Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Stars matter in a big way

Started by 195bc, December 21, 2017, 11:39:00 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CDBHawg

Quote from: Deep Shoat on December 21, 2017, 04:32:41 pm
Correlation =\= causation

Many would argue that those who win championships are rewarded with stars.

They were given stars way before they even stepped foot on campus, much less won a championship.

nwahogfan1

Until we get back to being respectability so we can attract more out of state 4/5 star recruits we better be very good at evaluation and signing kids who are very hard working who FIT what we are trying to do.

 

ShadowTheHedgehog

Quote from: hogfansince79 on December 21, 2017, 12:19:09 pm
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-super-bowl-how-falcons-patriots-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

Last years Super Bowl teams starting lineup...

Falcons
5*  -  1
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  3
NA  -  2

Patriots
5*  -  2
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  4
NA  -  1

...just saying.

Would be great to see the breakdown of what teams developed those 3*.
Thanks for posting this info.




Karma

The same people who say "stars don't matter" all spring complain about how our talent doesn't stack up in the fall.

53% of all 5 star players are eventually drafted. A very small percentage of 3*'s are drafted.

195bc

Quote from: IronHog on December 21, 2017, 06:59:03 pm

True

But there are plenty of 3*'s that are clearly under rated

Only about 1 in 20. That's what the stats show. So no, many 3-stars are not underrated.
The only way to get around lack of blue chips and an incredible coach with a great understanding of what he needs at each position. Gundy and Leach May be the best coaches in the country, because the can do that. Hopefully, Morris is also one of those select few coaches, because we're not going to pull in the top re ruining classes.

travelinhog

Quote from: Rocket23 on December 21, 2017, 12:24:14 pm
That speaks volumes.

I can remember Bobby Bowden saying at the LR Touchdown Club, his downfall was chasing stars instead of relying on his coaches evaluations.

I remember an interview with Bobby Bowden when he was near the end of his coaching career. Because it was so long ago, I will have to paraphrase. Essentially, as long as you got a few difference makers in each class, having a class full of stars was not necessary. In light of what you wrote, it seems like he may have figured out the error of his ways before he retired.

IronHog

Quote from: 195bc on December 21, 2017, 09:11:58 pm
Only about 1 in 20. That's what the stats show. So no, many 3-stars are not underrated.
The only way to get around lack of blue chips and an incredible coach with a great understanding of what he needs at each position. Gundy and Leach May be the best coaches in the country, because the can do that. Hopefully, Morris is also one of those select few coaches, because we're not going to pull in the top re ruining classes.


Gundy and Leach ain't in the SEC


HOGS woulda won the big 12 lots of times past 20 years
Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

IronHog

But big and bad is big and bad


BB recruited bad men but played the goodies
Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

195bc

Quote from: IronHog on December 21, 2017, 10:48:26 pm

Gundy and Leach ain't in the SEC


HOGS woulda won the big 12 lots of times past 20 years

Doesn't matter what conference they are in. The last few years the SEC hasn't been much better, if better at all, than the other conferences. And Athose coaches are in Stillwater and Lubbock and Pullman. And their teams are top 25, often top 10. They have far better teams than most of the SEC. Hogs would have won the Big 12 once, maybe twice, since 2000. Petrino's two best years.

IronHog

Quote from: 195bc on December 21, 2017, 11:00:25 pm
Doesn't matter what conference they are in. The last few years the SEC hasn't been much better, if better at all, than the other conferences. And Athose coaches are in Stillwater and Lubbock and Pullman. And their teams are top 25, often top 10. They have far better teams than most of the SEC. Hogs would have won the Big 12 once, maybe twice, since 2000. Petrino's two best years.
Uh no


The SEC is all about the grind
Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

Nipsey Mussle

Quote from: Deep Shoat on December 21, 2017, 07:31:05 pm
No.  it's based on PERCEPTION of talent.

If stars were based on actual talent, there wouldn't be recruiting busts or recruiting misses.

Talent is what translates into actual play.  Stars are what a few con men use to predict who has the talent.

Stars are horse crap.  Talent matters.
OK, and the perception of talent is going to be right more often with 4 and 5 stars, than 3 stars. If your argument is that the talent needs to be evaluated properly, I'm not sure that's a major claim?

How about this, you choose 20 3*'s from the 2019 class, based on who you think has the most talent. I will act as one of these "con men", and choose 20 5*'s at random from the same class, and then we'll compare their stats in 4 years. Remember, it's about talent, and has nothing to do with stars, right?

Bubba's Bruisers

Quote from: Deep Shoat on December 21, 2017, 07:43:10 pm
Talent is the ability to play the damn game.  Period.

Agree. 

But some talent is better at playing the game than other talent.
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

Deep Shoat

Quote from: Bubba's Bruisers on December 22, 2017, 08:04:42 am
Agree. 

But some talent is better at playing the game than other talent.
And the number of stars by their name does not determine which is which.

Seriously, if it was the stars that matter there would never be a failed 5 star and there would never be a walk-on make the NFL.
All Gas, No Brakes!

 

UofA_Hogs

Quote from: Freebrd on December 21, 2017, 03:47:24 pm

Most stars are awarded because of their assessed talent!  Look at schools that consistently have 4/5* players on the roster and they will consistently have better won/loss records hence ranked higher in the polls and go to better bowls.  Wanting to have 1/2/3* instead of wanting higher ranked players aka 4/5* is just justification for not being able to get the 4/5*

Some stars are awarded because certain schools offer.  When Alabama offers a kid, he almost always gains a star. 

#1 STUNNA

Their is a reason some schools are always at the top.... and its not because they are developing 3* athletes..lol

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: #1 STUNNA on December 22, 2017, 08:40:11 am
Their is a reason some schools are always at the top.... and its not because they are developing 3* athletes..lol

It's because he becomes a 4 star as soon as the school offers him.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Bubba's Bruisers

Quote from: Deep Shoat on December 22, 2017, 08:08:15 am
And the number of stars by their name does not determine which is which.

Seriously, if it was the stars that matter there would never be a failed 5 star and there would never be a walk-on make the NFL.

Again I agree, but one should look at in the aggregate, not individually.
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

#1 STUNNA

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 08:45:14 am
It's because he becomes a 4 star as soon as the school offers him.

well if anyone knows talent its the ones that are winning every year.

bphi11ips

Quote from: Deep Shoat on December 22, 2017, 08:08:15 am
And the number of stars by their name does not determine which is which.

Seriously, if it was the stars that matter there would never be a failed 5 star and there would never be a walk-on make the NFL.

You really have to understand the camp system, recruiting services, and the many people with skin in the game to understand how players get rated.  In short, ratings are a measure of potential.  The difference between a 3, 4 and 5 star is often the difference in what has been proven at that point on the field.  A player may get a 3 star rating just by showing up at camps with a perfect set of measurables.  A 4 or 5 star has to have the measurables plus the film and stats to go with them.  A player can have great film and stats and not even get rated without the measurables.

The widest range of uncertainty is in the 3-stars.  The question is often how they develop as players.  Most of that is up to them.  How hard will they work during the offseason?  How much film will they watch?  How hard are they willing to hit?  How bad do they want to play on Sunday?

What separates NFL players from everyone else is usually hard work, desire, and mental toughness.  Blaine Bishop is a good example. I've spoken with him about it.  Blaine was a 5'9" 175 lb. DB in high school.  He play first at a DII school in Indiana before Ball State noticed him.  The Oilers drafted him as the 214th pick in the 8th round.  He was selected four times for the Pro Bowl.  Blaine speaks regularly and talks about the desire and dedication it takes to make it in the NFL and in any profession in general.  Very impressive guy. 

That's why you see the NFL domiated by 3 star talent.  They far outnumber the 4 and 5 stars, and they have the physical characteristics it takes to play in the NFL.  The ones who want it the most are often the ones who make it.
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

IronHog

Quote from: bphi11ips on December 22, 2017, 09:37:53 am
You really have to understand the camp system, recruiting services, and the many people with skin in the game to understand how players get rated.  In short, ratings are a measure of potential.  The difference between a 3, 4 and 5 star is often the difference in what has been proven at that point on the field.  A player may get a 3 star rating just by showing up at camps with a perfect set of measurables.  A 4 or 5 star has to have the measurables plus the film and stats to go with them.  A player can have great film and stats and not even get rated without the measurables.

The widest range of uncertainty is in the 3-stars.  The question is often how they develop as players.  Most of that is up to them.  How hard will they work during the offseason?  How much film will they watch?  How hard are they willing to hit?  How bad do they want to play on Sunday?

What separates NFL players from everyone else is usually hard work, desire, and mental toughness.  Blaine Bishop is a good example. I've spoken with him about it.  Blaine was a 5'9" 175 lb. DB in high school.  He play first at a DII school in Indiana before Ball State noticed him.  The Oilers drafted him as the 214th pick in the 8th round.  He was selected four times for the Pro Bowl.  Blaine speaks regularly and talks about the desire and dedication it takes to make it in the NFL and in any profession in general.  Very impressive guy. 

That's why you see the NFL domiated by 3 star talent.  They far outnumber the 4 and 5 stars, and they have the physical characteristics it takes to play in the NFL.  The ones who want it the most are often the ones who make it.


'96 Watson chapel had 3 D1 prospects

- Ron Johnson-  national recruit.  Offers everywhere.  Played one year at UA then transferred to UAPB.

-  Bobby Jett.  Tall fast kid but lacked grades .  JUCO then UAPB

-  Dante Wesley.  Lightly recruited.  Walk on at UA.  Transferred to UAPB.


Johnson had decent career at UAPB, no NFL.  Jett is dead.  Wesley played for years in NFL including super bowl.
Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: #1 STUNNA on December 22, 2017, 09:18:08 am
well if anyone knows talent its the ones that are winning every year.

I'm not saying it's a bad practice, I'm saying it artificially increases the correlation between recruiting ranking and championships.  They are correlated, but they are correlated the opposite way that most people think.  The correlation is championships lead to higher recruiting rankings, not higher recruiting rankings lead to championships.  Which is fine, but using them try to predict the future is a bit misleading.  You could get them same predictive power by just looking at who has won in the past directly.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

NotSoFastMyFriend

Quote from: 195bc on December 21, 2017, 11:39:00 am
Was just doing some research for a thread in Monday Morning Quarterback, and to satisfy my own curiosity. Thought the regulars here would also find it interesting. Someone said they would prefer signing 100 3-star recruits per year (if that was possible), compared to what Alabama usually signs. My response:

"You apparently don't realize that the chance of a 3* player drafted is incredibly slim. 3-stars rarely become good players. In the 2017 draft, 23 or 32 first round picks were 4- or 5-star recruits out of high school. Of the 31 eligible 5-star recruits for that draft, 23 were drafted, with 9 being in the first round.

So consider this in your crazy example of taking 100 3-stars in each recruiting class compared to a top-rated class of about 25 recruits. Approximately 5% of all 3-star recruits are drafted. Approximately 26% of all 4- and 5-star recruits are drafted. So if you take 100 3-star recruits in a recruiting class, you will have about 5 players from that class drafted. Georgia currently has 23 recruits (six 5-stars, eleven 4-stars, six 3-stars). Using the percentages given, they have 4.72 players in that class that will be drafted (basically 5 players). It's the same, with a quarter of the recruits. If you take a program that only signs 25 3-star recruits, they will average about 1 drafted player per year.

Stars matter. Coaches matter also, and there are some outliers, like Snyder and Leach and Briles. But for nearly everyone else, stars are absolutely necessary, even to Saban. He wasn't the elite coach that he is when he was at Michigan St and LSU and had lower recruiting rankings. Saban's recruiting rankings at LSU were 2000-21st, 2001-2nd, 2003-21st, and 2004 really doesn't matter because he left after that season. His national championship there came when that 2001 class were juniors (7 players were drafted after that season). The next year he went 9-3 and finished ranked 16th in the country. Outside that national championship year, his other years at LSU were a combined 35-15, and the recruiting rankings were not spectacular in his 2000 and 2002 classes (both recruiting classes were ranked 21st).

Stars matter, and they matter in a major way. And the recruiting ranking services are more accurate than most will admit."
Point taken but you can't lump 4-5 star players together and assign them a 26% draft success rate. The math doesn't work. For example, you said that Georgia has six 5* and 11 4* so that's a 26% draft rate for those 17 players? Weighting is important here. What's the draft rate for 5* vs 4* as individual categories? Statistically, that has to factor in. In this case, Georgia's draft rate on 4-5* players might actually be higher given that many 5* players.

trphog

I posted this in a thread last year. It's still relevant (obviously). Star rankings DO MATTER when it comes to the success of a program in winning championships. It's indisputable really.

"The last ten national champions and their previous four years recruiting rankings according to 247 Sports:

2015   Alabama: 2014 - #1 /2013 - #1 /2012 - #1 /201 - #1
2014   Ohio State: 2013-#2 /2012-#5 /2011-#7 /2010 -#15
2013   Fla. State: 2012-#3 /2011-#2 /2010-#7/2009 - #14
2012   Alabama: 2011-#1 / 2010-#5 / 2009-#2  / 2008 - #3
2010   Auburn:   2010-#6 /2009-#23 /2008-#24 /2007-#10
2009   Alabama: 2009-#2 / 2008-#3 /2007-#13/2006 - #15
2008   Florida: 2008 -#6 / 2007 -#1 / 2006 -#2  / 2005 -#12
2007   LSU:  2007 - #1 / 2006 - #9 / 2005 - #13  / 2004 - #3
2006   Florida: 2006 -#2 /2005 -#12 /2004 -#3  /2003 - #5

Bottom line is that no one has won a National Championship in the past 10 years with out at least securing two top 10 recruiting classes in the previous four years. Not only that, but no National Champion had a single recruiting class outside of the top 25 in the four years leading up to their championship."

East TN HAWG

Nolan Richardson always said that a blind man could see Ron Mercer play basketball.  Ron Mercer was a 5 star that played for KY.  The reason 5* are ranked that is because the talent is obvious.  They don't always make it, and it is not always because of on the field talent.

In business, generally when you create a forecast it is wrong the minute after you create it.  You hope to be directionally correct.  The star rating "forecast" for college football is the same.  There are misses and there are hits, but over time the rating system is an fairly accurate indicator of accuracy.  Yes, there are the JJ Watts and the Darious Winstons, but the star ranking is overall a north star of were the program stands athletically. 

 

bphi11ips

Quote from: trphog on December 22, 2017, 10:35:06 am
I posted this in a thread last year. It's still relevant (obviously). Star rankings DO MATTER when it comes to the success of a program in winning championships. It's indisputable really.

“The last ten national champions and their previous four years recruiting rankings according to 247 Sports:

2015   Alabama: 2014 - #1 /2013 - #1 /2012 - #1 /201 - #1
2014   Ohio State: 2013-#2 /2012-#5 /2011-#7 /2010 -#15
2013   Fla. State: 2012-#3 /2011-#2 /2010-#7/2009 - #14
2012   Alabama: 2011-#1 / 2010-#5 / 2009-#2  / 2008 - #3
2010   Auburn:   2010-#6 /2009-#23 /2008-#24 /2007-#10
2009   Alabama: 2009-#2 / 2008-#3 /2007-#13/2006 - #15
2008   Florida: 2008 -#6 / 2007 -#1 / 2006 -#2  / 2005 -#12
2007   LSU:  2007 - #1 / 2006 - #9 / 2005 - #13  / 2004 - #3
2006   Florida: 2006 -#2 /2005 -#12 /2004 -#3  /2003 - #5

Bottom line is that no one has won a National Championship in the past 10 years with out at least securing two top 10 recruiting classes in the previous four years. Not only that, but no National Champion had a single recruiting class outside of the top 25 in the four years leading up to their championship."

If you expect Arkansas to win a National Championship you may be disappointed. 
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

trphog

Quote from: bphi11ips on December 22, 2017, 10:40:12 am
If you expect Arkansas to win a National Championship you may be disappointed.

Are we talking about Arkansas winning a National Championship or recruiting rankings being meaningful to the success of a College football program?

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: trphog on December 22, 2017, 11:06:21 am
Are we talking about Arkansas winning a National Championship or recruiting rankings being meaningful to the success of a College football program?

Or are we talking about the success of a college football program being meaningful to recruiting rankings?
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Deep Shoat

The star system is far more accurate in the 5 star recruits than in the 4 or 3.  I️ wonder why?

Could it be because anyone can see the kids talent and so he's assigned a 5? 

It is the talent a kid has, not the Stars he is assigned, that matter.  Stars vey clearly do not equal talent.  There are far too many misses, in both directions.  Couple that with the politics of the ranking process and the monetary incentive to sell subscriptions and you have a flawed system. 

Of course the teams who most consistently recruit 5 stars win a lot.  My grandma can identify a kid who will end up a 5 Star.  BECAUSE HE HAS CLEARLY VISIBLE TALENT.

Talent matters.  Stars do not.
All Gas, No Brakes!

ChicoHog

Quote from: bphi11ips on December 22, 2017, 10:40:12 am
If you expect Arkansas to win a National Championship you may be disappointed. 
Maybe not, but we would sure like to compete for an SEC championship and be competitive year in and year out against our opponents.  For that to happen we need to recruit better, especially on defense. 

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: ChicoHog on December 22, 2017, 02:32:13 pm
Maybe not, but we would sure like to compete for an SEC championship and be competitive year in and year out against our opponents.  For that to happen we need to recruit better, especially on defense.

Everyone knows this, even without a silly formula with numbers plugged into it largely from guesswork.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Bubba's Bruisers

Quote from: Deep Shoat on December 22, 2017, 01:47:17 pm
The star system is far more accurate in the 5 star recruits than in the 4 or 3.  I️ wonder why?

Could it be because anyone can see the kids talent and so he's assigned a 5? 

It is the talent a kid has, not the Stars he is assigned, that matter.  Stars vey clearly do not equal talent.  There are far too many misses, in both directions.  Couple that with the politics of the ranking process and the monetary incentive to sell subscriptions and you have a flawed system. 

Of course the teams who most consistently recruit 5 stars win a lot.  My grandma can identify a kid who will end up a 5 Star.  BECAUSE HE HAS CLEARLY VISIBLE TALENT.

Talent matters.  Stars do not.

And we've largely sucked at getting sufficent talent.
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

trphog

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 11:40:50 am
Or are we talking about the success of a college football program being meaningful to recruiting rankings?

Clemson debunks that theory. They won the National Championship in 2016, preceded by being ranked in recruiting by 247 Sports the previous four years at: 11th, 9th, 16th, & 15th. True, they don't fit the criteria of two top 10 finishes in the four years preceding their championship, but they are as close as you can come without doing it. This is without having years of sustained success that would hypothetically effect the rankings.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: trphog on December 22, 2017, 02:49:45 pm
Clemson debunks that theory. They won the National Championship in 2016, preceded by being ranked in recruiting by 247 Sports the previous four years at: 11th, 9th, 16th, & 15th. True, they don't fit the criteria of two top 10 finishes in the four years preceding their championship, but they are as close as you can come without doing it. This is without having years of sustained success that would hypothetically effect the rankings.

Clemson does no such thing.  They are the one team that didn't do exactly what you claimed always happened.  Sure, they were close, but that's what getting more of the easy to rank 4 and 5 star players does.  No disputing those.  The dispute comes below that.  In the thousands and thousands of players that the services can't possibly rank.  They rely on who is being offered by the teams that win championships more often.  And the correlation grows stronger, just being fed in reverse.

The formulas are silly, most star rankings are guesswork at best, totally bogus at worst.


Keep believing in them if you want.  I think like the coaches of all these teams think: the stars don't mean anything, critical evaluation of individual players and whether they fit what your team needs is all that does.

Honestly, I truly can't believe so many people care about things like "average star rating" of a group of players, but then, I know most people don't like chess and I do, so whatever.

As far as winning a national championship is concerned, Arkansas is either going to have to buck the trend (like Clemson did) or not win one, because it doesn't matter who the coach is, for the forseeable future, Arkansas is not getting enough 5 and 4 stars to routinely break the top 10.  After establishing some success, many years down the road, maybe.  So fretting over that kind of thing is just silly.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Bubba's Bruisers

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 02:59:56 pm
Clemson does no such thing.  They are the one team that didn't do exactly what you claimed always happened.  Sure, they were close, but that's what getting more of the easy to rank 4 and 5 star players does.  No disputing those.  The dispute comes below that.  In the thousands and thousands of players that the services can't possibly rank.  They rely on who is being offered by the teams that win championships more often.  And the correlation grows stronger, just being fed in reverse.

The formulas are silly, most star rankings are guesswork at best, totally bogus at worst.


Keep believing in them if you want.  I think like the coaches of all these teams think: the stars don't mean anything, critical evaluation of individual players and whether they fit what your team needs is all that does.

Honestly, I truly can't believe so many people care about things like "average star rating" of a group of players, but then, I know most people don't like chess and I do, so whatever.

As far as winning a national championship is concerned, Arkansas is either going to have to buck the trend (like Clemson did) or not win one, because it doesn't matter who the coach is, for the forseeable future, Arkansas is not getting enough 5 and 4 stars to routinely break the top 10.  After establishing some success, many years down the road, maybe.  So fretting over that kind of thing is just silly.

Would you agree that programs like Bama, Clemson, UGA, Tosu, etc consistently sign the highest concentrations of talent?
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: Bubba's Bruisers on December 22, 2017, 03:07:14 pm
Would you agree that programs like Bama, Clemson, UGA, Tosu, etc consistently sign the highest concentrations of talent?

They consistently sign the easiest to find ones, yes.  Again, I don't have a dispute about the top tier.  It's everything outside of the top 10 or 15 that is basically useless.  Recruiting services have absolutely no hope of accurately quantifying the talent level of that many players.  Even among the top 10, ranking them using some formula is just pretty silly.  Honestly, just imagine two groups of 10 players from the recruiting classes of two of the top 10 teams and put them side by side.  Now, imagine giving them a star rating, like 4.184, 4.016, etc. and then putting those numbers through a stupid formula and trying to use that to say that group of 10 players is going to have a bigger impact on their team than the other.  It's just pure silliness.

If you were going to grade players accurately, you'd probably need at least 10 different grades for things like speed, acceleration, awareness, agility, etc.  Even then, it's still guesswork which players are going to work out better in which situations.  I just don't believe in the system and never will.  I'm amazed so many have bought into it and get so worked up over it, frankly.  To me it's just a giant fraud.

Honestly, even if it worked out as expected and it were as close to an exact science as everyone somehow believe it is, what is the sum total of useful data we gain from it?  It's the exact same thing I could tell you and literally my grandmother could tell you:  we need to recruit better.

Oh ok.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Grizzlyfan

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 08:45:14 am
It's because he becomes a 4 star as soon as the school offers him.
And it's just a coincidence that Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, et. al. make up the top 10 more often than not?

bphi11ips

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 02:59:56 pm
Clemson does no such thing.  They are the one team that didn't do exactly what you claimed always happened.  Sure, they were close, but that's what getting more of the easy to rank 4 and 5 star players does.  No disputing those.  The dispute comes below that.  In the thousands and thousands of players that the services can't possibly rank.  They rely on who is being offered by the teams that win championships more often.  And the correlation grows stronger, just being fed in reverse.

The formulas are silly, most star rankings are guesswork at best, totally bogus at worst.


Keep believing in them if you want.  I think like the coaches of all these teams think: the stars don't mean anything, critical evaluation of individual players and whether they fit what your team needs is all that does.

Honestly, I truly can't believe so many people care about things like "average star rating" of a group of players, but then, I know most people don't like chess and I do, so whatever.

As far as winning a national championship is concerned, Arkansas is either going to have to buck the trend (like Clemson did) or not win one, because it doesn't matter who the coach is, for the forseeable future, Arkansas is not getting enough 5 and 4 stars to routinely break the top 10.  After establishing some success, many years down the road, maybe.  So fretting over that kind of thing is just silly.

Bob Dylan said it best: You don't need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows.
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: Grizzlyfan on December 22, 2017, 03:27:13 pm
And it's just a coincidence that Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, et. al. make up the top 10 more often than not?

No, again, for the 3rd of 4th time, I don't have much dispute about the top 10 or so teams.  Those are pretty obvious since the elite players are so easy to identify you and I could do it.  But the top 10 don't matter to us, because, again, we are either bucking the trend of requiring those players or we aren't winning a national championship, because for the near future, we have no shot at breaking into that tier.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

bphi11ips

Quote from: Grizzlyfan on December 22, 2017, 03:27:13 pm
And it's just a coincidence that Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, et. al. make up the top 10 more often than not?

How did those teams do before recruiting rankings became a thing?
Life is too short for grudges and feuds.

trphog

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 02:59:56 pm
Clemson does no such thing.  They are the one team that didn't do exactly what you claimed always happened.  Sure, they were close, but that's what getting more of the easy to rank 4 and 5 star players does.  No disputing those.  The dispute comes below that.  In the thousands and thousands of players that the services can't possibly rank.  They rely on who is being offered by the teams that win championships more often.  And the correlation grows stronger, just being fed in reverse.

The formulas are silly, most star rankings are guesswork at best, totally bogus at worst.


Keep believing in them if you want.  I think like the coaches of all these teams think: the stars don't mean anything, critical evaluation of individual players and whether they fit what your team needs is all that does.

Honestly, I truly can't believe so many people care about things like "average star rating" of a group of players, but then, I know most people don't like chess and I do, so whatever.

As far as winning a national championship is concerned, Arkansas is either going to have to buck the trend (like Clemson did) or not win one, because it doesn't matter who the coach is, for the forseeable future, Arkansas is not getting enough 5 and 4 stars to routinely break the top 10.  After establishing some success, many years down the road, maybe.  So fretting over that kind of thing is just silly.

My only claim was that no one has won a National Championship without securing two top 10 recruiting classes in the four years leading up to their championship. Those numbers speak for themselves. Even looking beyond that fact, Clemson's success on the field directly correlates with their rise in the recruiting rankings.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: trphog on December 22, 2017, 03:36:48 pm
My only claim was that no one has won a National Championship without securing two top 10 recruiting classes in the four years leading up to their championship.

And this claim was incorrect.  Clemson didn't.  Anything else?
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Bubba's Bruisers

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 03:15:33 pm
They consistently sign the easiest to find ones, yes.  Again, I don't have a dispute about the top tier.  It's everything outside of the top 10 or 15 that is basically useless.  Recruiting services have absolutely no hope of accurately quantifying the talent level of that many players.  Even among the top 10, ranking them using some formula is just pretty silly.  Honestly, just imagine two groups of 10 players from the recruiting classes of two of the top 10 teams and put them side by side.  Now, imagine giving them a star rating, like 4.184, 4.016, etc. and then putting those numbers through a stupid formula and trying to use that to say that group of 10 players is going to have a bigger impact on their team than the other.  It's just pure silliness.

If you were going to grade players accurately, you'd probably need at least 10 different grades for things like speed, acceleration, awareness, agility, etc.  Even then, it's still guesswork which players are going to work out better in which situations.  I just don't believe in the system and never will.  I'm amazed so many have bought into it and get so worked up over it, frankly.  To me it's just a giant fraud.

Honestly, even if it worked out as expected and it were as close to an exact science as everyone somehow believe it is, what is the sum total of useful data we gain from it?  It's the exact same thing I could tell you and literally my grandmother could tell you:  we need to recruit better.

Oh ok.

See, I think the problem is that people are not arguing the same thing.  Few would disagree with your assertions.  I agree with you. 

However, that assertion, IMO, is not really a correct rebuttal to the point that so many are trying to make.  That point being, from the 30,000' level, it's become obvious that the teams that get the obviously talented players, or as you say "the easiest to find ones...", are the same teams that by and large are competing and winning championships.  It just so happens that these are the teams who's classes year in and year out are packed full of 4* players.  The argument for how those players were assigned 4 stars by the servies, legitimate or not, is largely irrelevant.  The fact is they were assigned 4 stars.  And on the aggregate, not individual, which is what so many are trying to latch onto, is largely accurate.  It's simply an indicator.  It's not fool proof.  It's not 100% at all, but it's the rule, and not nearly the exception.

So if our goal is to win championships, we have to have much better talent in more numbers that we've ever gotten (I know you're very aware), which means we have to start signing significantly more players who are also offered and pursued by the big boys...Bama, Clemson, UGA, Tosu etc...  Because big boys are only going to pursue the obvious talented players.  It just so happens that the vast majority of those players are 4* players.  Doesn't matter how they were assigned those stars.  They're just an indicator in the aggregate.

We should stop looking at star assignments individually, because absolutely, there are a lot of misses.  However, on the whole, it's pretty accurate for the top teams, which again is all that matters...if your goal is to join them on that mountain.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

Karma

Some of you that argue stars don't matter likely also dispute the legitimacy of global warming.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: Bubba's Bruisers on December 22, 2017, 03:43:04 pm
See, I think the problem is that people are not arguing the same thing.  Few would disagree with your assertions.  I agree with you. 

However, that assertion, IMO, is not really a correct rebuttal to the point that so many are trying to make.  That point being, from the 30,000' level, it's become obvious that the teams that get the obviously talented players, or as you say "the easiest to find ones...", are the same teams that by and large are competing and winning championships.  It just so happens that these are the teams who's classes year in and year out are packed full of 4* players.  The argument for how those players were assigned 4 stars by the servies, legitimate or not, is largely irrelevant.  The fact is they were assigned 4 stars.  And on the aggregate, not individual, which is what so many are trying to latch onto, is largely accurate.  It's simply an indicator.  It's not fool proof.  It's not 100% at all, but it's the rule, and not nearly the exception.

So if our goal is to win championships, we have to have much better talent in more numbers that we've ever gotten (I know you're very aware), which means we have to start signing significantly more players who are also offered and pursued by the big boys...Bama, Clemson, UGA, Tosu etc...  Because big boys are only going to pursue the obvious talented players.  It just so happens that the vast majority of those players are 4* players.  Doesn't matter how they were assigned those stars.  They're just an indicator in the aggregate.

We should stop looking at star assignments individually, because absolutely, there are a lot of misses.  However, on the whole, it's pretty accurate for the top teams, which again is all that matters...if your goal is to join them on that mountain.

This is all fine, but be honest, do you need star rankings, exotic formulas, and class rankings to tell you this:

We need to recruit better players to win a national championship?  Because that's all we get out of this process, and again, anyone could tell you that.  It's pointless.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: Karma on December 22, 2017, 03:45:33 pm
Some of you that argue stars don't matter likely also dispute the legitimacy of global warming.

One of the more random and bizarre strawmen I've ever seen.  So you have that going for you, which is nice.

Let me try:

Some of you that think the world revolves around recruiting rankings probably also like licking buttermilk out from between your own toes.

Am I doing it right?
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

trphog

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 03:38:43 pm
And this claim was incorrect.  Clemson didn't.  Anything else?

They finished 9th and 11th. As close you can get and close enough validate the claim. What data or sttistics do you have to back up your claim? Other than your own dumb perspective, that is. I'll sit and wait for your answer. Facts. Data. Let's see them, champ.

Science Fiction Greg

Quote from: trphog on December 22, 2017, 03:48:54 pm
They finished 9th and 11th. As close you can get and close enough validate the claim. What data or sttistics do you have to backto your claim. Other than your own dumb perspective. I'll sit and wait for your answer. Facts, Data, let's see them, champ.

I don't think 9th and 11th validates "two classes in the top 10," but if you do, I guess that's cool. 

I will reiterate that I don't think this claim is remotely important even if true, as the correlation is mostly reverse in cause and effect from what is being assumed, so you can have it if you want it, I guess.

So, what claim would you like me to back up with statistics, exactly?  Do I need to be accurate with it or can I just exaggerate and then say close enough, too?
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Science Fiction Greg

The only real claims I'm making is that your claim was wrong, which I showed, and that I don't buy into the recruiting rankings like you guys do.  I guess I can show that with a poll.

Hey PossibleOatmeal, do you buy into recruiting rankings? 

Nope.

Alright, here are the stas from my poll.  1 PossibleOatmeal doesn't buy into recruiting rankings, 0 PossibleOatmeals do.

Indisputable evidence.

Anything else?
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.

Bubba's Bruisers

Quote from: Possible Oatmeal on December 22, 2017, 03:45:55 pm
This is all fine, but be honest, do you need star rankings, exotic formulas, and class rankings to tell you this:

We need to recruit better players to win a national championship?  Because that's all we get out of this process, and again, anyone could tell you that.  It's pointless.

Well, that's an entirely different discussion.  It's for the fans.  It's just another element related to the game itself.  It's about hope.  It's like the buildup to Christmas morning.  Fans get a kick out of it.     
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

Science Fiction Greg

No, but seriously folks, I will state this as clearly as I can.

What useful information do we really gain from all of this stuff besides "we need to recruit better players to win a national championship?"  I submit the answer is nothing, and you already knew that information without the help of recruiting services.

If you get more than that out of it and believe it, I guess have fun.
I spend all my time playing Trackmania, and various board games. You might remember me as Corndog7 or PossibleOatmeal.
Twitter sucks now. I deleted my account. I mostly just use TikTok now.