VOLZ now Ranked 19th by 247.....

#51
#51
Volnatic said:
I read the whole thing, but I kept getting stuck on the fact that you were wearing a vest. Why were you wearing a vest?!
Click to expand...

:eek:lol: well, at the beginning of May, end of April, it was still pretty chilly out....it's a columbia fleece vest with a power t.

it's not like it's a sweater vest or anything........:eek:lol:
 
#52
#52
jakez4ut said:
:eek:lol: well, at the beginning of May, end of April, it was still pretty chilly out....it's a columbia fleece vest with a power t.

it's not like it's a sweater vest or anything........:eek:lol:
Click to expand...

I absolutely thought it was a sweater vest. Hence my comment. Lol.
 
#56
#56
sanefan said:
Some individual years are different, but for the most part, the team that averages 2 is going to be better than the team averaging 8 all the time.

A good coaching staff and good recruits make a good team. In your scenario, since 2 and 1 are close, then 1 and 8 are close, and that is simply not true.

What is true is that 8 with a good staff can play with a 2 that has an average staff. Maybe that is what you were trying to say?
Click to expand...

I'm saying its a subjective rating and in any given year when evaluating and rating 129 schools there is a thin line between schools within 10 spots of each other. That said I would agree if school A is No. 2 4 years in a row and team B is 8 for 4 years then team A should have a better roster. That seldom happens though. You have to look at recruiting over the last 4-5 years to evaluate teams not a single year. If both teams A & B were rated in the top 10 for 5 consecutive years and their aggregate ratings were within 5 spots - say 3 and 8 it would be hard to choose between them based solely on recruiting averages. They are close enough that too many other factors could swing their game for either team.

The recruiting evaluations do matter a lot. The team with the best recruiting rating over the last 4 years wins 70% of the time. However, that is based on most games being between teams with consequential spreads in their respective ratings. For instance Tennessee has a 10.5 four year composite rating compared to a 42.5 for West Virginia. Despite what the bookies think the Vols have a 70% chance of winning that game. When you narrow that composite rating to say a 10.5 and a 14 it just gets too close to call based solely on the recruiting rating. In summary I would say 4-5 year composite recruiting ratings are excellent predictors of game outcomes when there is a consequential delta in the respective teams composite but its too subjective a system to be accurate when the margin of composite averages gets inside single digits. JMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top