When you bemoan our class for a lack of blue chips, you are crapping on the lower ranked players. Often times IN THEIR THREADS. Then you post here to say that you're not qualified to do it.
And no. I don't want "highly ranked players". I want the best and most talented players for our system. I've posted that (to you) before, so you'd do well to not answer for me. Often times, the ranking and the talent may align. Sometimes they may not. As two people who are admittedly unqualified to argue between the two,
I think a bit of humility and even silence on the subject would be wise.
And it truly does amaze me that you would be so belligerent on the subject and even call/infer people stupid on this, while being completely blind to your statistical misuse of correlation. You make the bolded argument, completely blind to the fact that you've begged the question in it that rating==talent and lack of rating==lack of talent.
The fact of the matter is that the rating services miss. Quite often, actually. They also limit the number of 4-5 stars they give out, and bump recruits that are accepted by the successful schools, which produces a system that would do fairly well rating highly recruited, talent recruits while missing LOTS of other highly talented recruits.
So, it would make sense to be excited that we may get Francis, but then also be excited if we get another recruit in his place. Your problem is that your logic argues as though the star rating has a causative effect on the recruit as opposed to a statistical correlation. But the reality is that most of the highly rated recruits are very talented,
and there is a lot of equally talented recruits out there that will be successful, no matter what the agencies think.
You basically argue that the decrease in the pirate population has caused global warming.
