Who are the two verbals we picked up today??

Donate To GopherHole

Twin brothers, Luke and Kyle McAvoy. As with all things Gophers when I hear about something like this I head over to Fringe. If true, I like this a lot. Welcome McAvoy's!
 


Wow great pick-ups! I love the fact that they're brothers too! Kyle has picked up some great offers and Luke looks like he is building up a fairly decent list already as well! Welcome aboard boys! Look forward to hopefully seeing you in the maroon and gold next season!
 

gophergrad said:
Twin brothers, Luke and Kyle McAvoy. As with all things Gophers when I hear about something like this I head over to Fringe. If true, I like this a lot. Welcome McAvoy's!
Click to expand...

That's awesome! Welcome guys.

How cool would it be to have 4/5ths of our 2012 starting O-Line come from two families?!
 


PS, isnt coach Cosgrove in charge of IL recruiting? If so, he is doing a great job so far this year.
 


Pinky and Bob McNamara Redux

McNamara, McAvoy . . . Mmmmmmmc-licious!

:cool02:
 

List for Kyle:
Arizona
Ball State
Illinois
Illinois State
Iowa
Kansas
Louisville
Memphis
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern
Syracuse
Western Michigan
Wisconsin

Luke:
Arizona
Ball State
Illinois
Illinois State
Iowa Medium
Kansas
Memphis
Michigan
Minnesota
Western Michigan
Wisconsin

From Rivals. Cosgrove is listed in the "Recruited by" column | Offers in bold

Well done
 



These are great offer lists...congrats and welcome to Gold Country!

Go Gophers!!
 

Can't complain about any aspect of these commits, solid work by the recruiting team.
 

Great kids to have on board. Love their measurables, especially their GPA's!
Welcome Kyle and Luke
 

How can this be? Recruits are rated only by the amount and quality of offers they receive. Surely, a prospect with 7 BCS offers cannot be a lowly 3-star, can he?
 



BleedGopher said:
These are great offer lists...congrats and welcome to Gold Country!

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard boys!
Seriously love the Oline recruits from last year and the commits so far. There's going to be a really solid foundation going forward. Olson, Michel, Gjere, Leinkiwitz, Eggen, Epping, Ragoo, Olson, and the McAvoy brothers is a really, really nice pool to chose from. Might be nice to add Leinkiwitz's buddy Durkin too:)

Add in a really solid blocking TE like Rohr and a big skilled guy like LaCosse, so far so good up front.
 

Ole said:
Welcome aboard boys!
Seriously love the Oline recruits from last year and the commits so far. There's going to be a really solid foundation going forward. Olson, Michel, Gjere, Leinkiwitz, Eggen, Epping, Ragoo, Olson, and the McAvoy brothers is a really, really nice pool to chose from. Might be nice to add Leinkiwitz's buddy Durkin too:)

Add in a really solid blocking TE like Rohr and a big skilled guy like LaCosse, so far so good up front.
Click to expand...

We've done pretty well bringing in talent with the big boys on both sides of the ball. It really is the key to a consistent program. It feels like beginning with this year we'll be on a nice run of solid line play on the O side and a continuation of the gains on the D side. Now to get the whole thing clicking together and make it actually happen.
 

dpodoll68 said:
How can this be? Recruits are rated only by the amount and quality of offers they receive. Surely, a prospect with 7 BCS offers cannot be a lowly 3-star, can he?
Click to expand...

You're still doing this?

Remember, quality AND quantity
 

KoolAid said:
You're still doing this?

Remember, quality AND quantity
Click to expand...

Ja'Juan Story has offers from (among others) Florida, Auburn, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Maryland, Miami, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and West Virginia. He is a 3-star.

Glen Faulkner has one offer. From Kentucky. He is a 4-star.

I anxiously await your response.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Ja'Juan Story has offers from (among others) Florida, Auburn, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Maryland, Miami, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and West Virginia. He is a 3-star.

Glen Faulkner has one offer. From Kentucky. He is a 4-star.

I anxiously await your response.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that a convenient sample size?

Yeah, you used those examples before. And I'll say the same thing I said before - those two examples support your case, but they're just two examples.

Go through the entire 2010 class and see if your hypothesis holds. My guess is that it won't.

Listen, I'm not trying to flame here, I'm just telling you the way it is. The majority of rankings are based on quality and quantity of offers received.

I'd also be willing to bet that your boy Story will be upgraded to a 4-star after this season's "breakdown" of his film.

Rivals and Scout are smaller outfits than you might think. They use shortcuts.
 

KoolAid said:
Well isn't that a convenient sample size?

Yeah, you used those examples before. And I'll say the same thing I said before - those two examples support your case, but they're just two examples.

Go through the entire 2010 class and see if your hypothesis holds. My guess is that it won't.

Listen, I'm not trying to flame here, I'm just telling you the way it is. The majority of rankings are based on quality and quantity of offers received.

I'd also be willing to bet that your boy Story will be upgraded to a 4-star after this season's "breakdown" of his film.

Rivals and Scout are smaller outfits than you might think. They use shortcuts.
Click to expand...

Isn't that convenient? I've offered just two examples out of many to validate my side. You (and those of like mind) just keep saying "ratings are based on offers" with no validation whatsoever and assume it to be true. How about you conduct a study and prove this instead of just taking it to be gospel?

My opinion is that it's slightly more nuanced than that. It does factor in other things besides quality and quantity of offers. Period. Otherwise, the above two examples, and the dozens/hundreds/thousands of others like them would not exist. Even one example invalidates your hypothesis. Let alone the thousands of others like them.

Am I saying that some prospects' ratings aren't inflated because of their offers? No, of course not. Am I saying that some prospects' ratings aren't suppressed because of their lack of offers? Again, no. (In fact, this is definitively happening with Tommy Olson.) All I'm saying is that there is more nuance than that, and I will never be convinced otherwise. You can smack me over the head with "quality and quantity of offers is all that matters", and I will never believe it, because the evidence to the contrary is quite plain for anyone to see.

(P.S. Back when you did nothing more than make lame jokes on every post, I thought your board contributions couldn't be any more meaningless. Given your recent turn towards attempting to inject some substance, I guess I was wrong. You should probably go back to doing what you did before.)
 

dpodoll68, I'll say this as quietly as possible:

You've HIJACKED this thread!
 

dpodoll68 said:
Isn't that convenient? I've offered just two examples out of many to validate my side. You (and those of like mind) just keep saying "ratings are based on offers" with no validation whatsoever and assume it to be true. How about you conduct a study and prove this instead of just taking it to be gospel?

My opinion is that it's slightly more nuanced than that. It does factor in other things besides quality and quantity of offers. Period. Otherwise, the above two examples, and the dozens/hundreds/thousands of others like them would not exist. Even one example invalidates your hypothesis. Let alone the thousands of others like them.

Am I saying that some prospects' ratings aren't inflated because of their offers? No, of course not. Am I saying that some prospects' ratings aren't suppressed because of their lack of offers? Again, no. (In fact, this is definitively happening with Tommy Olson.) All I'm saying is that there is more nuance than that, and I will never be convinced otherwise. You can smack me over the head with "quality and quantity of offers is all that matters", and I will never believe it, because the evidence to the contrary is quite plain for anyone to see.

(P.S. Back when you did nothing more than make lame jokes on every post, I thought your board contributions couldn't be any more meaningless. Given your recent turn towards attempting to inject some substance, I guess I was wrong. You should probably go back to doing what you did before.)
Click to expand...

Here is what I wrote a couple weeks ago:

While Rivals does employs talent evaluators that watch and analyze film, a lot of the "final" evaluations are based on the quality and quantity of scholarship offers.

Therefore, Tommy Olson will probably only be a 3-star prospect - Wah-wah (that's a crying noise by the way).

It would be difficult to validate or prove this. I could list numerous examples in which my line of thinking are correct and you could do the same. But as we all know, examples don't equate to proof. And I certainly won't spend any time going through all that data anyway.

But these guys that evaluate the players aren't anything special. And it's such an inexact science that, in the end, they rely on the offer list. I don't remember the term exactly, but college coaches say these Rivals and Scout guys "offer rank" or "offer rate" the prospects.

Speaking of validation, do you ever read why a kid was rated a 3-star? They'll do this for maybe the top 150 kids in each class, but other than that, they just give him a rating. These guys watch 2 films on a kid (maybe even his worst games) and say, "yeah thats about a 3-star talent right there." Then during his senior season, the kid can be upgraded or down-graded based on who has offered him.

If you want real evaluations go to ESPN. They ranked Tommy Olson a 4-star by the way
 

KoolAid said:
And it's such an inexact science that, in the end, they rely on the offer list.
Click to expand...

No, they don't! That is the entire crux of my argument. Sometimes, probably. Always? Absolutely not.

KoolAid said:
I don't remember the term exactly, but college coaches say these Rivals and Scout guys "offer rank" or "offer rate" the prospects.
Click to expand...

Cite, please. Who are these college coaches? Anyone we know? And just because "they" say it is so, doesn't make it so. Elizabeth II calling the United Kingdom the greatest sovereignty in the history of mankind doesn't make it so.

WAGopher said:
dpodoll68, I'll say this as quietly as possible:

You've HIJACKED this thread!
Click to expand...

Did I forget to fill out the requisite form to appropriately state my opinion on a sports-themed internet message board? Damn, I'm always forgetting some mundane detail!
 

dpodoll68 said:
Did I forget to fill out the requisite form to appropriately state my opinion on a sports-themed internet message board? Damn, I'm always forgetting some mundane detail!
Click to expand...

Your definitely a funny guy with some great things to post, but re-igniting an argument you've already beaten to death, just tweaked me wrong this morning. Maybe the moderators could set up a new message board titled "Pissing Matches" where you and KoolAid could take yours.
 

WAGopher said:
Maybe the moderators could set up a new message board titled "Pissing Matches" where you and KoolAid could take yours.
Click to expand...

That would be sweet!

However, calling them "Matches" is somewhat of a misnomer. "Match" implies some level of competition. Something like "DP's Greatest Victories" would probably be a more apt title.
 

dpodoll68 said:
That would be sweet!

However, calling them "Matches" is somewhat of a misnomer. "Match" implies some level of competition. Something like "DP's Greatest Victories" in the history of mankind would probably be a more apt title.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it so.

Just a little levity...let's all move on now. We all get it that neither of you will change your position on the matter.
 

dpodoll68 said:
No, they don't! That is the entire crux of my argument. Sometimes, probably. Always? Absolutely not.



Cite, please. Who are these college coaches? Anyone we know? And just because "they" say it is so, doesn't make it so. Elizabeth II calling the United Kingdom the greatest sovereignty in the history of mankind doesn't make it so.



Did I forget to fill out the requisite form to appropriately state my opinion on a sports-themed internet message board? Damn, I'm always forgetting some mundane detail!
Click to expand...

"No they don't!" doesn't disprove me. YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME. That's fine man.

I don't want to be the one behind a quote like, "according to Gopherhole.com, Bobby Bobberson of Bob University said this and that." But of the Recruiting Coordinators I speak to, these "offer ratings" seem to be the norm.

Like someone else said, this topic has probably been beaten to death.

So I came and stated the way I believe things work. I have good knowledge of the situation and tried to lay this out in an easy to understand fashion. Can I prove this? No, not really. If I did a comprehensive study on this, could I put forth a pretty darn good argument? I certainly believe so.

Can you prove you are right? No. Can you prove I am wrong? No.
 

KoolAid said:
But of the Recruiting Coordinators I speak to, these "offer ratings" seem to be the norm.
Click to expand...

Well, I talked to Dan Berezowitz's mom's sister's ex-boyfriend's daughter's probation officer at Baskin Robbins last night, and he said that you're full of it.

KoolAid said:
Can you prove you are right? No.
Click to expand...

My assertion is that it is not so black-and-white as you make it out to be. I have given plenty of evidence to back this up. Therefore, I have already proven that I am right.

KoolAid said:
Can you prove I am wrong? No.
Click to expand...

Second verse, same as the first.
 



dpodoll68 said:
I'll just take that as "I concede; you are again victorious."
Click to expand...

I was actually saying it's laughable that you think two examples is "plenty of evidence" to prove anything.

And yes I'm guilty of being vague in my "this is what so and so said," but that doesn't mean I'm making anything up. I just don't want to attach anyone else's name to this discussion.

You seem to be set on your opinion. I'm not trying sway anyone. I'm simply sharing things the way I understand them.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom