?'s about our new commitment...
- Thread starter Patriot
- Start date
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
I have seen the wankers who call the coach "a cancer" and an "idiot," people who don't seem to know quite what the Tech tradition is, but they don't count.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Cool, I have not seen a single example of "I will be happy regardless." Not a single one!! For whom, exactly, is it not imperative that "the great tradition of Tech football" be strengthened, much less maintained? Name one such poster!
I have seen the wankers who call the coach "a cancer" and an "idiot," people who don't seem to know quite what the Tech tradition is, but they don't count.
BarrelORum
Mediocre Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,274
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
Anyway, glad to see you don't place as much importance as I thought on it. Just try to remember that come December.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Sorry GTACe, I didn't mean to pigeon hole you like that, but as I recall you seem to make a lot of posts about recruits rankings and such. It would seem from your past posts that you place a little too much emphasis on these rankings. I wouldn't place ANY emphasis on rankings until after December, and even then it can be questionable.
Anyway, glad to see you don't place as much importance as I thought on it. Just try to remember that come December.
hiveredtech
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 5,889
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think you may not be understanding my point. Regardless whether or not he ranked 100+ Div. 1A teams...I am telling you that recruiting rankings are a result of performance on the field...not the other way around.
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.
JJacket
Gettysburg. Wow.
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Messages
- 91,447
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
OK guys a little trivia which QB completed his high school career with the following quote from EXPERTS on recruiting:
"Finished as the No. 11 running/passing QB in Tom Lemming's postseason report,'' it says.
No. 11. Behind 10 other guys. Behind everybody's consensus No. 1, North Carolina quarterback Ronald Curry.
Of course that person would be Mike Vick. Hell, Vick was just the third rated prospect in Virginia, that hotbed of football, behind Curry and David Terrell.
Man, Virginia Tech must really be embarrassed now. I wonder if they can retro rescind his scholarship and have a "do over" and sign Curry?
Should the Falcons now trade Vick and try to pick up Ronald Curry? The recruiting services confirm that Curry and 9 others are better QB's. I wonder if any of the other guys are available?
Knowing this, how seriously should we take a recruiting guru?
OK guys a little trivia which QB completed his high school career with the following quote from EXPERTS on recruiting:
"Finished as the No. 11 running/passing QB in Tom Lemming's postseason report,'' it says.
No. 11. Behind 10 other guys. Behind everybody's consensus No. 1, North Carolina quarterback Ronald Curry.
Of course that person would be Mike Vick. Hell, Vick was just the third rated prospect in Virginia, that hotbed of football, behind Curry and David Terrell.
Man, Virginia Tech must really be embarrassed now. I wonder if they can retro rescind his scholarship and have a "do over" and sign Curry?
Should the Falcons now trade Vick and try to pick up Ronald Curry? The recruiting services confirm that Curry and 9 others are better QB's. I wonder if any of the other guys are available?
Knowing this, how seriously should we take a recruiting guru?
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
Patriot, here is a short bio on him from Insiders. They give him a 1 star, outta 5, & is not one of the top100 LBs in the country.
There seems to be, at least, 5 Head Coaches of major Div1a teams willing to give him a full scholarship now. He must've impressed in Spring practice & Summer camps. If he continues to improve during his Senior yr playing football, there will be many more offers coming his way trying to sway him from Tech.
If he's good enough to garner these offers now, from these schools, he's good enough to play div1a & ACC football. I am pleased with this commit as we need OLB types.
Guyton's Insiders' bio
Patriot, here is a short bio on him from Insiders. They give him a 1 star, outta 5, & is not one of the top100 LBs in the country.
There seems to be, at least, 5 Head Coaches of major Div1a teams willing to give him a full scholarship now. He must've impressed in Spring practice & Summer camps. If he continues to improve during his Senior yr playing football, there will be many more offers coming his way trying to sway him from Tech.
If he's good enough to garner these offers now, from these schools, he's good enough to play div1a & ACC football. I am pleased with this commit as we need OLB types.
Guyton's Insiders' bio
GTTerrific
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 4,039
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
One thing I've learned is rankings don't mean a whole lot in recruiting. Also, who has offered and interested in the players isn't always right according to rivals and insiders. While I feel both do a pretty good job, they don't evaluate like college coaches do.
One thing I've learned is rankings don't mean a whole lot in recruiting. Also, who has offered and interested in the players isn't always right according to rivals and insiders. While I feel both do a pretty good job, they don't evaluate like college coaches do.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">In a chat last year with Greg Garrett he said he had done an analysis on recruiting rankings & how that translated to performance on the field... Based on his research, he said the recruiting rankings paralleled on field performance very closely. If you are interested in more data regarding his research, I'm sure he would be more than happy to share it with you...
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I understand your point.. you are trying to argue against the services 'cause they haven't ranked Tech high the last 2 years... Believe what you want, Greg Garrett's research was simple in its approach and comprehensive in its results...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think you may not be understanding my point. Regardless whether or not he ranked 100+ Div. 1A teams...I am telling you that recruiting rankings are a result of performance on the field...not the other way around.
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I understand your point.. you are trying to argue against the services 'cause they haven't ranked Tech high the last 2 years... Believe what you want, Greg Garrett's research was simple in its approach and comprehensive in its results...
BarrelORum
Mediocre Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,274
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I understand your point.. you are trying to argue against the services 'cause they haven't ranked Tech high the last 2 years... Believe what you want, Greg Garrett's research was simple in its approach and comprehensive in its results...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">
It was simple in it's approach, because it was simple minded research done for simple minded people who tend to believe and say simple minded things.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think you may not be understanding my point. Regardless whether or not he ranked 100+ Div. 1A teams...I am telling you that recruiting rankings are a result of performance on the field...not the other way around.
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I understand your point.. you are trying to argue against the services 'cause they haven't ranked Tech high the last 2 years... Believe what you want, Greg Garrett's research was simple in its approach and comprehensive in its results...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I understand your point.. you are trying to argue against the services 'cause they haven't ranked Tech high the last 2 years... Believe what you want, Greg Garrett's research was simple in its approach and comprehensive in its results...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">
It was simple in it's approach, because it was simple minded research done for simple minded people who tend to believe and say simple minded things.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">BOR if you have some data that proves GG's analysis incorrect I'm sure we would all be interested in reviewing it.. Do you?
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think you may not be understanding my point. Regardless whether or not he ranked 100+ Div. 1A teams...I am telling you that recruiting rankings are a result of performance on the field...not the other way around.
That is exactly why Maryland never had a Top 40 recruiting class...but now that they are winning their recruits will start getting more stars by their name...because he will somehow give more credibility to the recruiting analyst...which any one of us could be btw.
In other words...good coaching, good prospecting by coaches, and winning games will improve your recruiting rankings.
The best high school player in Montana could be as good as the best player in Florida...but if FSU, Ohio State, or Tennessee do not discover him and offer him...he will be lucky to get 2 stars.
The recruiting analysts have never had an original thought.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I understand your point.. you are trying to argue against the services 'cause they haven't ranked Tech high the last 2 years... Believe what you want, Greg Garrett's research was simple in its approach and comprehensive in its results...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">
S
sfalco
Guest
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
It's not a secret that teams that consistently win the recruiting battles (getting highly ranked players) are more often than not consistently in the top 10 or 15 in the polls.
Sure, on any given year you'll see a team that doesn't consistently get top ranked players end up in the top 10 at the end of the season. But the at the end of the next season said team is not even in the top 25.
And sure, you'll also see a team with great recruiting class flop for a season or 2.
But over the long haul, in general, programs that can consistently attract the top ranked recruits usually end up ranked in the top 10.
It's not a secret that teams that consistently win the recruiting battles (getting highly ranked players) are more often than not consistently in the top 10 or 15 in the polls.
Sure, on any given year you'll see a team that doesn't consistently get top ranked players end up in the top 10 at the end of the season. But the at the end of the next season said team is not even in the top 25.
And sure, you'll also see a team with great recruiting class flop for a season or 2.
But over the long haul, in general, programs that can consistently attract the top ranked recruits usually end up ranked in the top 10.
BarrelORum
Mediocre Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,274
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
Beebad, you shouldn't expect Anything less from me.
Back when GG made his arguement, I actually made a response to his findings. I took the overall rankings of the recruiting year and showed a direct correlation to the previous year results of those teams. That's nothing spectacular really. All that says is that the successful teams the year before tended to get the better recruits for said year. However, based on further research of the "data" it also showed that those teams got a little more favoritism because of their previous year's success. The next year any many instances had no bearing for many teams as to the previous year's recruting season. Below's findings only strengthened this arguement.
The real finding was that if you compared a certain year's recruting rankings and then looked at their success 3 years down the road, the correlation was questionable at best. In fact, if I remember, there was massive differences as to a recruit class rank of said schools and their record 3 years down the road.
That's where GG's analsis failed. It only took into account the immediate impacts and not the impacts that THE CLASS itself makes.
GG's analysis was very simple like you said. Too simple.
Beebad, you shouldn't expect Anything less from me.
Back when GG made his arguement, I actually made a response to his findings. I took the overall rankings of the recruiting year and showed a direct correlation to the previous year results of those teams. That's nothing spectacular really. All that says is that the successful teams the year before tended to get the better recruits for said year. However, based on further research of the "data" it also showed that those teams got a little more favoritism because of their previous year's success. The next year any many instances had no bearing for many teams as to the previous year's recruting season. Below's findings only strengthened this arguement.
The real finding was that if you compared a certain year's recruting rankings and then looked at their success 3 years down the road, the correlation was questionable at best. In fact, if I remember, there was massive differences as to a recruit class rank of said schools and their record 3 years down the road.
That's where GG's analsis failed. It only took into account the immediate impacts and not the impacts that THE CLASS itself makes.
GG's analysis was very simple like you said. Too simple.
S
sfalco
Guest
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
"The real finding was that if you compared a certain year's recruting rankings and then looked at their success 3 years down the road, the correlation was questionable at best. In fact, if I remember, there was massive differences as to a recruit class rank of said schools and their record 3 years down the road.
That's where GG's analsis failed. It only took into account the immediate impacts and not the impacts that THE CLASS itself makes."
If I may be so bold to interject...
Correct me if I'm wrong Barrell, but doesn't this approach not take into account the impact of successive years of highly ranked recruiting?
You can take any one year of great recruiting on any certain team and show no correlation to success in the W column if the recruiting rankings before or after said year are not very high, I believe, in certain cases. It doesn't take into account the depth needed in this day and age to be successful.
However, I believe in most cases that if you can show 3 or so successive years of highly ranked recruiting classes on any one team, 8 or 9 times out of 10 that team will reflect success on the field.
If I didn't understand your comment please forgive me.
"The real finding was that if you compared a certain year's recruting rankings and then looked at their success 3 years down the road, the correlation was questionable at best. In fact, if I remember, there was massive differences as to a recruit class rank of said schools and their record 3 years down the road.
That's where GG's analsis failed. It only took into account the immediate impacts and not the impacts that THE CLASS itself makes."
If I may be so bold to interject...
Correct me if I'm wrong Barrell, but doesn't this approach not take into account the impact of successive years of highly ranked recruiting?
You can take any one year of great recruiting on any certain team and show no correlation to success in the W column if the recruiting rankings before or after said year are not very high, I believe, in certain cases. It doesn't take into account the depth needed in this day and age to be successful.
However, I believe in most cases that if you can show 3 or so successive years of highly ranked recruiting classes on any one team, 8 or 9 times out of 10 that team will reflect success on the field.
If I didn't understand your comment please forgive me.
BarrelORum
Mediocre Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,274
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
SFalco, you are right. However, the trend to show 3 years of successful recruiting applied to less teams than you think. UGA is an excellent example. How many years under Goff and Donnan did they have a top 5 recruiting class and then show nothing for it. Of course, that's why the coaches were fired.
If I remember the analysis showed out of the top 25 teams, around half of them showed consistency over a 3 year period as far as recruiting, and they showed success on the field. But if you averaged their actual rankings over those three recruiting years and then took their rankings at the end of the 4th season, you'd be amazed at some of the differences. For example.. Michigan and FSU showed a top 5 recruiting class by one poll 3 years straight and then weren't ranked in the top 5 the 4 year. They were around 11 to 15.
All I'm saying is it goes both ways... recruiting rankings tend to judge NOT only the talent of the recruits they ALSO judge the past success of the team too. Its the only way the recruiting gurus can stay on top of the best kids out there. They watch what the best teams are doing and then they know who to watch too.
SFalco, you are right. However, the trend to show 3 years of successful recruiting applied to less teams than you think. UGA is an excellent example. How many years under Goff and Donnan did they have a top 5 recruiting class and then show nothing for it. Of course, that's why the coaches were fired.
If I remember the analysis showed out of the top 25 teams, around half of them showed consistency over a 3 year period as far as recruiting, and they showed success on the field. But if you averaged their actual rankings over those three recruiting years and then took their rankings at the end of the 4th season, you'd be amazed at some of the differences. For example.. Michigan and FSU showed a top 5 recruiting class by one poll 3 years straight and then weren't ranked in the top 5 the 4 year. They were around 11 to 15.
All I'm saying is it goes both ways... recruiting rankings tend to judge NOT only the talent of the recruits they ALSO judge the past success of the team too. Its the only way the recruiting gurus can stay on top of the best kids out there. They watch what the best teams are doing and then they know who to watch too.
S
sfalco
Guest
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
I see your point.
I see your point.
LLCoolJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,233
Re: ?\'s about our new commitment...
Stretching to be close to on topic, but has anyone here read "Moneyball"? The sport is professional baseball but I am finding it interesting.
Its about new scouting tactics vs. the old ways.
The new method is looking for diamonds in the rough that other teams leave behind via an analytical approach. Good read.
Stretching to be close to on topic, but has anyone here read "Moneyball"? The sport is professional baseball but I am finding it interesting.
Its about new scouting tactics vs. the old ways.
The new method is looking for diamonds in the rough that other teams leave behind via an analytical approach. Good read.