For those who like analytics - Why did Tennessee win 11 games?

[1989Vol]

Sjt18 is very knowledgeable, he knows football pretty well. I think it’s pretty common that stars do matter majority of the time to be elite. You can win 10-11 games with top 10 but most of the time you need top 5 talent to bring it home.

And coaching........Texas AM bought a team of 5 stars but didn't have the staff to coach, motivate, develope and hold the team together.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

The Chiefs are headed to the Super Bowl. Here's their starters by "stars". I used Rivals since the other two don't capture all of the active players.

QB- Mahommes 3*
RB- McKinnon 3*, Pacheco 3*, Jones 4*, Burton unr
TE- Kelce 2*, Gray 2*
WR- Smith-Schuster 5*, Watson unr, Valdes-Scantling 3*
OT- Brown 4*
OG- Thuney 3*
C- Humphrey 4*
OG- Smith 5*
OT- Wylie 3*

LDE- Karlaftis 4*
DT- Nnadi 4*
DT- Jones 5*
DE- Clark 3*
LB- Gay 4*
LB- Bolton 3*
CB- Watson 3*
S- Reid 3*
S- Thornhill 3*
CB- Sneed 3*
NB- McDuffie 4*

So their roster star average is 3.36 That would make them somewhere around 20th this year if they were an incoming class of Fr. Without much argument, the best two players on their team are a 3* QB and a 2* TE.

So with all due respect to your "feelings"... it is more important to find, sign, and develop talent than to pay attention to the number of "stars" a recruit has.

And very, very clearly... here's just one more proof that you are 100% wrong. This "non-blue chip" line up is going to the Super Bowl.

Using the NFL is disingenuous and erroneous. If you don’t understand whey then I don’t know what to tell you. This post further reiterates how wrong you are when it comes to the relationship between blue chip players and success in college football.

Take your L and sit down. Class is dismissed.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Sjt has been saying this for years and he is correct… simple math and numbers will tell you that recruiting services cannot be Right on everyone and your staff has to be great evaluators and developers as well… our upcoming class is really good on defense Jalen smith player of the year in GA was a 3 star most of the cycle and is one of the best LBs in the country… it’s not top 5 but it is easily championship level on both sides of the ball…

Lol. No he is wrong as always. He wants people to believe that the recruiting services are worthless and stars don’t really matter. That’s demonstrably false. He cannot grasp the simple truth of success in college football. You don’t win at the highest level in college football without the most highly ranked players. We have mountains of data to back that up.

Will there be teams like TCU? Statistical outliers? Of course. But exceptions don’t prove the rule. And look what happened to TCU. Why did they absolutely dominated? Because Georgia had more talent. Better players. Meaning they had more 4 and 5* players. It’s this simple truth that crushes Sjts arguments.

 

[KnoxToTheBoro93]

Lol. No he is wrong as always. He wants people to believe that the recruiting services are worthless and stars don’t really matter. That’s demonstrably false. He cannot grasp the simple truth of success in college football. You don’t win at the highest level in college football without the most highly ranked players. We have mountains of data to back that up.

Will there be teams like TCU? Statistical outliers? Of course. But exceptions don’t prove the rule. And look what happened to TCU. Why did they absolutely dominated? Because Georgia had more talent. Better players. Meaning they had more 4 and 5* players. It’s this simple truth that crushes Sjts arguments.

It doesn’t because Kirby doesn’t need the recruiting services he just recruits the players he evaluates As the best and recruiting services will always agree with him because that is a safe bet… he showed you just as many top recruiting classes of teams that ended up mediocre and horrible… if the recruiting sites were as accurate as you say than the top 25 classes would essentially be the top 25-30 teams and that’s never the case… the top of the top are not hard to ID and Kirby signs them but it’s over 6 figures in high school football players across the country easily to think they could possibly rank all them accurately Is foolish… there will be thousands of players ranked lower than they should be and as long as the staff can ID the guys they like and can develop to their system that’s all that matters… our recruiting classes have been ridiculously higher than our record would indicate over the past 15 years before Heup… what does that tell you ? Do I want 5 stars absolutely but I like 6”3 225 crazy athletes who our state champ track runners no matter what they are “ranked”…

 

[sjt18]

Using the NFL is disingenuous and erroneous. If you don’t understand whey then I don’t know what to tell you. This post further reiterates how wrong you are when it comes to the relationship between blue chip players and success in college football.

Take your L and sit down. Class is dismissed.

No it isn't. You are just in a corner and have nothing left but to handwave away the facts... again. At the highest level of football, where talent is a total prerequisite, when training/development have become pretty much equal... your "stars" don't hold up.

The rest of your post just proves that you are closing your mind and dismissing facts simply because they aren't convenient to you. I've proven repeatedly that the "relationship" between stars and "success in college football" is inconsistent and tenuous at best. You use the top 3-5 teams but that's like "predicting" that Tokyo is a large city because lots of people live there.

You are wrong. You've always been wrong on this... badly wrong. Your "cute" responses are just a defense mechanism so that you don't have to sacrifice your pride to the truth.

 

[sjt18]

And coaching........Texas AM bought a team of 5 stars but didn't have the staff to coach, motivate, develope and hold the team together.

Coaching always plays into every team. I'm not even saying that teams that get 4/5* players aren't getting talented players by and large.

What I AM SAYING is that the recruiting sites MISS a LOT of players that are worthy of 4/5*. If a coach can do his own evals then he can assemble a very talented team that isn't full of 4/5* players. Pretty simple concept. With respect to the facts, it is unassailable. From demonstrated performance... we see it happen. Clemson did it. Michigan I believe was outside the top 10 in composite talent according to 247. TCU was outside the top 30.

Some cling to the idea that UGA, Bama, OSU, and Clemson are talented BECAUSE they get highly rated classes. When looking at it from that angle, it is coincidental... not cause-effect. It is much closer to say that they have highly rated classes because they've proven they can find, sign, and develop talent so the recruiting sites give their recruits the benefit of the doubt.

 

[sjt18]

Lol. No he is wrong as always. He wants people to believe that the recruiting services are worthless and stars don’t really matter.

Well, no. That's a lie. That is another way you are trying to evade. You set up a straw man then burn it down. The recruiting services are not always inaccurate concerning the players they rate highly. Five stars have a high level of success typically. Higher 4* generally have success. But the undeniable fact is that there are A LOT of guys that get 3* or below that are just as good or better than the ones they give 4/5* to. So for you to say that a player or class is sub-par or less talented based on "stars"... is just profoundly ignorant. The ratings are at best an imperfect perception/projection of talent. They aren't measures of REAL talent.

That’s demonstrably false.

And also a complete fabrication. You continually misrepresent what I say and "think" because to accept what I say at face value proves you wrong.

He cannot grasp the simple truth of success in college football. You don’t win at the highest level in college football without the most highly ranked players. We have mountains of data to back that up.

That is simply not the "simple truth". There are enough underrated players in EVERY year to put together a roster as talented as whoever the recruiting sites rank #1. That FACT alone disproves you claim.

Will there be teams like TCU? Statistical outliers? Of course.

Except they aren't outliers. Repeatedly you've been confronted with the "simple truth" that many supposedly talented teams prove not to be and teams that the recruiting sites did not bless turn out to be better. You cherry pick 4 or 5 programs as if that "proves" your point. And then you put your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la when anyone points to the REST of the rankings and how the do NOT predict success.

But exceptions don’t prove the rule.

If it were a "rule" then there wouldn't be exceptions... and especially not as many as there are. If you devise a rule and then 30-40% of cases are labeled "exceptions"... then your rule isn't valid.

And look what happened to TCU. Why did they absolutely dominated? Because Georgia had more talent. Better players. Meaning they had more 4 and 5* players. It’s this simple truth that crushes Sjts arguments.

No. That is NOT what that means. If the recruiting sites did not exist... UGA would have had more talent. You are trying to claim a "cause" for an effect... but it isn't true. Do you really NOT understand simple cause-effect logic?

You haven't "crushed" anything except your own intellectual integrity.

 

[sjt18]

TCU didn’t have top recruiting classes and they played in the NC game…

I wouldn't personally argue that TCU has top 5 or even top 10 talent. However, you do not beat OU, Texas, and Michigan on your way to the NC without having talent. According to 247, those were the 9th, 6th, and 13th most talented rosters in the country.

I think you can luck your way into a NC without multiple top 5 classes. Clemson did, but they had incredible QBs. Trevor Laurence and Desean Watson.

So it is just blind "luck" when coaches find more than their share of underrated players because they do good evals?

They also dont play an SEC schedule. I think for SEC teams you need top 5 classes more than anyone else cause you have such a grind week in and week out.

UT without much argument had the most difficult schedule in the SEC this year, right? According to 247, the Vols were the 7th most talented team in the SEC. Depth eventually did cost the Vols against USCe but the Vols were THAT close. This whole string of argument started because of the assertion that UT was "not close" to having enough talent to compete. They did last year and appear to be upgrading significantly through this cycle.

But some of these clowns are suggesting or in @BigOrangeTrain 's case openly declaring that UT is not getting better with this class... because guys like Jalen Smith, Telander, Luttrell, Slaughter, etc only got "3*".

I think clearly recruiting sites miss players and other players develop. But even the teams you showed weren’t good got really good players. ND and Texas were really good this year.

By what measure? Texas had the 6th most talented roster in the country. They were an 8-5 team that lost to TCU but also TTU and Oklahoma State who ranked 45th and 40th according to 247 respectively.

Notre Dame was 9-4 with the 10th ranked roster. No shame in losing to OSU or USC... but they also lost to Marshall who supposedly has the 106th ranked roster. If the faith in the recruiting sites was in any way merited... that would never happen. And it wasn't a fluke. Marshall outplayed them and outgained them. ND also lost to 3-9 Stanford. They "beat" USCe but it was a very close game with many Gamecock players who helped them beat Clemson and UT not playing. They were switching players from one side of the ball to the other and asking guys to play both ways to fill out their two deep.

You clearly believe we need elite talent to win NCs, I don’t get your argument here.

I absolutely believe you need great talent to win the SEC or NC's. You may have stepped into the middle of an argument that is months old and already has a context of its own. I'll try to clear that up some.

Is it that our coach knows better than the sites? I would agree with that especially for his scheme.

Yes. You are pretty close. I think UT got a steal in several players they signed this year. Jalen Smith was one of the most productive players at the highest level of GA HSFB. I believe Rivals ranked him 4* but according to On3 everyone else has him a 3*. I think potentially there are several players that can be better than their ranking.

So in summary...

I am NOT saying that highly rated classes do not have talent. In fact, I believe the recruiting rankings have some value as a measure of talent "generally". I think they more accurately rate a whole roster than any particular player. That said, they're VERY far from perfect. They overrate a lot of guys and underrate an absolute ton of guys.

I AM saying that coaches who have the ability to do their own evaluations can build championship level rosters without the blessing of the recruiting sites. In the extreme, you could have a team like TCU assemble a roster that could actually win the NC. But with a program like UT the difference is much, much "finer". The Vols had enough talent to be the SEC's second best team while 247 ranked them 7th in the SEC and 19th in the country. I'm not sure about losses and additions to the roster but I think it will get more talented... and the average ranking will likely reflect that.

I am NOT saying the recruiting sites are wrong all of the time and have no value at all to fans. I am saying that they are nowhere near as good at evaluating individual players as some here very loudly proclaim. To compensate, they "copy the work" of the best programs and recruiters in CFB. Bama and Saban having a top 5 class essentially becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. He has a long run of success so if two players are being considered that look equal in talent and HS performance... but Saban makes one a priority and doesn't pursue the other at all... which one gets the 4/5* bump?

Someone pointed out the excitement over getting a 5* QB. But if Saban had not pushed so hard for Nico... would he have been rated so high? There is a great QB out there somewhere in this recruiting cycle who none of the top programs found. Happens every year. Someone... did find him.

I AM saying that the recruiting sites are not accurate enough, and especially apart from copying the work of 4-5 programs, to claim they're predictive or even particularly "accurate". Take Bama, OSU, UGA, and Clemson out of consideration then look at the recruiting rankings as a predictor of success. It isn't very good.

 

[sjt18]

@spacificislander as an aside to the above... I've been here following this closely for a very, very long time. Actually the recruiting sites as a "thing" kind of coincides with my tenure on this forum. My joined date says 2006 but I think there was a reset in there.

I used to be more like BOT and the others than I am now. NSD was more exciting that Christmas as a kid. IIRC, UT has been ranked outside the top 25 only once since I joined this board. Several times they've been in the top 5. For much of that time, their roster average was top 10. But performance on the field simply didn't align with those lofty rankings. So I started looking at the recruiting sites critically... what their rankings do and do not mean.

After realizing how inaccurate they actually are... it dawned on me that their success is not tied to being greatly accurate. They make money by getting subscribers and clicks. They only have to be accurate... enough... to create a perception that sells.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

Using the NFL is disingenuous and erroneous. If you don’t understand whey then I don’t know what to tell you. This post further reiterates how wrong you are when it comes to the relationship between blue chip players and success in college football.

Take your L and sit down. Class is dismissed.

I think the train left the station without you.

 

[RockyTopTexas]

Wr Splits win football games
been saying it for years

 

[GoodmanVol]

And if we got within 20-30 yards of the endzone, it was like blood in the water for our offense. It just felt like we were always itching to take - and make - shots.

This is by design. You’ll see a lot of offenses take shots from 20-40 yards out because when you get closer (inside the red zone) then opposing defenses have less space to cover. For an offense whose strength is passing the ball 20-40 yards out is the sweet spot because you have space to get separation before running out of field.