The Vandy trend is real. How real?

#26
#26
UGA insider said:
There is no question that Vandy has gotten better and more attractive under Franklin. UT has had some troubles lately for obvious reasons. But we all know that UT is a sleeping giant, it's only a matter of time until they start signing top 5 classes again.
Click to expand...

A reasonable uga poster? Can it be?
 
#29
#29
WoodstockVol said:
Vanderbilt claims a National Title from 1910(They were 8-0-1 with a 0-0 tie with Yale). Been a long time since Vandy was a National Power
Click to expand...


I think the Hyannisport YMCA won the previous year's championship...and every boy got a shiny new penny boy howdy!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
butchna said:
I think the Hyannisport YMCA won the previous year's championship...and every boy got a shiny new penny boy howdy!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Had to really look for Vanderbilt's National Title claims.:eek:lol: They claim a National title in 1904(9-0 record)also
 
#34
#34
The only trend I care about regarding other teams is Alabama's dominance. We should be MORE worried about catching up to them and LESS worried about staying ahead of Peabody.

Vandy finished 4th in the east last year, Fulmer got fired for doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#35
#35
If the team and coaches weren't distracted with all the talk of Dooley's firing and Gruden's hiring (and Tyler Bray possibly throwing the game out of spite) last year, then UT would have won. Vandy is still not in UT's league. Last year was a fluke. These Vandy threads are retarded. Butch will put an end to this talk this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
:)We cant talk about that team from Nashville, got me to thinking why did bama name there team after washing powders, can anyone tell me please tell me why little nicks bama team named there team after a washing powders.
 
#39
#39
terrypedigo said:
:)We cant talk about that team from Nashville, got me to thinking why did bama name there team after washing powders, can anyone tell me please tell me why little nicks bama team named there team after a washing powders.
Click to expand...

I thought Bama was named after a brand of peanut butter and jelly!:eek:lol:
 
#40
#40
SDV said:
Uh, no they're not
Click to expand...
Hate to say it they proved it stomped us last year and should have beat us the year before, thats the only time in my lifetime i an say they are better, just a little, that just shows how far we fell in the last 5 years, but coach will do something about that if given proper time.:cray:
 
#41
#41
bigoleorange said:
Rivals recruiting rankings go back to 2002. At the bottom is the average star rating for each recruiting class for both schools.
Rivals describes their ratings as follows.

"6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about"

6.1+ is a 5*
5.8 to 6 is a 4*
5.5 to 5.7 is a 3*
5.0 to 5.4 is a 2*


So, here is the sauce
2002 ut 3.96 vu 2.14
2003 ut 3.27 vu 2.23
2004 ut 3.25 vu 2.10
2005 ut 3.63 vu 2.08
2006 ut 3.09 vu 2.24
2007 ut 3.63 vu 2.50
2008 ut 3.06 vu 2.19
2009 ut 3.62 vu 2.72
2010 ut 3.44 vu 2.79
2011 ut 3.41 vu 2.71
2012 ut 3.38 vu 3.14
2013 ut 3.19 vu 3.15
2014 to date ut 3.42 vu 3.38

The gap has closed but it's still not close enough for Vandy to be finishing ahead of us.
Click to expand...

Why don't you average the Rival's Rating instead of taking the average of their star ratings? If you are going to report strength of classes to three significant figures (e.g. 3.19), why are you rounding a two significant figure Rival's Rating (e.g. 5.8) down to a one significant figure rating (e.g., 3 star) and then taking the average of the one significant figure star ratings? I never have understood why Rivals does the exact same thing when reporting average star ratings, yet they use the more detailed Rivals Rating system when they provide the team recruiting rankings.

This procedure treats the player ranked as 6.0 and one positiion from being a 5 star, excactly the same as the player that is barely rated at 5.8 and one step from being a 3 star.

The Rivals Rating system isn't shown or didn't start until 2004.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#43
#43
bigoleorange said:
Rivals recruiting rankings go back to 2002. At the bottom is the average star rating for each recruiting class for both schools.
Rivals describes their ratings as follows.

"6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about"

6.1+ is a 5*
5.8 to 6 is a 4*
5.5 to 5.7 is a 3*
5.0 to 5.4 is a 2*


So, here is the sauce
2002 ut 3.96 vu 2.14
2003 ut 3.27 vu 2.23
2004 ut 3.25 vu 2.10
2005 ut 3.63 vu 2.08
2006 ut 3.09 vu 2.24
2007 ut 3.63 vu 2.50
2008 ut 3.06 vu 2.19
2009 ut 3.62 vu 2.72
2010 ut 3.44 vu 2.79
2011 ut 3.41 vu 2.71
2012 ut 3.38 vu 3.14
2013 ut 3.19 vu 3.15
2014 to date ut 3.42 vu 3.38

The gap has closed but it's still not close enough for Vandy to be finishing ahead of us.
Click to expand...

Witch Doctor say must be a Vandy fan as only they would use math to describe football. lol
BNL
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
volswillrise12 said:
These threads bore me--when Vandy got Foreman snatched away that's indicitive of the tide turning. Look at the recruiting rankings now. Vandy will go back to being "what they are" soon enough and no amount of James Franklin dancing around and his stupid catch phrases ("Anchor Down!") will matter. End of Story. The whole "oh look Vanderbilt is cute they are trying to win" thing will end. It will end. I don't need to list out all reasons but there are many.
Click to expand...


its funny how anchor down is stupid but brick by brick is that he gets it....lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
see, this is why no one should ever "let it go" with regard to dooley.

losing to vanderbilt and kentucky allows this kind of crap to happen.

so, whenever anyone mentions "letting it go", tell them how much bs has to be endured because of his time as coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#48
#48
99gator said:
see, this is why no one should ever "let it go" with regard to dooley.

losing to vanderbilt and kentucky allows this kind of crap to happen.

so, whenever anyone mentions "letting it go", tell them how much bs has to be endured because of his time as coach.
Click to expand...


Yeah! ..what he said
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top