are projected to have big and/or immediate impact. That strikes me as fairly obvious and sensible.

If you don't agree with this, which specific point do you have a problem with, I wonder? I think the whole character/star argument is mostly a result of sloppy arguments and thinking.

Of course, I suppose I could be wrong. High level coaches might not care about the talent level when deciding whether to pursue a guy with red flags with respect to character. But that seems highly unlikely to me.
 
#60
#60
This thread has more long posts than any thread I've ever seen.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#61
#61
winchestervol63 said:
Absolutely none? Tell me how this is wrong:

1) Assume that the character of all recruits is the same, regardless of stars. Let's say that 20% of all recruits are low-character guys who will potentially hurt your program in some way. The exact % isn't important.

2) Assume that star ratings are absolutely reliable and regarded as such by coaches.

3) Assume there are 50 five stars, 150 four stars, and 750 three stars (think this is the approximate Scout model, though the precise numbers aren't important, just the relative amounts of each. There are many more three stars that four or five.)

4) Assume that coaches would not want a lot of guys with bad character and that they can reliably get a sense of a recruit's character through all the information they can gather. This is not perfect for sure and my argument doesn't assume that it is. Just that the character evaluation by a staff is significantly better than throwing darts.

First, if you are the head coach at a prestigious D1 University like Tennessee, how many of the 150 low-character 3 stars are you willing to take a chance on? Me? Zero - there are plenty others to choose from at this talent level, so if I see a red flag in a three star I don't pursue him at all. Didn't have time to consider 750 of them anyway, so this filter is most definitely ON.

How many 30 four stars with red flags would you take a chance on? Not so sure for me. If I've got a position of need and feel particularly good about a four stars talent level, I might take some a few chances here. Might pursue the 15 that I think have the best combination of needed talent and acceptable character risk.

What about 5 stars? There's 10 of them that have some red flags. How many do you pursue? Shoot, I like my job and need talent. I might decide that 7-8 of them are acceptable risks, even though I see red flags. Figure the risk is manageable, because I'm not going to get anywhere near all of them anyway. Can live with 2-3 guys here that I consider character risks.

Now, if you agree with all of that, great. What does your committment list look like with respect to character? The lower the star rating of a guy who is committed or signed by a high level program that has choices, the better the character ON AVERAGE. Doesn't say a thing about any particular highly-rated guy and says nothing at all about the entire pool of recruits (remember - all groups are exactly equal with respect to character). It just says that programs are not as likely to take recognized chances on lower talent guys than on guys who are projected to have big and/or immediate impact. That strikes me as fairly obvious and sensible.

If you don't agree with this, which specific point do you have a problem with, I wonder? I think the whole character/star argument is mostly a result of sloppy arguments and thinking.

Of course, I suppose I could be wrong. High level coaches might not care about the talent level when deciding whether to pursue a guy with red flags with respect to character. But that seems highly unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

TLDR. Can we get a summary?
 
#62
#62
ORANGE & WHITE said:
TLDR. Can we get a summary?
Click to expand...

It's about Cost Analysis/Risk basically.

If you got a bad 5* star, there aren't many to go around with, so you take your chances, because the chances of him turning out very good are better. And besides that, you'd get fired if you turned down a 5*.

4 stars are similar. You get a 4* guy with questionable character, you really have to think about whether or not you take him. If it's at a position of need, or one where you're not sure you would find a similar or better talent, perhaps its better to take the risk.

3*'s are a different ballgame, because there's so many of them. If you find a questionable 3*, throw it back and try again, because there's so many on that talent level, that you're bound to find one in that position with as much talent or potential as what you had.

He's saying the risk you take with a 5* is greater than a 3*, and therefore, you can afford to pass on a 3* if he's got issues.
 
#64
#64
TNHopeful505 said:
Yeah. That's POSSIBLE, IF Downs and Crowder had applied to Tennessee long before they actually talked to a coach. I mean, Seniors apply to multiple schools to see if they can get in and what they can get, but if you're a highly touted recruit, then you probably don't apply until you've got some offers. But if Mack and Brendan applied to UT, and UT had already sent them offers before then, they'd be okay.

But....I just don't think that happened. They're going to end up counting.
Click to expand...

The fact that they were offered scholarships makes every thing a moot point now.

It is typically more of a after signing day type of thing. Alabama got a kicker this way last year. Kid had an academic scholly to Bama and was being recruited by some smaller D1 schools. He decided to take the full ride to Bama, and when Bama found out the kid was going, he was extended a walk-on spot.
 
#65
#65
winchestervol63 said:
Absolutely none? Tell me how this is wrong:

1) Assume that the character of all recruits is the same, regardless of stars. Let's say that 20% of all recruits are low-character guys who will potentially hurt your program in some way. The exact % isn't important.

2) Assume that star ratings are absolutely reliable and regarded as such by coaches.

3) Assume there are 50 five stars, 150 four stars, and 750 three stars (think this is the approximate Scout model, though the precise numbers aren't important, just the relative amounts of each. There are many more three stars that four or five.)

4) Assume that coaches would not want a lot of guys with bad character and that they can reliably get a sense of a recruit's character through all the information they can gather. This is not perfect for sure and my argument doesn't assume that it is. Just that the character evaluation by a staff is significantly better than throwing darts.

First, if you are the head coach at a prestigious D1 University like Tennessee, how many of the 150 low-character 3 stars are you willing to take a chance on? Me? Zero - there are plenty others to choose from at this talent level, so if I see a red flag in a three star I don't pursue him at all. Didn't have time to consider 750 of them anyway, so this filter is most definitely ON.

How many 30 four stars with red flags would you take a chance on? Not so sure for me. If I've got a position of need and feel particularly good about a four stars talent level, I might take some a few chances here. Might pursue the 15 that I think have the best combination of needed talent and acceptable character risk.

What about 5 stars? There's 10 of them that have some red flags. How many do you pursue? Shoot, I like my job and need talent. I might decide that 7-8 of them are acceptable risks, even though I see red flags. Figure the risk is manageable, because I'm not going to get anywhere near all of them anyway. Can live with 2-3 guys here that I consider character risks.

Now, if you agree with all of that, great. What does your committment list look like with respect to character? The lower the star rating of a guy who is committed or signed by a high level program that has choices, the better the character ON AVERAGE. Doesn't say a thing about any particular highly-rated guy and says nothing at all about the entire pool of recruits (remember - all groups are exactly equal with respect to character). It just says that programs are not as likely to take recognized chances on lower talent guys than on guys who are projected to have big and/or immediate impact. That strikes me as fairly obvious and sensible.

If you don't agree with this, which specific point do you have a problem with, I wonder? I think the whole character/star argument is mostly a result of sloppy arguments and thinking.

Of course, I suppose I could be wrong. High level coaches might not care about the talent level when deciding whether to pursue a guy with red flags with respect to character. But that seems highly unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is sound as far as I am concerned. I would make one comment though. In your last statement, there is an assumption that all "high level coaches" have the same thoughts and philosophies about character/talent/risk. I am sure many have differing opinions and I'm sure they know that their preferences are going to change based on the school (lots of different parameters).

Also, we should all agree that this arguement is not going away and is never a "closed case." Their is no "right" answer, only different philosophies on how to build a successful program at a given school (in this case the University of Tennessee).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
ORANGE & WHITE said:
TLDR. Can we get a summary?
Click to expand...

I never understand this. Why come on a message board if you can't/don't like/don't have time to read? It's tough to contribute to a conversation when you don't listen to other people. Not attacking, just trying to understand. :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#67
#67
GoBigOrange_2309 said:
it's funny how a lot of people on here were saying this staff can't recruit back in the summer and early season cause we only had 1 commit, and now we're in on so many quality recruits
Click to expand...

That's what I've been thinking. We've gone from "Why don't we have any recruits" to "We're in on so many, who do we get rid of?"

Best just to sit back & let it play out. Good problems to have. :rock:
 
#68
#68
KingtUT said:
Didnt read either but i'll summarize what im sure it says.

Blah, blah 3 stars ok sometimes, blah,blah 4 stars better, blah,blah 5 stars great, blah, blah attitude matters too.
Click to expand...


:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:

I didn't read them either, but I appreciate the effort........

GBO!!!!
 
#70
#70
I'm sorry but it is sad as hell that we have to speculate who will be told to look elsewhere. A lot of these kids see what is being posted. That and most posters have no clue what is going on with certain players. Young is going no where; he wasn't recruited as a RB, he was recruited to fix our piss poor PR situation and is already working on getting better at the position without even having set foot on campus. Thompson personally wanted Harris and he was our first commit; I don't see him going anywhere. If you want to say we ask some players to look elsewhere or grayshirt fine but "fans" who name specific recruits and criticize them aren't helping our recruiting efforts.
 
#71
#71
Nashvol2 said:
I never understand this. Why come on a message board if you can't/don't like/don't have time to read? It's tough to contribute to a conversation when you don't listen to other people. Not attacking, just trying to understand. :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Message boards, IMO, are designed for clear and concise thoughts. I am interested in what he has to say but I don't have 30 minutes at work to read it all.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top