PJ press conf link.....

77GTFan said:
Really good assessment. I think he is somewhat amused that a player like Gray is a 3 star; pretty certain that if he had chosen an SEC school he would at least be a 4. I like the approach of saying they all get a chance to play right away, but that they have to show the coaches they are ready or a red shirt will come. This year it seems CPJ's forthright and direct communication style seems to have been an asset in recruiting. In other years it was seen as a detriment. May be a function of winning 11 games and beating UGA.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the only people whining that were from the anti-Johnson faction of the fan base. never heard or read anything like that from a recruit. He is what he is, so to speak. And always has been.
 
floridajacket said:
I didn't think I was defending star rankings, but...yes? That is what I'm saying.

I'm not sure what people are expecting out of recruiting sites.
Click to expand...

I think people are expecting that better players have more stars, and worse players have fewer stars.

Seems like a reasonable expectation, that's being largely whiffed on.
 
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769

2008-12_Recruiting-Per_Capita_All-Americans_by_Recruiting_Class.jpg


Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.
Click to expand...
 
beej67 said:
I think people are expecting that better players have more stars, and worse players have fewer stars.

Seems like a reasonable expectation, that's being largely whiffed on.
Click to expand...

What makes a "better player" and a "worse player" with only ex ante and no ex post indicators? In other words, I would say an R-squared of 100% is probably too much to ask for. Assuming most coaches are decent enough at evaluating players, and most coaches look for similar athletes, offers are about the most objective variable.
 
floridajacket said:
What makes a "better player" and a "worse player" with only ex ante and no ex post indicators? In other words, I would say an R-squared of 100% is probably too much to ask for. Assuming most coaches are decent enough at evaluating players, and most coaches look for similar athletes, offers are about the most objective variable.
Click to expand...

only if all offers are made after actually viewing the recruit. there is some amount of offering blind* because other have offered that they offer. this reinforces the "stars" to some degree

*not really "blind" of course, but maybe more like an automatic offer once someone has some big ones already
 
I say just forget stars all together and lets look at numbers. I want to see weight training numbers, 40 speed, etc. Give me stats and write ups about play. Maybe a three level system. Huge gaps between the three also
 
HS recruiting will always be a guessing game. Following GS as well as GT I've always looked at players as a whole. Their star, stats, other offers, all-region/all-state selections. Such with AJ Grey. The kid was voted by coaches as Mr. Football, that to me is an indicator that the kid can play at a high level regardless of other factors. The Linebacker last year, who was undersized and redshirted, was Region 1AAAAAA defensive player of the year. That region is one of the best in the country. Another example of others closer to the kid telling you how good he is.
 
floridajacket said:
Offers are a definite, objective independent variable...
Click to expand...


except that offers are completely self-reported and coaches are prohibited from publicly confirming or refuting what the kid says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gtfan247365 said:
Why do you say that?

BTW, I also interpret it the same as GT63.
Click to expand...
Because your assumption is that there are as many 5* recruits as 2*. There are fewer 5* and many more 2* recruits. That percentage is based on the number in that population, not the total recruit base.
 
you are thinking "what percent of the AA team is 2-star, 3-star, etc" and adding them up

in fact the chart shows what percent of 2-stars, 3-stars, etc make the AA selection.

you have your bases reversed
 
BuzzCzar said:
you are thinking "what percent of the AA team is 2-star, 3-star, etc" and adding them up

in fact the chart shows what percent of 2-stars, 3-stars, etc make the AA selection.

you have your bases reversed
Click to expand...

This.

The graph does not say that 26.6% of AA's were 5* recruits.

The graph says that if you were a 5* recruit, you have a 26.6% chance of being an AA.

IMO that graph is pretty definitive. On the whole, stars are extremely accurate. However, they still miss a LOT on individuals. We need to stockpile the guys that the recruiting services miss on. Only way to do that is get in early and lock them down before their name is out there.

RE: AJ Gray, IIRC it was reported that he was getting a lot of attention from some big names, but he didn't entertain it. Rivals, 246, etc. can't post the offer if they aren't even aware of it. If AJ doesn't visit other schools or accept their phone calls/offers, then it is never public. Since he committed to us so early, his offer list never really changed.
 
Recently I watched the Ole Miss vs. TCU game out of morbid curiosity, having missed it on NYE. During the garbage time, the announcers said that Patterson tries to find anybody "with speed and who had the ball in their hands." So he recruits a lot of running backs and option QB's, which reminds me of how CPJ recruits.

CPJ also mentioned TCU in the press conference, how we both finished around 40 in the rankings. Meanwhile, Ole Miss has done very well as far as recruiting rankings and probably with good reason. Many of their players had a ton of offers and probably will play on Sundays. But TCU's and GT's success suggests college coaches may look too much at combine statistics versus their how they look in games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top