'20 GA QB Harrison Bailey (UT SIGNEE)

#4,502
#4,502
secking said:
Bailey was at the 5 stars challenge as well, right? They are probably going off his performance there but no reason at the Opening for Bailey to drop, should get a bump from both sites. I sometimes wonder if these guys have preconceived notions and look for selection bias?
Click to expand...

Yes happens all the time. It’s just more noticeable when it happens to one of your teams recruits.

Bailey is on the bad end of recency bias. He blew up 4 years ago. More time to be picked apart and also to see new shiny things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182 and SweetasSoda
#4,507
#4,507
butchna said:
Nope. One doesn’t trump mass totality.
Click to expand...
Let's say there is a systematic bias against UT, our recruits haven't done much in recent years to prove them wrong once they are on campus. Frankly, we're pretty fortunate to have a player like Bailey committed, even if his new 247 ranking is accurate considering the last two years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#4,509
#4,509
kemotoe said:
Yes happens all the time. It’s just more noticeable when it happens to one of your teams recruits.

Bailey is on the bad end of recency bias. He blew up 4 years ago. More time to be picked apart and also to see new shiny things.
Click to expand...
Agree with that, all of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob
#4,510
#4,510
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Let's say there is a systematic bias against UT, our recruits haven't done much in recent years to prove them wrong once they are on campus. Frankly, we're pretty fortunate to have a player like Bailey committed, even if his new 247 ranking is accurate considering the last two years.
Click to expand...
Fortune is what you make or in our case recruit. Your rationale in defending their faulty process doesn’t make it less faulty. These are supposed professionals and they move a prospect up and down depending on who they’re committed to...instead of actual DATA. You say that’s acceptable, I maintain NOT REALLY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeredblooded
#4,511
#4,511
kemotoe said:
Yes happens all the time. It’s just more noticeable when it happens to one of your teams recruits.

Bailey is on the bad end of recency bias. He blew up 4 years ago. More time to be picked apart and also to see new shiny things.
Click to expand...
He’s better than he was four years ago. Only other thing that changed is he committed to us. We’d have noticed his rank improving if he’d have picked Michigan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
#4,512
#4,512
butchna said:
Fortune is what you make or in our case recruit. Your rationale in defending their faulty process doesn’t make it less faulty. These are supposed professionals and they move a prospect up and down depending on who they’re committed to...instead of actual DATA. You say that’s acceptable, I maintain NOT REALLY.
Click to expand...
I just read on another board that UGA's recruiting class went down a total of 68 spots aggregrated and Bama went down 11. So is Clemson the new fair haired child?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
#4,513
#4,513
unfrozencvmanvol said:
I just read on another board that UGA's recruiting class went down a total of 68 spots aggregrated and Bama went down 11. So is Clemson the new fair haired child?
Click to expand...
Spots or points...UGA dropping 68 SPOTS would trigger some major anti-recruiting service outrage don’t you think? 😉 As for Clemson...serious question?
 
#4,514
#4,514
butchna said:
Spots or points...UGA dropping 68 SPOTS would trigger some major anti-recruiting service outrage don’t you think? 😉 As for Clemson...serious question?
Click to expand...
Spots is what the guy said. I think what he was talking about was like if you took Commit A (-20), Commit B (+10) and Commit C (-20), and combine the number of spots up or down these Commits went in the individual rankings it would be -30 spots. Points may be the proper word, but spots is what was said. Regardless, if true, it appears neither of those teams benefited at our expense today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol
#4,515
#4,515
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Spots is what the guy said. I think what he was talking about was like if you took Commit A (-20), Commit B (+10) and Commit C (-20), and combine the number of spots up or down these Commits went in the individual rankings it would be -30 spots. Points may be the proper word, but spots is what was said. Regardless, if true, it appears neither of those teams benefited at our expense today.
Click to expand...
They’re in the 60’s rankings wise? They misspoke. 😏
 
#4,516
#4,516
butchna said:
They’re in the 60’s rankings wise? They misspoke. 😏
Click to expand...
No, that's not what they meant. Like I said, I think he meant if you added and subtracted how many spots all their commits moved up in the individual rankings, they are at - 68 after these updates.
 
#4,517
#4,517
unfrozencvmanvol said:
No, that's not what they meant. Like I said, I think he meant if you added and subtracted how many spots all their commits moved up in the individual rankings, they are at - 68 after these updates.
Click to expand...
It’s not about what they MEANT...it’s what they said. And that still pales in comparison to ours. If you only took how much Bailey alone has slipped since his commitment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol Main, Orangeredblooded and SweetasSoda
#4,518
#4,518
secking said:
Bailey was at the 5 stars challenge as well, right? They are probably going off his performance there but no reason at the Opening for Bailey to drop, should get a bump from both sites. I sometimes wonder if these guys have preconceived notions and look for selection bias?
Click to expand...
Didn't Bailey win the MVP at the 5* Challenge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol and BigOrangeTrain
#4,521
#4,521
butchna said:
It’s not about what they MEANT...it’s what they said. And that still pales in comparison to ours. If you only took how much Bailey alone has slipped since his commitment.
Click to expand...
They were referring to the aggregate spots all of the individual players for those teams moved up or down in the INDIVIDUAL rankings, not the TEAM rankings, the idea that a team would drop 68 spots in the TEAM rankings based just on an update is so preposterous they probably figured no one would get confused about it. I'd be interested to know what our number is using the same metric. Did Bailey fall
-72 today? Because if not, Cooper's +72 would cancel that out, I'd be interested in knowing the actual data about this systematic oppression of our program, since we all likes us some data.
 
#4,524
#4,524
unfrozencvmanvol said:
They were referring to the aggregate spots all of the individual players for those teams moved up or down in the INDIVIDUAL rankings, not the TEAM rankings, the idea that a team would drop 68 spots in the TEAM rankings based just on an update is so preposterous they probably figured no one would get confused about it. I'd be interested to know what our number is using the same metric. Did Bailey fall
-72 today? Because if not, Cooper's +72 would cancel that out, I'd be interested in knowing the actual data about this systematic oppression of our program, since we all likes us some data.
Click to expand...
Bailey was #64 when this whole rigmarole STARTED...so no. Nothing cancels it out. Go piss on somebody else tires and tell em it’s raining...I ain’t buying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and CreiveHallVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top