Stars Matter (and enough of them)
- Thread starter crharris8892
- Start date
What did UCF have? What about Wisconsin? Memphis?
You're shtick is as bad or worse than the uber homers.
Those teams played largely average talent teams. Wisconsin had to play two teams that outrecruit it all year: Michigan and Miami. Congrats on them beating those teams. But even those wins show recruiting rankings matter. Miami's QB was horrible in that Wisky game. Go look at what his recruiting class ranking was.
Alabama gets elite talent and has great coaching, so they have been dominant. Take them out of the equation. There are a lot of teams that have outperformed their recruiting rankings, and others who have underperformed. You need talent and coaching to be highly successful.
But there aren't. I don't want to get into the "do these teams actually outpeform their recruiting class rankings or do they just mostly play a bunch of teams that recruit at or below their recruiting class level" debate. I feel like that debate is had on this board once week, it always ends with me posting the same SB Nation study, that clearly nobody clicks on, otherwise people wouldn't keep making the "Wisconsin, TCU" point. So it's whatever.
In the end, recruiting class rankings give you a great framework for what every team's ceiling is. If you want to believe a few teams here and there outperform what the rankings say their ceiling is, that's fine. But the poster's point is recruiting class rankings are over valued as a predicative mechanism. And that's wrong. The opposite is true. When you look at the studies, recruiting class rankings predict exactly what a team will be far more accurately than most people want to believe. And the reason for that is exactly what you stated. Most programs have recruiting ceilings. And while most fans are willing to acknowledge this truth, they don't want to believe there are ceilings on what the program can achieve. So they refuse to believe that recruiting class rankings accurately predict ceilings.
It will be interesting to see how this class finishes up. I don't think it will be as small as we originally thought because of all the transfers. 2016 was our highest ranked class in almost a decade (30 composite) but we've already lost 6 of the top guys to transfers or health conditions unfortunately.
So this whole thing is futile unless we are consistently pulling down top 20 classes and its your job to keep it real so no one unjustifiably thinks we can be successful. Got it. Thanks.
Futile relative to what?
I've merely responded to the points/responses that were given to me. It's simply not true there are a lot of teams that outperform their recruiting rankings. As a factual, normative statement. What somebody wants to justifiably/unjustifiably believe from there is up to them.
Just bang your head off a wall, that's what it's like speaking the truth around here
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21
If you look at the top 100 offenses in college football both the BIG and ACC had 8 teams in it. A lot of the ACC's 8 were congregated on the lower side of the top 100. Stats don't bear out your argument.
Not really.
1. Those aren't stats I'd put much weight in. Do you have advanced analytic rankings?
2. I'm sure those Big Ten offenses do well going up against other 2* and 3* defenses that make up the Big Ten. Which is most of the Big Ten. So you can probably start to do well in traditional NCAA stats. My question wasn't whether Purdue can score on Indiana? It's whether those teams can score on a defense that is young but made up of talent that far surpasses what they have on offense? How much would a young defense hold back Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State against the rest of the Big Ten on a week to week basis? I'm not convinced that the poor offensive talent in the rest of the conference is going to be able to take advantage of top tier talent.
Service academies are a different case altogether. All 3 of them run a specialized offense which make success a lot easier due to unfamiliarity but also make success at an elite level almost impossible due to lack of athleticism, especially when size/speed correlated.
If it is purely scheme, why doesn't GT consistently outperform their recruiting?
I don't understand what you mean by when you say "but also make success at an elite level almost impossible due to lack of athleticism, especially when size/speed correlated."
Good example when coaching > talent...we know this well...
3 future NFL players on that team
Click the link..
Fiesta Bowl 2004
3 future NFL players on that team
Click the link..
Fiesta Bowl 2004
We have to recruit at the same level as our direct competition or we have virtually 0 chance of winning our conference or even division. Otherwise we are hoping our coaching is head and shoulders better or ate just counting on a 2004 type lucky outcome.
Not true.
Wisconsin, Michigan St, TCU, UCF, Washington St, Memphis, Oklahoma St, and Northwestern. All of them outperformed their recruiting rankings.
Not relative to their competition. They performed as you would expect, by beating the teams you expect them to beat, beating teams they were equal to, and mostly losing to teams you'd expect they'd lose to. Good coaching or luck in finding a QB closes the gap in the middle, but otherwise they are not outliers.
For Pitt to do the same we need to recruit as well as VT, UNC, and Miami and hope pour coaching is much better.
You just spewed a lot of BS, and did your best Jerry Lewis performance to dodge the facts that you are wrong. There are 8 or more teams that clearly outperformed their recruiting rankings.
No, we have covered it extensively on here. Wisconsin does what it does by beating up on equal or lesser teams. Same for Ok State. Same for the others. It's the same reason Tennessee can still suck even if they have top 10 classes because in their conference that puts them 5-7 and (at best) 4th on their schedule.
An outlier would be Texas because of their coaching struggles. Ok State has then advantage of that and beaten them some, but they still lose to OU almost every time out.
Yes. Top 25 program and competing for the conference consistently and winning the division 1-2 times in 5 years. He'll have to recruit much better to do that because Pitt competition is better than it is for Wisconsin and Ok State. That's the point.
How many times has Oklahoma St won the Big 12?
Pitt could be the 4th or 5th best program in the ACC, and still be a Top 25 Program.
Once. 7 years ago.
4th? Possible. 5th? Very unlikely. To get there, Pitt has to recruit on the level with, at least VT and UNC year in and year out and ALWAYS beat everyone (other than the presumed top 3 CU, FSU, & Miami) else. That would be the Wisconsin "model" except they don't have a Miami and then they almost always beat the similar competition (VT and UNC if we take the step forward in this hypothetical) and ALWAYS beat the lesser competition.
They don't. Most of the Big Ten recruits in the same or lower tier than Wisky. As does most of their OOC schedule. Now Wisconsin coaches deserves a TON of credit for beating the teams they should or the teams the recruiting class rankings are agnostic towards, on a regular basis. TON of credit.
But if you actually look at the recruiting class rankings, Wisky generally has a losing record on a year to year basis against teams that recruit a tier or two above them. Which is fine, every team does, because nobody out performs their recruiting class rankings for any extended period of time.
Wisconsin is just fortunate that most of the Big Ten is made up of horrible talent states.
Sure, if it elevates recruiting.
It's INSANELY difficult to do what Wisconsin does. Lets take nothing from them. People confuse how they are doing it, but beating the teams below you or at your level at such a consistent basis isn't easy. They've had a lot of help through some bad hires their competition has made, but still. You got to tip your hat to them.
If you look at most of teams that are a lock to finished ranked every year, it's because they create a talent gap distance between them and most of the teams on their schedule, and they don't play many teams that have a talent gap above them. This allows them to always survive being young, being injured, etc. Because the margin for these things is so much greater.
We aren't going to have any such margin based on current recruiting. So at that point you're asking the staff to always be two chess moves ahead of everybody we play. That's a lot to ask.
And as much as it is to ask, it can't be done in our conference. We need to recruit better period or we are 5-7 to 8-4 at the best , with 0 chance to win the conference
Don't know, never looked at them. I think the generally finish right around the rest of the conference. A little above these teams, a little below those. But most are in about the same recruiting tier.
Just looked at the AAC. The conference itself doesn't have a ton of separation.
The number 1 team (UCF) finished about 70 points higher than the lowest ranked team (Temple) in the 247 Composite.
Compare that to the ACC, where the number 1 team (FSU) finished about 130 points higher than the lowest ranked team (WF).
Meaning most of the AAC recruits at about the same level. There isn't a ton of disparity between the best class and the worst class. Navy falls in the bunch every year. Compared to the ACC, where you get a much greater disparity in talent.
The number 1 team (UCF) finished about 70 points higher than the lowest ranked team (Temple) in the 247 Composite.
Compare that to the ACC, where the number 1 team (FSU) finished about 130 points higher than the lowest ranked team (WF).
Meaning most of the AAC recruits at about the same level. There isn't a ton of disparity between the best class and the worst class. Navy falls in the bunch every year. Compared to the ACC, where you get a much greater disparity in talent.
You do realize that the a majority of the kids at Navy don't hold a D1 offer. There are even years they'll have starters without an FCS offer.
This was their lowest win total (7) since 2003.
I can tell you they outperform their recruiting rankings every season.
This was their lowest win total (7) since 2003.
I can tell you they outperform their recruiting rankings every season.
Seriously, you can look at stars till your blue in the face, but what separates the have's and the have not's is
DL
OL
QB
Everybody else is pretty close to even. Everybody has capable rbs, wrs, DBs, etc...
You can't hide at those positions..
DL
OL
QB
Everybody else is pretty close to even. Everybody has capable rbs, wrs, DBs, etc...
You can't hide at those positions..
But they don't. I just ran the numbers for you. If you want to believe otherwise, go for it.
Explain to me how their entire conference features full scholarship players and they don't.
Huh?
Navy brought in 15 3* players with the 2017 class. Is that a ton? No. But how many do you think UConn brought in?
I think you're overestimating the recruiting class rankings of the AAC.
The highest ranking class in the AAC in 2017 had 178.34 total points. That would have been good enough for 12th in the ACC.
They had a 78.0 average recruit ranking. That's not particularly good. But the number 2 class only had an 81.8 average.
Navy's 15 3* recruits and 78.0 average puts them about in the same recruiting tier as the rest of the AAC. You keep wanting to believe that isn't true, and I'm not sure why. But I can only cite the numbers. You refuse to believe them, so we can just let it go.
Talent matters. How the talent is forecast very conclusively does not. It’s plainly obvious.
On individual player outcomes? True. On the average or for programs? Completely incorrect.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Can't wait for Tuesday.......really will be a barometer but- Latest: EastOhioPanther
-
There are a lot of people that owe an apology to Kenny pickett- Latest: ChiefJusticeMarshall
-