I think your goal is to overwhelm people so much garbage that they just stop responding so you can declare yourself a victor. So I'll just respond to what seems relevant vs the novels you attempt to write on here.
Well, I am repeating myself but only because your posts demonstrate you either aren't reading it the first time or else somehow cannot understand it.
1. Limiting the number of 4/5* players doesn't help them. They could easily proclaim 10k 4/5* players and then predict 90% of the guys who will be drafted.
And they would have FAR more misses. There are two SEPARATE but complimentary statistical proofs being discussed. One is that their accuracy in predicting the draft is lower than it should be if they're as accurate as you believe- around 35%. The other is that the % of players they assign 4/5* represented in the "elite" players ultimately drafted is also lower than it should be- around 23%. Yes. They might be able to award more 4/5* ratings and predict a higher % of the 259 draft choices. OTOH, the closer to the "margin" they get in trying to evaluate talent the LESS accurate they're likely to be. By doubling the number to 900... it would be much more difficult to distinguish those additional players from the next 400 that followed them. And it would stretch their already insufficient resources even thinner.
2. Look you're finally using the number right. 100/259 instead of 100/430.
And you still apparently do not understand the importance of BOTH angles. Not surprising.
The issue with you using 430 as the denominator is that it automatically reduces their hit rate to about 50%
Well, no. It reduces it to 23% if you use the draft as the standard. I'm not even saying that's the only one that could be used. It is just fairly objective and "discipline" since a lot of money is at stake.
even if it were actually perfect (perfect meaning everyone of their 430 players actually ended up being great) and produces a false picture that "the recruiting sites missed" when the real issue is you've set up an impossible standard.
Well, no. They hand out 430 which hedges their bet and improves their % of the 259 they hit as you rightly noted above. If they were truly "accurate" then they'd hand out 259 5* or they would at least hit higher than 35% of those 259 out of their pool of 430.
100/259 means that out of 250k players every year (using your claim of 1 million HS players) they are able to find about half the guys who will end up being drafted.
No it doesn't. They do not rate 250K or evaluate nearly that many. 100/259 isn't nearly 50%. IIRC, 80% or more of draftees were given 3* or better. But again, that's basically every P-5 signee and most G-5 signees with multiple FBS offers. That's basically saying that the 131 FBS schools find most of the future NFL players. That doesn't make the recruiting sites particularly good.
That's impressive given there's 250K options and they are able to select 50% out of only 259 options.
Where do you keep getting 50%? 100 isn't 50% of 259. It certainly isn't 50% of 400+.
3. You seem to think the 63% draft rate for 5*s isn't impressive, but Saban and Kirby are?
Yes. They are. This year those two teams alone have signed 9 of the 30 or so players the recruiting sites assign 5*. Who do YOU think copied whose work?
Can you find me any four year period where 63% of their 25 guys were drafted?
That's an apples and oranges comparison. In the example I used, about 37% of Saban's players were drafted. That's better than 23%... significantly better.
But no one coach is going to sign all of the elite players whether they belong to the subset awarded 5* or not. You are trying to say that saying 30 recruits are the elite of the elite... when only 18 of them actually are is a "good" hit percentage. It isn't.
4. The unwarranted arrogance is really adorable. If only us peasants could exist on your level, what a beautiful world it would be.
Read your own posts and those of BOT if you want to see arrogance. You aren't reading arrogance so much as frustration that you keep claiming the same things no matter how many times they're proven false... and you keep making the same challenges indicating that you aren't even reading responses before answering.
5. This last bolded statement is the best. Please, please find me any team that over a 4 year period has had more than 63% of their guys drafted. I would love to see that. Show me the school who is beating the recruiting services.
So you think that claiming a particular 30 guys are the absolute best and missing on 40% is a "good" score. I get that. You're wrong. But I get the non sequitur you are trying to push.
To make the point you are trying to make, they would have to award 259 5* ratings... and be 100% correct. They're picking 30 guys out of what appear to be the best players in the country to be a part of 259 in the future... and are only right 60% of the time about those 18. You are deluding yourself into believing that's "insanely" good. It isn't. If you and I had access to JUST the opinions of about 10 coaches... we could come pretty close to that. If we could take a sneak peak at the recruiting boards at Oregon, USC, Texas, OSU, Bama, UGA, Clemson, and one of the 3 big FL schools... we might be able to do better.
The recruiting sites ask questions and glean coach opinions from various coaches. They look at measurables. They look at camp and 7 on 7 performances. They might review some highlights and on rare occasion actually dedicate time to studying a kids film. That sounds like a lot but it really isn't when you consider how many recruits and potential recruits there are. They don't have the resources to be as good as you think they are. I don't even begrudge them for being what they are and doing what they do. My argument is against the idea that they're more accurate than they actually are.
You can prove that with big things. You can prove that with small things. Were a lot of people excited about getting Justin William? How did that compare to Sampson? Which appears to be the better player?
Hendon Hooker was a 4* recruit but given 3* by 247 as a transfer. How does that look now?
There aren't just a few of these. There are mountains of them. They form the "rule" about the accuracy of the recruiting sites.
