Recruiting Forum Football Talk VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
#72,079
#72,079
peaygolf said:
June 9, 1973

GettyImages-515108596.jpg


Photo says it ALL.
Click to expand...
GOAT…not debatable
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrylee, drvenner, Brillovol and 6 others
#72,084
#72,084
sjt18 said:
You attempted to parse the information to make is support you... and it still doesn't. Texas' best record in the past 4 years is 8-5. A&M has gone 5-7 and 8-4 over the past two years in spite of having top 10 classes.

But here is a MUCH better and more direct way of demonstrating the inaccuracy of the rankings. This link is for 247's 2022 roster talent composite. Anyone on earth could just sit back and give 4 or 5 stars to the recruits of Bama, UGA, and OSU. That proves absolutely nothing except if you want to look good predicting talent... predict the players for those three coaches will be really good.

2022 College Football Team Talent Composite

However in the top 10 most talented teams according to 247's recruiting rankings... you have A&M 5-7, Texas 8-5, OU 6-7, and ND 9-4. If the rankings were as accurate as you think then there should NEVER be teams that average or below with composite top 10 talent. And UT at #19 should not beat #1 Bama, #5 Clemson, and #8 LSU all in the same season.... and the latter two by comfortable margins.
Click to expand...

Lol. Bama #1, UGA #2, OSU #3, Clemson #5. Know what your link really shows? The undeniable fact that I and others have been trying to get you to understand. Those 4 teams are responsible for 12 out of the last 14 national championships. Meaning, if you don’t have the most elite talent in college football you don’t win national titles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTvol1fn and Ned Ray McWorkher
#72,087
#72,087
BigOrangeTrain said:
Lol. Bama #1, UGA #2, OSU #3, Clemson #5. Know what your link really shows? The undeniable fact that I and others have been trying to get you to understand. Those 4 teams are responsible for 12 out of the last 14 national championships. Meaning, if you don’t have the most elite talent in college football you don’t win national titles.
Click to expand...
Those teams have talent. You believe they have talent because the coaches have a subscription to 247. I believe that 247 rates their talent high because they have a proven record of finding and developing talent and winning games.

The very OBVIOUS problem for you is the teams that are supposedly loaded with talent and do not win... and that recruiting site rankings fail so frequently to predict the outcomes of games. THOSE teams are the measure the actual skill of the recruiting sites. Their "accuracy" can be no better than their worst miss.

No one has denied this teams have talent. But their "ranking" is completely incidental to that fact. If there were no recruiting sites... these coaches would still field talent. If the recruiting sites could somehow be blinded to which programs were pursuing which recruits... they would be far less "accurate".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hooter vol, walkenvol, Vol in Buckeye Land and 4 others
#72,088
#72,088
swchandler1988 said:
I was replying to the previous poster saying Alabama had missed on their last recruiting classes. That’s just false lol. Now maybe “they’ve missed on some of their targets” would be a more accurate statement. But finishing in the top 2 the last 3 years + isn’t missing on a class
Click to expand...
Agree. They're still talented. Their "struggle" seems to relate to certain positions and that other programs are competing better for the recruits they want. it is possible if not likely that Saban's ever evolving staff hit a low ebb too.
 
#72,089
#72,089
sjt18 said:
Those teams have talent. You believe they have talent because the coaches have a subscription to 247. I believe that 247 rates their talent high because they have a proven record of finding and developing talent and winning games.

The very OBVIOUS problem for you is the teams that are supposedly loaded with talent and do not win... and that recruiting site rankings fail so frequently to predict the outcomes of games.

No one has denied this teams have talent. But their "ranking" is completely incidental to that fact. If there were no recruiting sites... these coaches would still field talent. If the recruiting sites could somehow be blinded to which programs were pursuing which recruits... they would be far less "accurate".
Click to expand...
💯
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudOrange
#72,091
#72,091
BigOrangeTrain said:
Lol. Bama #1, UGA #2, OSU #3, Clemson #5. Know what your link really shows? The undeniable fact that I and others have been trying to get you to understand. Those 4 teams are responsible for 12 out of the last 14 national championships. Meaning, if you don’t have the most elite talent in college football you don’t win national titles.
Click to expand...
He thinks that getting great talent before winning consistently is "putting the cart before the horse". And he will not be swayed. By anyone. Or anything.

Certainly not tangible evidence that the winning teams recruit the best talent and then go win with it. It's the damnest scenario. One which has confounded me for some time. I don't see any supporting facts stating that a team could expect to run the SEC gauntlet (which is only getting worse) with subpar, or average talent. At present, it's only being done by teams with a bevy of great players led by top-notch quarterback play.

But who knows, he could be onto something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#72,093
#72,093
ScornedPapaVol said:
He thinks that getting great talent before winning consistently is "putting the cart before the horse". And he will not be swayed. By anyone. Or anything.
Click to expand...
That is a false statement. 100% false. I believe getting talent is not necessarily dependent on getting high ratings from journalists.

Certainly not tangible evidence that the winning teams recruit the best talent and then go win with it. It's the damnest scenario.
Click to expand...
I just understand cause/effect. Talent is a contributing cause to the success of those programs. Recruiting site rankings are incidental to their success.

One which has confounded me for some time. I don't see any supporting facts stating that a team could expect to run the SEC gauntlet (which is only getting worse) with subpar, or average talent. At present, it's only being done by teams with a bevy of great players led by top-notch quarterback play.

But who knows, he could be onto something.
Click to expand...
You could probably get "on to" reading without your bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact, Vol since 77 and butchna
#72,094
#72,094
sjt18 said:
Those teams have talent. You believe they have talent because the coaches have a subscription to 247. I believe that 247 rates their talent high because they have a proven record of finding and developing talent and winning games.

The very OBVIOUS problem for you is the teams that are supposedly loaded with talent and do not win... and that recruiting site rankings fail so frequently to predict the outcomes of games. THOSE teams are the measure the actual skill of the recruiting sites. Their "accuracy" can be no better than their worst miss.

No one has denied this teams have talent. But their "ranking" is completely incidental to that fact. If there were no recruiting sites... these coaches would still field talent. If the recruiting sites could somehow be blinded to which programs were pursuing which recruits... they would be far less "accurate".
Click to expand...

There will always be exceptions to the rule. But exceptions don’t prove the rule. No their ranking isn’t incidental. There are legit reasons why players are ranked as they are. Yes the services are going to miss a lot. Look how many kids they evaluate. But the services are right more than they are wrong. The results of the most dominant programs reiterate that.
 
#72,096
#72,096
sjt18 said:
That is a false statement. 100% false. I believe getting talent is not necessarily dependent on getting high ratings from journalists.

I just understand cause/effect. Talent is a contributing cause to the success of those programs. Recruiting site rankings are incidental to their success.


You could probably get "on to" reading without your bias.
Click to expand...
Here's what many don't understand. Acquiring obvious talent is just part of the equation. Not only does that talent have to be developed, but so do the players that sign that weren't quite so obvious to most in high school. Then once you have enough quality talent AND depth, you have to plan and execute the X's and O's every single week. Granted the more talent and depth you have, the greater your margin of error is as a coach/ team. That talent and how it performs is not determined by sites though. The sites adjust their rankings too often by who kids are offered by or sign with, instead of serious evaluations. The key to successful recruiting is the evaluations of those that aren't blatantly "obvious", which can't be done by watching highlights and film alone. The sites give 32 kids a 5* rating every year. The trick for nearly every coach in the country is sifting through the remaining 1000+ kids that could potentially perform equal to, or better than those 32 "chosen ones" in your specific program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Orange#1, Vol in Buckeye Land, Orange. and 5 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top