Welcome To Head Coaching, Brent Key

coit said:
And yet it is true.
Click to expand...
Not really. More than half the engineers I know over-complain. Your statement is elitist and unnecessary when we’re already having a hard time getting people to go to games. Calling them out, telling them they suck and separating them out like you’ve never done any unnecessary complaining is a douche move.
 
Akinji07 said:
Not really. More than half the engineers I know over-complain. Your statement is elitist and unnecessary when we’re already having a hard time getting people to go to games. Calling them out, telling them they suck and separating them out like you’ve never done any unnecessary complaining is a douche move.
Click to expand...

If the description doesn’t fit then they shouldn’t take offense. If it does fit, they should get with the program.
 
yellowbritchies said:
Please add, recruit,recruit,recruit !!!
Click to expand...
And redefine recruiting beyond Twitter handles focusing on your own shoes and actually work to spot talent better or find and empower staff that excel at rating talent properly.

Ergo, the Randy Shannon approach to recruiting and basing your recruiting decisions based off of 247 and Rivals rankings is amateur hour and lazy.
 
coit said:
If the description doesn’t fit then they shouldn’t take offense. If it does fit, they should get with the program.
Click to expand...
Or how bout we stop making labels like engineers vs sidewalks and ööööting on the sidewalks.
 
Jacketzrus said:
Look who's looking at a single data point now.
Click to expand...
It suffices for discrediting that a Top 15 (5, actually) class with no other considerations is somehow a key indicator of W/L three years later.
 
gtchief said:
It suffices for discrediting that a Top 15 (5, actually) class with no other considerations is somehow a key indicator of W/L three years later.
Click to expand...
We were looking at 2018 they weren't top 5 then. They were the 17th or 23rd class.

Again you got on to me because you claimed I used only one recruiting cycle and that was bad because it was only one data point ( even though it included number 16-50 schools).
You then used one team's single recruiting ranking to refute my point.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
I have a gangs of new York at the tailgate thing going on in my head right now


Oh no they are dancing, it's a bollywood version


Wait this is actually really good
Click to expand...

We the Native Engineers, the true sons of Dodd, don’t welcome you sidewalk scum. We shall battle you on the bridge of 5th street and losers will leave forever.

We the sidewalk army of the Dead Possums accept your challenge.
 
Jacketzrus said:
We were looking at 2018 they weren't top 5 then. They were the 17th or 23rd class.

Again you got on to me because you claimed I used only one recruiting cycle and that was bad because it was only one data point ( even though it included number 16-50 schools).
You then used one team's single recruiting ranking to refute my point.
Click to expand...
That’s why I said this year, because I knew they missed a bowl and had a top 5 class from Jimbo buying players a few years back. That was the extent of me caring without actually digging up other examples, and you gave me the liberty to do so. I’m not sure why you’re returning back to 2021 which had even more anomalies than usual like COVID seniors.

Looping back around before this goalpost tangent: the metrics refute claims that recruiting was worse post-PJ. Average player ranking, total team ranking, rankings for comparable class sizes. Arguing the meaningfulness of the rankings is a separate discussion that doesn’t refute it.
 
gtchief said:
That’s why I said this year, because I knew they missed a bowl and had a top 5 class from Jimbo buying players a few years back. That was the extent of me caring without actually digging up other examples, and you gave me the liberty to do so. I’m not sure why you’re returning back to 2021 which had even more anomalies than usual like COVID seniors.

Looping back around before this goalpost tangent: the metrics refute claims that recruiting was worse post-PJ. Average player ranking, total team ranking, rankings for comparable class sizes. Arguing the meaningfulness of the rankings is a separate discussion that doesn’t refute it.
Click to expand...
21 was used because that is enough time to have young recruits come in and develope so they are upperclassmen (with respect to the 2018 class ranking).

Your claim: that recruiting improved over the previous staff. (Side note: 7 guys in the NFL from this past draft, most from the previous staff btw).

My claim: while recruiting rank and average player rank may have increased, it was not significant enough to make a difference on the field.

You then said:
"I don’t really care if you discredit the rankings. Excuse away. But the numbers are what they are and they aren’t particularly close."

Hence I showed you with about 50 times worth the number of data points you showed why recruiting outside of the top 15 is pretty meaningless when it comes to wins and losses.
 
Jacketzrus said:
21 was used because that is enough time to have young recruits come in and develope so they are upperclassmen (with respect to the 2018 class ranking).

Your claim: that recruiting improved over the previous staff. (Side note: 7 guys in the NFL from this past draft, most from the previous staff btw).

My claim: while recruiting rank and average player rank may have increased, it was not significant enough to make a difference on the field.

You then said:
"I don’t really care if you discredit the rankings. Excuse away. But the numbers are what they are and they aren’t particularly close."

Hence I showed you with about 50 times worth the number of data points you showed why recruiting outside of the top 15 is pretty meaningless when it comes to wins and losses.
Click to expand...
I refuted clear misinformation. Because you can’t deny the recruiting rankings, you attempt to discredit them with some multivariable outputs like W/L (and now draft picks lol).

Oh, and yeah for comparable classes under 20 commits being ranked 44 instead of 60-70 is pretty sizable.
 
gtchief said:
I refuted clear misinformation. Because you can’t deny the recruiting rankings, you attempt to discredit them with some multivariable outputs like W/L (and now draft picks lol).

Oh, and yeah for comparable classes under 20 commits being ranked 44 instead of 60-70 is pretty sizable.
Click to expand...
Please show me how this is clear misinformation.
 
Buzzing72 said:
Click to expand...


Did anyone else feel this interviewer had some weird energy? And CBK did not seem to be feeling it. Maybe partly to do with the music that was playing for the whole thing for some reason.
 
Jacketzrus said:
Please show me how this is clear misinformation.
Click to expand...
247sports.com

2018 College ACC Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com 247sports.com

2018 Team Talent: Average 83.84, 11th in ACC


247sports.com

2022 College ACC Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com 247sports.com

2022 Team Talent: Average 87.05, 5th in ACC

what-can-i-say-youre-welcome.gif
 
andrew said:
Did anyone else feel this interviewer had some weird energy? And CBK did not seem to be feeling it. Maybe partly to do with the music that was playing for the whole thing for some reason.
Click to expand...
“This Interviewer”? Is the same guy who does the play by play and has interviewed key for every Wednesday show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top