‘23 JUCO OT Larry Johnson III ( Tennessee commit)

[RiseToTheTop]

And the commitment is acknowledged in the latest VQ update. Follows the same script as Mincey last year. The coaches won’t acknowledge a portal transfer until after their enrollment.

i know trey johnson, a defensive staffer liked the kids commitment post. it popped up on my feed.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

You have not seen anyone freak out?

Not in this thread

 

[LittleVol]

Rankings (as a whole) are good at predicting talent. Nothing is perfect

No sir, the shear number of 4 star players that bust and 3 star below that boom means that combined that's a bunch of players that was miss evaluated....

Question: are there only 250- 300 4 star caliber players in HS each year?
Don't you think that's odd how that "works out" every year? It just appropriately lands at the same every year???

So star rankings have been around for about 20 years now.( 2002)
The population of the US has boomed the past 20 years. 100 million people have been added to the population.

That also effects how many young kids play sports. This case football.
IE There are more football players in HS than EVER before, and every next year there's MORE. African immigrants. Polynesian kids. More Caucasian and African- American kids around than 20 years ago lol.

So how is it that after 20 years we still only get 300 4 stars???
Answer : there isn't just 300 in reality. They move people in and out the top 300 all through out the season. Did they all of a sudden get more talented throughout the season? Or less talented lol? No.

Star rankings are the equivalent of kids picking their favorite classmates for kickball team.

Stars are an image created by a digital editor. . A dude doesn't go from 4.4 to 4.2 speed because he gets bumped from 3 star to 4 star.

It is a completely unreliable system...

Anyone who listened or tolerated me this recruiting cycle knows in correct because of Jalen Smth, Tyrell Weathersby, Nathan Leacok and Ricky Gibson. All those dudes were 3 stars and 3 of them I said were obvious 4 stars at the time. Fast forward to now.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

No sir, the shear number of 4 star players that bust and 3 star below that boom means that combined that's a bunch of players that was miss evaluated....

Question: are there only 250- 300 4 star caliber players in HS each year?
Don't you think that's odd how that "works out" every year? It just appropriately lands at the same every year???

So star rankings have been around for about 20 years now.( 2002)
The population of the US has boomed the past 20 years. 100 million people have been added to the population.

That also effects how many young kids play sports. This case football.
IE There are more football players in HS than EVER before, and every next year there's MORE. African immigrants. Polynesian kids. More Caucasian and African- American kids around than 20 years ago lol.

So how is it that after 20 years we still only get 300 4 stars???
Answer : there isn't just 300 in reality. They move people in and out the top 300 all through out the season. Did they all of a sudden get more talented throughout the season? Or less talented lol? No.

Star rankings are the equivalent of kids picking their favorite classmates for kickball team.

Stars are an image created by a digital editor. . A dude doesn't go from 4.4 to 4.2 speed because he gets bumped from 3 star to 4 star.

It is a completely unreliable system...

Anyone who listened or tolerated me this recruiting cycle knows in correct because of Jalen Smth, Tyrell Weathersby, Nathan Leacok and Ricky Gibson. All those dudes were 3 stars and 3 of them I said were obvious 4 stars at the time. Fast forward to now.

You’re citing nothing. Go actually read the research paper if you care to. I acknowledge none of it is perfect and coaching matters. But I also see the data. You cannot argue the data, sorry

 

[swchandler1988]

No sir, the shear number of 4 star players that bust and 3 star below that boom means that combined that's a bunch of players that was miss evaluated....

Question: are there only 250- 300 4 star caliber players in HS each year?
Don't you think that's odd how that "works out" every year? It just appropriately lands at the same every year???

So star rankings have been around for about 20 years now.( 2002)
The population of the US has boomed the past 20 years. 100 million people have been added to the population.

That also effects how many young kids play sports. This case football.
IE There are more football players in HS than EVER before, and every next year there's MORE. African immigrants. Polynesian kids. More Caucasian and African- American kids around than 20 years ago lol.

So how is it that after 20 years we still only get 300 4 stars???
Answer : there isn't just 300 in reality. They move people in and out the top 300 all through out the season. Did they all of a sudden get more talented throughout the season? Or less talented lol? No.

Star rankings are the equivalent of kids picking their favorite classmates for kickball team.

Stars are an image created by a digital editor. . A dude doesn't go from 4.4 to 4.2 speed because he gets bumped from 3 star to 4 star.

It is a completely unreliable system...

Anyone who listened or tolerated me this recruiting cycle knows in correct because of Jalen Smth, Tyrell Weathersby, Nathan Leacok and Ricky Gibson. All those dudes were 3 stars and 3 of them I said were obvious 4 stars at the time. Fast forward to now.

Oh did you do the update for Shannon on On3? Thank you for your service

Calm down

 

[Orange_Crush]

You’re citing nothing. Go actually read the research paper if you care to. I acknowledge none of it is perfect and coaching matters. But I also see the data. You cannot argue the data, sorry

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

So, I just read your first link. Did you realize that you posted an article that is little more than an excluded middle fallacy that supports the argument you're trying to disprove?

First, our argument: recruiting rankings are useful, but only loosely coupled to player skills and future team success. i.e. They correlate but do not cause/predict. i.e They are of limited value at scope, and even lesser value at the level of individual recruits.

The article deals in extremes. Not the moderate stance. Then it ends up supporting the moderate stance (see previous paragraph).

The opposing argument is that the ratings are not reliable and should be dismissed. The proponents of this side point to specific outliers as evidence that the recruiting rankings do not matter.

Did you notice what he just did? And what you're doing by standing this article up as proof against our argument? It's called a strawman. None of us have ever said that recruiting rankings are of no use and should be completely discounted.

Here's the quote summarizing the findings:

The data analysis showed that recruiting ranking data plays a very important role in explaining the success of college football teams. The 247Sports ratings are good predictors of the final Sagarin ratings. The results indicated that up to 36 percent of the total variation in the Sagarin ratings was explained by the recruiting rankings. This indicated that the effort and expense of football recruiting is important to the health of the football program both in terms of wins and finances. Our results showed significance for each recruiting class in a given season, except the senior class which is likely explained, at least in part, by early entry into the NFL draft.

Really? Up to 36% of Sagarin rating (the study's standard) variation is explained by the team's recruiting rankings? Let's rephrase that. Apparently AT LEAST 64% of the final Sagarin rating WAS NOT explained by the recruiting ranking.

And really? This indicates that recruiting is important to the health of football programs? Of course recruiting is important to the health of a football program.

It sounds like the first link supports our moderate position that recruiting rankings are loosely coupled to future success. They are useful as a reference, but not for the strict predictive value that others are trying to convince us of.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

So, I just read your first link. I'll read the second in a bit if you give me assuurances it won;t be a waste of time. Did you realize that you posted an article that is little more than an excluded middle fallacy that supports the argument you're trying to disprove?

First, our argument: recruiting rankings are useful, but only loosely coupled to player skills and future team success. i.e. They correlate but do not cause/predict. i.e They are of limited value at scope, and even lesser value at the level of individual recruits.

The article deals in extremes. Not the moderate stance. Then it ends up supporting the moderate stance (see previous paragraph).



Did you notice what he just did? And what you're doing by standing this article up as proof against our argument? It's called a strawman. None of us have ever said that recruiting rankings are of no use and should be completely discounted.

Here's the quote summarizing the findings:



Really? Up to 36% of Sagarin rating (the study's standard) variation is explained by the team's recruiting rankings? Let's rephrase that. Apparently AT LEAST 64% of the final Sagarin rating WAS NOT explained by the recruiting ranking.

And really? This indicates that recruiting is important to the health of football programs? Of course recruiting is important to the health of a football program.

It sounds like the first link supports our moderate position that recruiting rankings are loosely coupled to future success. They are useful as a reference, but not for the strict predictive value that others are trying to convince us of.

36% variation is very significant. We all know coaching, culture, development, scheme, etc are factors. Taking one element and it being 36% is very significant

 

[sjt18]

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

With all due respect, no one would use that data to try to prove what you're trying to prove. The deviations from the trend line you are trying to prove are MUCH too frequent and great.

And your data does NOT account for the methods used by the recruiting sites which include "plagiarizing" the top recruiting programs. They don't "evaluate" those kids in a vacuum. A LOT of kids have talent. But Saban's stamp of approval over time has shown to be pretty reliable. Smart is there too. So let's say you are one of the recruiting site evaluators and Pitt and Bama have CB targets who look about the same. Which one do you give a 4th star to? That's not a hard choice.

And your data ignores THE most important factor in these ratings. The sites do not even ATTEMPT to accurately rate all players. They arbitrarily limit the number of 5* ratings to around 30. I think they hand out 300 or so 4* rankings. About 60% of the 5* will be drafted. Throw in a % for guys who get injured and that's not bad. Only 20% of the 4* get drafted. MORE 3* get drafted than 4*. That means the sites miss at least as many who deserve 4* as they properly rate.

Your graph cannot be accurate without taking those things into account... and that is very likely not worth the weeks it would take to do it.

 

[Vols410]

So, I just read your first link. Did you realize that you posted an article that is little more than an excluded middle fallacy that supports the argument you're trying to disprove?

First, our argument: recruiting rankings are useful, but only loosely coupled to player skills and future team success. i.e. They correlate but do not cause/predict. i.e They are of limited value at scope, and even lesser value at the level of individual recruits.

The article deals in extremes. Not the moderate stance. Then it ends up supporting the moderate stance (see previous paragraph).



Did you notice what he just did? And what you're doing by standing this article up as proof against our argument? It's called a strawman. None of us have ever said that recruiting rankings are of no use and should be completely discounted.

Here's the quote summarizing the findings:



Really? Up to 36% of Sagarin rating (the study's standard) variation is explained by the team's recruiting rankings? Let's rephrase that. Apparently AT LEAST 64% of the final Sagarin rating WAS NOT explained by the recruiting ranking.

And really? This indicates that recruiting is important to the health of football programs? Of course recruiting is important to the health of a football program.

It sounds like the first link supports our moderate position that recruiting rankings are loosely coupled to future success. They are useful as a reference, but not for the strict predictive value that others are trying to convince us of.

Totally agree. Not trying to convince you of anything other, only tried to demonstrate that rankings have descriptive use (and decent predictive quality, though not great) for most teams, not just a select few.

 

[LittleVol]

You’re citing nothing. Go actually read the research paper if you care to. I acknowledge none of it is perfect and coaching matters. But I also see the data. You cannot argue the data, sorry

The dot graph? Haha.

So you're saying that population has no effect on how many good players there are now??

We have nothing to talk about then if you believe that.

 

[LittleVol]

Oh did you do the update for Shannon on On3? Thank you for your service

Calm down

Why are you always trying to pick a fight with me?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Totally agree. Not trying to convince you of anything other, only tried to demonstrate that rankings have descriptive use (and decent predictive quality, though not great) for most teams, not just a select few.

We're on the same page, as I expected early on, thus pointing out the common ground.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why are you always trying to pick a fight with me?

You have such a punchable... er... avi?

 

[sjt18]

Come on man, you know what I meant. You don’t have to educate me like I’m your kid. I don’t literally mean “every”

Not educating you. You just can't get away with hyperbole in a debate like this one. The reason in the context of that particular post is that UT only has to be right about maybe 5+/- players and their class is actually top 5 instead of top 12. When Clemson was rising, they found some guys that looked like Telander or Slaughter as recruits who then played a critical role in their success.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

The dot graph? Haha.

So you're saying that population has no effect on how many good players there are now??

We have nothing to talk about then if you believe that.

No, of course there are more quality players in highly populated areas and in total population

And as far as what I suggested you read is the research paper I linked. If you don’t want to take the time with the paper then you can just read the linked article that summarizes the paper

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

Anyway, who cares! We have a great coach, we’re winning and recruiting better. Go Vols!!!

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Not educating you. You just can't get away with hyperbole in a debate like this one. The reason in the context of that particular post is that UT only has to be right about maybe 5+/- players and their class is actually top 5 instead of top 12. When Clemson was rising, they found some guys that looked like Telander or Slaughter as recruits who then played a critical role in their success.

I agree with that

 

[Vols410]

With all due respect, no one would use that data to try to prove what you're trying to prove. The deviations from the trend line you are trying to prove are MUCH too frequent and great.

And your data does NOT account for the methods used by the recruiting sites which include "plagiarizing" the top recruiting programs.

Agree with the plagiarizing aspect, and also agree that rankings can’t be the end-all-be-all or even close to it. Not saying it can be used as a sole predictor, but you’d be hard pressed to find any other single metric that better predicts team strength on its own.

In my analysis, the team rating here explains 56% of the variance in the upcoming year, and is more predictive than using the previous year as a baseline as well. Not perfect or close to it, college football is extremely noisy, but it's helpful.

 

[LittleVol]

Oh did you do the update for Shannon on On3? Thank you for your service

Calm down

You're just this person spending YOUR valuable time on me out of spite.

I'll never meet you.

I'll never care anything about what you have to say.

You sit there and completely take my words of context whenever you get the chance. And everyone else sees it to but you continue to do it.

All because I called you out a few times when you were clearly wrong.

Life is short. You might as well be singing praises to your worst enemies then even engage me in conversation.

I win EVERYTIME you decide to speak to me
... everytime.

 

[LittleVol]

No, of course there are more quality players in highly populated areas and in total population

And as far as what I suggested you read is the research paper I linked. If you don’t want to take the time with the paper then you can just read the linked article that summarizes the paper

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

Anyway, who cares! We have a great coach, we’re winning and recruiting better. Go Vols!!!

I can agree with that lol

 

[sjt18]

Agree with the plagiarizing aspect, and also agree that rankings can’t be the end-all-be-all or even close to it. Not saying it can be used as a sole predictor, but you’d be hard pressed to find any other single metric that better predicts team strength on its own.

In my analysis, the team rating here explains 56% of the variance in the upcoming year, and is more predictive than using the previous year as a baseline as well. Not perfect or close to it, college football is extremely noisy, but it's helpful.

FTR, I have never said they have no meaning or usefulness. Just that some are delusional about how accurate they are and especially once you start getting away from a handful of teams that find great talent, compete at the top, and... mysteriously also get their recruiting classes ranked high.

I think the sites follow those programs FAR more than those programs follow the sites.

I have long said that the "right guy" for UT will be someone who has a knack for finding 3* guys who should be rated higher. They're always out there. The reason is pretty simple. You aren't going to lift UT or anyone else by stealing players away from UGA and Bama head to head. It might be within the cosmos of possibilities... but no one has done it yet. The guy who rises up to compete with them will find his own... and they likely won't get the same favor from recruiting sites at the beginning as Saban's targets.

 

[Vols410]

FTR, I have never said they have no meaning or usefulness. Just that some are delusional about how accurate they are and especially once you start getting away from a handful of teams that find great talent, compete at the top, and... mysteriously also get their recruiting classes ranked high.

I think the sites follow those programs FAR more than those programs follow the sites.

Sure, fair enough.

 

[LittleVol]

You have such a punchable... er... avi?

Sheesh.

It's ridiculous haha.

He's a grown man trying to pick a fight with someone he can't beat in a debate online or in a real physical confrontation.

Many times I've been wrong about things and I'll man up and admit it. Butchna, SJ18, Bigl3327 can all attest to that.

This a-hole just keeps at it because of envy?? I don't even know why. Such a loser...

 

[PEPPERJAX]

You have such a punchable... er... avi?

Punch mountains and the ocean?

 

[T2P_Priceless]

FTR, I have never said they have no meaning or usefulness. Just that some are delusional about how accurate they are and especially once you start getting away from a handful of teams that find great talent, compete at the top, and... mysteriously also get their recruiting classes ranked high.

I think the sites follow those programs FAR more than those programs follow the sites.

I have long said that the "right guy" for UT will be someone who has a knack for finding 3* guys who should be rated higher. They're always out there. The reason is pretty simple. You aren't going to lift UT or anyone else by stealing players away from UGA and Bama head to head. It might be within the cosmos of possibilities... but no one has done it yet. The guy who rises up to compete with them will find his own... and they likely won't get the same favor from recruiting sites at the beginning as Saban's targets.

I agree with everything except the last part. We did it in the 90s. Fulmer won ALL THE TIME. Saban will retire soon as well. Just have to start beating Kirby...or like you said out evaluate him (still beating him). It will be interesting to see who's NIL warchest is bigger in the coming years if they don't change the rules. If we're winning near their level and all else being equal NIL is going to play a major part

 

[NighthawkVol]

And I disagree. Guess the coaches will be the tiebreaker.

Well, the coaches could start him at RT and you could still be right if he sucks.

Let’s hope whoever starts there doesn’t suck.