‘23 JUCO OT Larry Johnson III ( Tennessee commit)

[butchna]

Agree. Mincey and Crawford are the starters in 23. Davis is the backup at one spot, maybe both. Grant or Perry may develop as well.

I don’t see either as a RT mauler type like Wright delivered…they’re more finesse. Neither were physically fit first day at UT, but Schmidt/Ellarbee had them game ready before the season. Now Crawford played little his first year, but it wasn’t because he needed to catch his breath. As we’ve seen with Simmons, no two conditioning situations are equal but I could definitely see LJ3 as the starter and expect it sooner rather than later.

 

[butchna]

Then why are you complaining if you realize that some 3*s actually end up being good, productive players?

Spraggins is our best returning OL…all 3 stars of him. Once they report, what the egghead virgins say about them stays in their mom’s basements.

 

[Tennessee Golfer]

Did we get the traditional “GBO” tweet from Huepel after the commitment?

 

[butchna]

Did we get the traditional “GBO” tweet from Huepel after the commitment?

No. But we didn’t get one for the TE or kicker either.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Then why are you complaining if you realize that some 3*s actually end up being good, productive players?

Who said I was complaining!?!? I’m pointing out where we need to be but we’re heading in the right direction. I’m also arguing against people that say rankings don’t matter in the aggregate

 

[PlanetVolunteer]

I don’t see either as a RT mauler type like Wright delivered…they’re more finesse. Neither were physically fit first day at UT, but Schmidt/Ellarbee had them game ready before the season. Now Crawford played little his first year, but it wasn’t because he needed to catch his breath. As we’ve seen with Simmons, no two conditioning situations are equal but I could definitely see LJ3 as the starter and expect it sooner rather than later.

That's why we need the feller from Rhode Island

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

So the recruiting services are only reliable and effective for the best teams? . Your ridiculous mental gymnastics when it comes to blue chip players is beyond laughable. You just can’t see the forrest for the trees.

Pretty easy. The best teams are not blindly reaching into the 4 star pool, they are evaluating guys and taking a lot of the better 4 star guys and avoiding the overranked misses that get passed by lower star guys in college and get drafted while the majority of the 4 stars do not. Hate to wear out a fact, but more 2-3 stars got drafted last year than 4 stars. Percentage of 4 stars is higher, actual quantity it is lower.

Evaluating players from thousands of HS with a wider variance in competition level is just tougher than hundreds of primarily FBS and FCS colleges. 3-4 years of on field production after the age of 18 clarifies the pool quite a bit. With 200 to 270 4 stars available from basically two different classes that is 400-500 4 stars to draft from, and last year about a hundred were. That is a bunch of misses. Even more opportunities to mine talent from the under evaluated. Add well from the 3 star pool and you can gain ground on the BEST teams even while they corner the 4 star market. Colleges are not using a dart board in low star pool either. Sign the wrong 4 stars

Celebrating or bridge hunting on signing day based on STARS is a fool's errand. It is a pretty long study to see how each team's evaluation processes year to year stack up against the services projections 3-4 years earlier.

 

[PlanetVolunteer]

If so, we're gonna have a long year and we'd better have a full qb room. Guy will be depth and I'd almost bet he ends up at guard when it's all said and done. Guy needs time to acclimate and get ready for this league. I'm praying a "day 1 starter" will come from the portal.

I'm talking about AJ Cornelius who will start wherever he goes

 

[Vols410]

PS- What is actually proven is that UGA, Bama, and OSU get lots of talent and are perennial NC contenders... and the rankings aren't reliably predictive for anyone else.

I mean, I don't think they're close to perfect, and I agree they likely lean heavily on who the top talent developers target to baseline their rankings, but this statement is simply false.

I spend way too much time building CFB predictive analytics/models, and recruiting talent rankings are actually a decent predictor, from top to bottom. Of course there are outliers and coaches need to trust their own internal scouting/analysis, that's true in any industry, but to act like recruiting rankings are only reliable at all for the very top isn't true.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Wait a minute, so what you are saying that it is mental gymnastics? I have a tendency to believe that the recruiting agencies cannot evaluate all the players and if the top 5 teams go after a player it evaluates his Star Rating. That makes perfectly good sense. They don't find them all and there are a 1,000s of 3* and 2* players that should be 4* and sometimes 5* that never make the board because they are never evaluated. A small % of OL players rarely grade out over a 3* but when they do it is a matter of who is recruiting them vs a thorough evaluation.

You’re exactly right. It’s impossible to look at them all and ratings searches and coaches alike get them wrong (that includes kids that don’t want to work at the next level). Services 100% talk to recruiting offices at big schools and pay attention when all the big schools offer.

The fact remains that the highest overall talented schools based on final rankings perform the best against the best talent. Key points:

1: For the most part we need to be competing against the top teams, particularly for defensive players
2. OL is the toughest to evaluate and your best chance to find the diamonds in the rough
3. The rankings that matter are end of cycle rankings

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Spraggins is our best returning OL…all 3 stars of him. Once they report, what the egghead virgins say about them stays in their mom’s basements.

And here comes everyone to point out someone that exceeded their ranking.
1. As I said , OL is an outlier of sorts
2. The aggregate is what matters

Go back now and look at all the 3 stars that were at or worse than the ranking. That goes for the 4 stars that none of the big schools fought for as well

 

[T2P_Priceless]

I mean, I don't think they're close to perfect, and I agree they likely lean heavily on who the top talent developers target to baseline their rankings, but this statement is simply false.

I spend way too much time building CFB predictive analytics/models, and recruiting talent rankings are actually a decent predictor, from top to bottom. Of course there are outliers and coaches need to trust their own internal scouting/analysis, that's true in any industry, but to act like recruiting rankings are only reliable at all for the very top isn't true.

View attachment 522191

This is the factual data we all need to pay attention to

 

[Franklin_Vol09]

Hard to tell from the videos. Not really impressed. He is big but reaches way too much. Some of y’all saw quick feet but I did not.
Do we have confirmation that we accepted his commitment?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Who said I was complaining!?!? I’m pointing out where we need to be but we’re heading in the right direction. I’m also arguing against people that say rankings don’t matter in the aggregate

"Matter" is such a loaded word in this discussion. It would probably be better to distinguish between correlation and causation, which is what the ones you're arguing against are trying to do.

By "matter", are you arguing for causation? i.e. that the applied rankings cause the players to be more successful? Or are you arguing that they are subjective opinions attemepting to predict future success, and they have shown limited success in the aggregate?

(By limited success, refer to @sjt18's argument per how effective they prove to be when not predicting the proven schools they generally end up aligning their opinions with.)

 

[T2P_Priceless]

"Matter" is such a loaded word in this discussion. It would probably be better to distinguish between correlation and causation, which is what the ones you're arguing against are trying to do.

By "matter", are you arguing for causation? i.e. that the applied rankings cause the players to be more successful? Or are you arguing that they are subjective opinions attemepting to predict future success, and they have shown limited success in the aggregate?

(By limited success, refer to @sjt18's argument per how effective they prove to be when not predicting the proven schools they generally end up aligning their opinions with.)

Refer to @Vols410. He did the real work. Or you can just ignore the facts and point out anecdotal evidence to the contrary

 

[butchna]

Enough “outliers” to fill a novel. Get good coaches players good enough to play and get the recruiting egghead nerds laid…win/win.

 

[butchna]

I'm talking about AJ Cornelius who will start wherever he goes

Science proves you wrong!
- Star nerds prolly

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Enough “outliers” to fill a novel. Get good coaches players good enough to play and get the recruiting egghead nerds laid…win/win.

Ignore the empirical evidence if you wish. People here have argued your art for the last 15 years of our sucky drought. Meanwhile Bama and GA continue to win Championships. Yes I know coaching matters too

 

[Orange_Crush]

I mean, I don't think they're close to perfect, and I agree they likely lean heavily on who the top talent developers target to baseline their rankings, but this statement is simply false.

I spend way too much time building CFB predictive analytics/models, and recruiting talent rankings are actually a decent predictor, from top to bottom. Of course there are outliers and coaches need to trust their own internal scouting/analysis, that's true in any industry, but to act like recruiting rankings are only reliable at all for the very top isn't true.

View attachment 522191

Refer to @Vols410. He did the real work. Or you can just ignore the facts and point out anecdotal evidence to the contrary

First, explain his work to me. Give us detaileed analysis of what he presented. Or are you just choosing another authority to agree with your choice of authprities?


Now...

You mean the one where he basically agreed with our premise, that recruiting rankings are a loose overall reflection of talent and a "decent" indicator of future success, but not the predictive/causative agent you guys make them out to be?

A couple of thoughts, in case I missed it, what are the definitions of "talent rating"?

Can't really look at this graph and know whether it disproved the point that @sjt18 made specific to this particular argument--and for the record, a point that he made by quoting data of his own.

The argument at hand is whether subjective rankings successfully predict how accomplished a school will be? And isn't that the actual point in question? sjt seemed to show, via a comparison of recruiting rankings and how schools ended up ranked, that the recruiting rankings seem to do a good job predicting the schools that traditionally finish high, and then fall off in their predictive success rates?

That's kind of like looking at the past few seasons of F1 and predicting that Red Bull, Mercedes, and Ferrari will all be jockying for the constructors. "Yes. After detailed analysis, we agree with the design and hiring deccisions those three made."

 

[T2P_Priceless]

The best part is I can acknowledge and believe the clear evidence that @Vols5150 shows and still root and hope our players are outliers. However, it looks like that may be a moot point anyway as we’re starting to ascend in the recruiting rankings and win some recruiting battles vs top schools

 

[T2P_Priceless]

First, explain his work to me. Give us detaileed analysis of what he presented. Or are you just choosing another authority to agree with your choice of authprities?


Now...

You mean the one where he basically agreed with our premise, that recruiting rankings are a loose overall reflection of talent and a "decent" indicator of future success, but not the predictive/causative agent you guys make them out to be?

A couple of thoughts, in case I missed it, what are the definitions of "talent rating"?

Can't really look at this graph and know whether it disproved the point that @sjt18 made specific to this particular argument--and for the record, a point that he made by quoting data of his own.

The argument at hand is whether subjective rankings successfully predict how accomplished a school will be? And isn't that the actual point in question? sjt seemed to show, via a comparison of recruiting rankings and how schools ended up ranked, that the recruiting rankings seem to do a good job predicting the schools that traditionally finish high, and then fall off in their predictive success rates?

That's kind of like looking at the past few seasons of F1 and predicting that Red Bull, Mercedes, and Ferrari will all be jockying for the constructors. "Yes. After detailed analysis, we agree with the design and hiring deccisions those three made."

Why Football Recruiting Rankings Matter

If you want a deep dive into the data and analysis you can stufy their research paper at the link below (click open pdf in browser or you can download it)

The Effectiveness of College Football Recruiting Ratings in Predicting Team Success: A Longitudinal Study by Jeffrey A. Mankin, Julio Rivas, Jeffrey Jay Jewell :: SSRN

I would suggest you take the time to read it in full before dismissing it

 

[Vols410]

First, explain his work to me. Give us detaileed analysis of what he presented. Or are you just choosing another authority to agree with your choice of authprities?


Now...

You mean the one where he basically agreed with our premise, that recruiting rankings are a loose overall reflection of talent and a "decent" indicator of future success, but not the predictive/causative agent you guys make them out to be?

A couple of thoughts, in case I missed it, what are the definitions of "talent rating"?

Can't really look at this graph and know whether it disproved the point that @sjt18 made specific to this particular argument--and for the record, a point that he made by quoting data of his own.

The argument at hand is whether subjective rankings successfully predict how accomplished a school will be? And isn't that the actual point in question? sjt seemed to show, via a comparison of recruiting rankings and how schools ended up ranked, that the recruiting rankings seem to do a good job predicting the schools that traditionally finish high, and then fall off in their predictive success rates?

That's kind of like looking at the past few seasons of F1 and predicting that Red Bull, Mercedes, and Ferrari will all be jockying for the constructors. "Yes. After detailed analysis, we agree with the design and hiring deccisions those three made."

I totally get what you’re saying. I totally wouldn’t say that the “rankings themselves” are causative in any way, or that they’re the sole determinant of team success.

I would say that to some extent all of this is making guesses/predictions about how good you expect a team/player to be. With some coaches, their scouting/development causes their overall team strength to exceed (or underperform for many) their expectation given talent, but from everything I’ve seen talent level (which in this case is a scaled version of the 247 team composites) is one of the best predictive indicators of team strength I’ve come across.

My main contention was that this is largely true across the board (with the exception of your triple-option / service academy schools), not just for the top-tier programs.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

I totally get what you’re saying. I totally wouldn’t say that the “rankings themselves” are causative in any way, or that they’re the sole determinant of team success.

I would say that to some extent all of this is making guesses/predictions about how good you expect a team/player to be. With some coaches, their scouting/development causes their overall team strength to exceed (or underperform for many) their expectation given talent, but from everything I’ve seen talent level (which in this case is a scaled version of the 247 team composites) is one of the best predictive indicators of team strength I’ve come across.

My main contention was that this is largely true across the board (with the exception of your triple-option / service academy schools), not just for the top-tier programs.

It obviously comes down to a combination of talent and coaching and development. You give Kirby a roster of 3 stars and no way is he competing for a title. We see that evidence in the relation to him building his roster then ascending to the top

Again:

Why Football Recruiting Rankings Matter



The Effectiveness of College Football Recruiting Ratings in Predicting Team Success: A Longitudinal Study by Jeffrey A. Mankin, Julio Rivas, Jeffrey Jay Jewell :: SSRN

 

[Orange_Crush]

I totally get what you’re saying. I totally wouldn’t say that the “rankings themselves” are causative in any way, or that they’re the sole determinant of team success.

I would say that to some extent all of this is making guesses/predictions about how good you expect a team/player to be. With some coaches, their scouting/development causes their overall team strength to exceed (or underperform for many) their expectation given talent, but from everything I’ve seen talent level (which in this case is a scaled version of the 247 team composites) is one of the best predictive indicators of team strength I’ve come across.

My main contention was that this is largely true across the board (with the exception of your triple-option / service academy schools), not just for the top-tier programs.

Again, and I'm actually trying to find common ground here... But your point seems to be very similar to the points others of us are making. None of us are saying that recruiting rankings are just flat out wrong and useless. We are however questioning the extreme opposite of that claim--that they are the holy grail that everyone (including our coaches) need to be striving for and judged against. And that they are the predictor of our future success.

They just aren't. Period.

You seem to agree that they are a general rule of thumb, and a decent indicator. @sjt18 makes a pretty decent argument that the predictive value falls off when you start getting away from the established, successful programs.

My main point, within your specific agreements above, is that (I'd call us overall ignorant, but we'll settle on...) unskilled fans try to cover their ingo... lack of ability in rating talent by trying to enforce a reliance on a flawed and imperfect system. They don't have the data, nor the abilities, to properly rate talent, so they choose an authority, prop it up as the gold standard of success and prediction, and then judge our staff and program against that.

They compound the error by trying to implement correlation at scale to predictions of individual players. We land a 3* and out comes the ignorance: "Boo. Hiss. This guy isn't as good as the 4* UGA got, so we'll never catch them."

Whether by hook or by crook, they went from arguing a correlation at scale to causation in the specific.

 

[butchna]

Ignore the empirical evidence if you wish. People here have argued your art for the last 15 years of our sucky drought. Meanwhile Bama and GA continue to win Championships. Yes I know coaching matters too

They win because they evaluate and land talent. The star nerds follow those evaluations and bump their rankings accordingly. Even then, Bama has to bring in a Jahmyr Gibbs and Tyler Steen because they missed em the first time round. Call it EMPIRICAL if you wish…but it ain’t EXACT.