PLAYER RANKINGS (do they matter?). Let the debate!

[Volmac2022]

Or Baker Mayfield.

Baker is talented for sure and was over looked. He definitely falls into the minority. Like I said earlier some 3 star players play well above their ratings. Still doesn't mean talent and star number don't go hand in hand lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet they [rating/talent] go hand in hand that's why your point isn't being made very effectively lol

Or Baker Mayfield.

I'm not sure why you liked that, as it detracted from your point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Baker is talented for sure and was over looked. He definitely falls into the minority. Like I said earlier some 3 star players play well above their ratings. Still doesn't mean talent and star number don't go hand in hand lol

That's exactly what it means. It means that they are not tightly coupled. It means that there is a statistical correlation that isn't predictive, which just happens to be the point you're arguing with me about.

Who said they can accurately predict talent? You still fail to realize it's easier to develop a kid who is more talented (5 star) than a kid who is far less talented (3 star)

No. I don't fail to realize that. You fail to realize that I've decoupled rating from talent, and I'm arguing in favor of talent over arguing in favor of rating. So I've been fairly explicit in affirming the benefit of talent.

Yet they go hand in hand that's why your point isn't being made very effectively lol

 

[Volfan76]

Until a team wins a national championship in the modern era without top ranked recruiting classes, there is nothing to even debate.

 

[sjt18]

The issue with you using those stats and trying to make a point is fairly obvious.

LSU lost their coach due to issues
Florida gave up on coach mullen
TAM had injuries
Auburn thought they had a good QB but fact is they didn't
USC played 5 different QBs and had a new coach
Ole Miss has a superior head coach
Arky has a dang good head coach who knows how to get the best of his players
Kentucky has a decent coach who only came in second place in the east bc of the issues mentioned above.

You and others will probably say these are excuses yet that doesn't take away from the fact that everything mentioned above is just facts of what was going on. Context matters

LOL... you strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Those issues are nothing compared to the relative INACCURACY of the recruiting rankings by ANY measure you point to... aside from 4 teams that have won or competed for the NC over the last several years.

Saying the Smart, Saban, Swinney, and Day are going to sign a lot of talented guys... isn't rocket science. Beyond that... the burden is on you all to prove that they're accurate. At a minimum, I have shown reasons to doubt that they are. My mistake was taking on the burden of proof for YOUR faith in the recruiting sites.

So... besides those 4 teams PROVE that their rankings correspond to winning. The NFL draft is pretty much a lost cause for you all. Only about 20% of those they call blue chip will be drafted. If they were actually even attempting to be thoroughly accurate... they would recognize a LOT more of the 3* talents that end up drafted.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No one is claiming we do or should recruit based on the rankings of any site. No one is saying we want coaches who can’t find/develop talent.

What we are saying is we do have to recruit at an elite level and that level will be reflected within the recruiting rankings.

I do agree with your frustration regarding people trashing recruits. But I think you’re letting the trolls get to you. The law of averages cannot predict the success of any particular player, but it can be applied at a larger level (the roster) and it does work

We're very close and the difference is meaningless, as we both agree that recruiting rankings don't win championships; talent does.

I decouple talent from the ratings enough to offer the possibility that a roster could be ALL 2-3 stars and STILL win championships. (The NFL draft proves that possibility.) I don't call it probability, nor do I hope for it. I'd be just as happy with a 2-3 star championship roster, or an all 5-star championship roster.

I consider the possibility that it wouldn't be reflected, and couldn't care less if it is or not. I'm not in love with rankings. I'm in love with talent and competing for championships.

Again, the subtle departure between us is meaningless. We both agree that there is underrated talent. We both agree that rankings can't predict an individual player's success. We both agree that none of us here will be good at prediction.

Beyond that, this becomes a meaningless debate that will promote a 'wait and see' attitude, methinks.

 

[Vol8188]

We're very close and the difference is meaningless, as we both agree that recruiting rankings don't win championships; talent does.

I decouple talent from the ratings enough to offer the possibility that a roster could be ALL 2-3 stars and STILL win championships. (The NFL draft proves that possibility.) I don't call it probability, nor do I hope for it. I'd be just as happy with a 2-3 star championship roster, or an all 5-star championship roster.

I consider the possibility that it wouldn't be reflected, and couldn't care less if it is or not. I'm not in love with rankings. I'm in love with talent and competing for championships.

Again, the subtle departure between us is meaningless. We both agree that there is underrated talent. We both agree that rankings can't predict an individual player's success. We both agree that none of us here will be good at prediction.

Beyond that, this becomes a meaningless debate that will promote a 'wait and see' attitude, methinks.

It’s not a possibility because a lot of the factors that go into a 2* player becoming elite are not factors you access accurately. On top of that the statistical odds of you hitting on your 85 2/3* players at a higher rate than Georgia and Bama hit on their 4/5 * are so astronomicaly low that it will never happen. You’ll never see Vandy win a championship recruiting at their current level.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Until a team wins a national championship in the modern era without top ranked recruiting classes, there is nothing to even debate.

Clemson 2012 -- 14
Clemson 2013 -- 14
Clemson 2014 -- 13
Clemson 2015 -- 4
Clemson 2016 -- National Champs

Clemson won their 2016 championship made up of primarily mid-teen classes, and a highly ranked freshman class.

That's a pretty good indication that if UT can recruit to mid-low-teens, there's a chance. That's encouraging, as UT should project to at least that high this year and has a recent history of meeting/exceeding that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It’s not a possibility because a lot of the factors that go into a 2* player becoming elite are not factors you access accurately. On top of that the statistical odds of you hitting on your 85 2/3* players at a higher rate than Georgia and Bama hit on their 4/5 * are so astronomicaly low that it will never happen. You’ll never see Vandy win a championship recruiting at their current level.

I think you're equating possibility to probability, and blithely equivocating between talent and rating again. But whatever.

 

[Vol8188]

I think you're equating possibility to probability, and blithely equivocating between talent and rating again. But whatever.

If it were all about evaluations you’re right it would be possible. But not only is it highly improbable that any staff will know more than the combined knowledge of the market as a whole, even then a lot of it is luck. How will the kid do in class, in the weight room, off the field, avoid injuries, develop, all of those things are not measurable.

Thus, it’s an impossibility

 

[Vol8188]

No. I believe that we beat them because we are more talented. You are assuming that higher rated == more talented. That's the question in discussion, and you're begging it. (ETA: UT may be more highly rated, but that's not what wins it. The talent difference is. I'm decoupling talent/rating in the discussion. More highly rated doesn't necessarily mean more talented. If a less highly rated, but more talented team played, they would generally win, as I'm sure you'd agree.)



You are assuming that the less highly rated players are less highly rated because they are less talented at the time of rating, and "grow" into talent. You are still assuming that rating==talent==rating.

You write it off as "impossible" because you've assumed the answer to the debate. I'm not claiming staffs have to be predictive, you are assuming they have to. I am allowing for talented recruits that the sites just didn't rate highly for some reason--especially considering their practice of falsely limiting the awarding of their 4-5 stars.

Let's assume you're right and it's not impossible just improbable. Why in the **** would we want to take the least likely route to success?

 

[Orange_Crush]

If it were all about evaluations you’re right it would be possible. But not only is it highly improbable that any staff will know more than the combined knowledge of the market as a whole, even then a lot of it is luck. How will the kid do in class, in the weight room, off the field, avoid injuries, develop, all of those things are not measurable.

Thus, it’s an impossibility

Now you're equivocating between "impossible" and "inconceivable". Just because you can't conceive of something happening doesn't mean that it's impossible.

But this is my last post arguing with you on it, since it's a meaningless point. As I stated, I'll be just as happy if we win championships with #1 classes, or # 40 classes. I want talent and championships, not ratings. Note: That is a different statement than "I want talent/championships at the expense of ratings."

 

[Orange_Crush]

Let's assume you're right and it's not impossible just improbable. Why in the **** would we want to take the least likely route to success?

When did I EVER say that I want to take lower ranked classes for the sake of lower ranked classes? That's both ridiculous and ignoring what I've actually posted.

 

[Glitch]

/ignore thread


It's worth a shot.

 

[Vol8188]

When did I EVER say that I want to take lower ranked classes for the sake of lower ranked classes? That's both ridiculous and ignoring what I've actually posted.

So we agree that rankings matter and having a higher ranking class increases our odds of success?

 

[Vol8188]

Now you're equivocating between "impossible" and "inconceivable". Just because you can't conceive of something happening doesn't mean that it's impossible.

But this is my last post arguing with you on it, since it's a meaningless point. As I stated, I'll be just as happy if we win championships with #1 classes, or # 40 classes. I want talent and championships, not ratings. Note: That is a different statement than "I want talent/championships at the expense of ratings."

You're failing to accept that the two go together. I can only assume you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So we agree that rankings matter and having a higher ranking class increases our odds of success?

Just like I've said, there is a correlation to rankings, and the sites pretty much do a good job rating the higher rated recruits. So, yes, it is encouraging when we get higher rated classes.

I stop short of claiming that it raises our odds of success, as I don't see correlation as causation. Who knows?

All I can tell you is what I've been saying. There is a statistical correlation that is not causation. The draft proves that there is a loosely decoupled tie between ratings and talent. If we get a highly rated class, I'll be encouraged. If we recruit a lot of talented 3 stars and win, I'll cheer.

In the meantime, I don't waste my time worrying about class rankings or the uninformed screeing of random posters here. I've found some guys that I trust and listen to their breakdown of our recruits. I'm overall encouraged with a few concerns for this class.

Much more pressing than that becomes an exercise in ego, imo.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You're failing to accept that the two go together. I can only assume you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

Whatever. I'm the one trying to highlight the common grounds and offer olive branches so we can stop arguing. You seem to just want to keep pressing until submission. Like I said, to continue is an exercise in ego.

Knock yourself out. I'm done.

 

[Vol8188]

Just like I've said, there is a correlation to rankings, and the sites pretty much do a good job rating the higher rated recruits. So, yes, it is encouraging when we get higher rated classes.

I stop short of claiming that it raises our odds of success, as I don't see correlation as causation. Who knows?

All I can tell you is what I've been saying. There is a statistical correlation that is not causation. The draft proves that there is a loosely decoupled tie between ratings and talent. If we get a highly rated class, I'll be encouraged. If we recruit a lot of talented 3 stars and win, I'll cheer.

In the meantime, I don't waste my time worrying about class rankings or the uninformed screeing of random posters here. I've found some guys that I trust and listen to their breakdown of our recruits. I'm overall encouraged with a few concerns for this class.

Much more pressing than that becomes an exercise in ego, imo.

Yet the correlation obviously shows it raises our odds of success. That's not even debatable at this point.

The draft proves the recruiting rankings work. Anyone who thinks the draft proves the opposite it's paying attention.

 

[BarnesIsCaliparisDaddy]

Three words, look it up:

BLUE CHIP RATIO

 

[DaddyChad]

Yes they matter.

If you want a more nuanced answer different systems are going to need different positional skills out of certain players. The success or failure of those particular system is going to influence player rating when a player is committed or offered by a specific program. Program with past history of success are going to influence rankings more than others.

In summation you almost don’t have to recruit top five to be successful. You certainly will have to recruit top five at certain positions to be successful year in and out. Being close in recruiting, having great player development, and having a system that particularly utilizes players particular skills better than others is enough to be very successful.

 

[DaddyChad]

Clemson 2012 -- 14
Clemson 2013 -- 14
Clemson 2014 -- 13
Clemson 2015 -- 4
Clemson 2016 -- National Champs

Clemson won their 2016 championship made up of primarily mid-teen classes, and a highly ranked freshman class.

That's a pretty good indication that if UT can recruit to mid-low-teens, there's a chance. That's encouraging, as UT should project to at least that high this year and has a recent history of meeting/exceeding that.

I don’t disagree completely with you. I will say however that the road to a championship is completely different for Clemson and Tennessee. Dabo possibly never wins a championship if he’s in the sec.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don’t disagree completely with you. I will say however that the road to a championship is completely different for Clemson and Tennessee. Dabo possibly never wins a championship if he’s in the sec.

The post I was answering:

Until a team wins a national championship in the modern era without top ranked recruiting classes, there is nothing to even debate.

And I don't disagree with you.

As stated, I actually do get excited about highly rated classes for UT because I actually do see the correlation with success. (I stop short of claiming their ratings as increasing our odds, mainly as a response to things like Butch Jones, who brought in top 5 classes for the sake of top 5 classes. Per former UT players and recruiting analysts, he literally just went after stars, and it bit us hard.)

I see it like this, the most obviously talented players will be highly rated and pursued by everyone. A program will have to start winning on the field to start winning those battles more often than not. So, it's completely feasible to admit that there is plenty of underrated talent out there that we CAN win on (and with). Then as we start winning, our class ratings will probably go up as well.

That's most likely what UT will have to do. I'm cool with that. I also feel in my gut that our staff and scheme can start winning now, with the talent we have. So I think we're positioned well for the future.

 

[Volmac2022]

LOL... you strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Those issues are nothing compared to the relative INACCURACY of the recruiting rankings by ANY measure you point to... aside from 4 teams that have won or competed for the NC over the last several years.

Saying the Smart, Saban, Swinney, and Day are going to sign a lot of talented guys... isn't rocket science. Beyond that... the burden is on you all to prove that they're accurate. At a minimum, I have shown reasons to doubt that they are. My mistake was taking on the burden of proof for YOUR faith in the recruiting sites.

So... besides those 4 teams PROVE that their rankings correspond to winning. The NFL draft is pretty much a lost cause for you all. Only about 20% of those they call blue chip will be drafted. If they were actually even attempting to be thoroughly accurate... they would recognize a LOT more of the 3* talents that end up drafted.

The inaccuracies that you try to pass off doesn't include the intangibles, the things you can't measure by science. However the ratings are a predictable outcome for college football and its been proven time and time again to be mostly correct rather inaccurate as you like to say. Again all the proof we need is look at the elite teams and the teams that are on the rise. That's proof enough to prove you wrong lol. No one in this thread has said the ratings are perfect, everyone has agreed there are some out liers but those are small group and not the majority.

 

[Volmac2022]

That's exactly what it means. It means that they are not tightly coupled. It means that there is a statistical correlation that isn't predictive, which just happens to be the point you're arguing with me about.

I see you still having issues, it's OK I don't expect you to understand sound logic