Here is today's pissing contest:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/... Seat/How about NO/lolpissingcontest.jpg?o=13
http://media.photobucket.com/image/... Seat/How about NO/lolpissingcontest.jpg?o=13
Next Pissing Contest
- Thread starter Killjoy
- Start date
Kuato Lives!
Delvin, MN
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
It's unfortunate that you took the time to write this logical post only to have DMB skip past it. I mean, that has to be the only reason why he continues on with his idiotic anti-recruiting crusade, right? There's no way that after all of the threads and links that have been posted here over time that support rankings having some merit that he could possibly be so dense.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I can't tell if you are serious or not, but I haven't been here long enough or often enough to know who DMB is.
Kuato Lives!
Delvin, MN
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I'm being serious. I'm convinced that someone employed by Rivals/Scout/ESPN
slept with/killed/scammed a member of his family.
not quite.
if they are not in the rivals.com database, then they were not evaluated or they didn't show 1-star potential.
if they are in the database, and they are not ranked, then they were evaluated, did show potential, but did not qualify for a 1-star at the time of evaluation.
to get into the database, you must show some potential... otherwise, all high school senior would be in the database.
so if they are not in the database, either 1.) no one submitted anything for them... ( like me ) or 2.) rivals.com did receive material.. but the player didn't show even the potential for a 1-star.... ( like dpod ).
That's fine if you want to follow the recruiting rankings and take them seriously. I will pay no attention to them at all, to each his own. But if you think the recruiting rankings carry so much weight then I'm assuming you don't think the Gophers have a bright future, right? Because every site has our class ranked 11th or 12th in the B1G for this year and near the bottom of the conference in most other years.
You can't have it both ways. You can't defend these recruiting sites and their rankings while at the same time be predicting good things for a program that these same recruiting services have consistantly ranked near the bottom of the conference year after year. Don't you see the contradiction? By predicting good things for Minnesota in the coming years aren't you basically saying these recruiting rankings aren't accurate and don't mean much?
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I think most MN fans want the team to PROGRESS and get better. As the on the field product turns, so will recruiting. When it comes to the correlation between on the field success and recruiting, it's not a one way street. Recruiting better players translates into more wins... winning more increases a program's ability to recruit. It's almost assuredly not going to turn over night, it's a process.
I get that, and I agree. I just find it odd that most people on here think our future is bright, yet those same people laud and defend recruiting services like Rivals who always have us near the bottom in recruiting rankings. It's a total contradiction.
dpodoll68 has said on this board that there is a direct correlation between recruiting rankings and on the field success. In my opinion he's contradicting himself. How can our future look good if these recruiting rankings are in any way accurate like he says they are?
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,467
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 63
There is a correlation between recruit rankings and success on the field. Teams that have more highly-regarded recruit rankings tend to do better on the field. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. There are teams who perform under their recruiting rankings, and there are teams that perform above their recruiting rankings, but in general, teams with highly-regarded recruiting classes tend to do better on the field.
No one claimed that it is a one-to-one correlation, having the #1 ranked recruiting class doesn't mean that you will be the national champion, and having the #120 ranked recruiting class doesn't mean that you will be the worst team.
The caliber of the recruits themselves is one factor, another factor is given the recruits that you could get, how well did you meet your team's needs? If the Gophers win, the Gophers will probably be more appealing to recruits.
Coaching is another factor. Instability, lack of vision and just poor coaching can lead to poor performance, even with good talent on the football field.
The contradiction is an illusion, caused by not understanding correlation.
Unregistered User
Wild animal with a keyboard
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 14,788
- Reaction score
- 4,993
- Points
- 113
Shouldn't you be in the other thread defending your boy Chadima about his second...oops I mean third allegation?
Keep burying your head in the sand about that one. Just don't do it in front of Chadima.
Deleted_User
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 7,831
- Reaction score
- 535
- Points
- 113
R squared
We need to know what the r[SUP]2[/SUP] actually is to determine the percentage the recruiting variable commands in winning programs and non winning programs. I think I read somewhere on this board, or somewhere else, that it was a fairly low percentage, less than 30%. Other variables are certainly necessary for success like coaching ability, coaching tenure, conditioning level (the measurables), player intelligence, and a whole slew of other variables. As far as our ranking as numbe 11 does not mean we can not elevate our chances in the remaining 70% of variables with the package we have right now in players, coaches, facilities and commitment. What MV evaluated was just one variable and in that we only know of one factor of success. Getting into pissing contests without knowing how strong these other variables may be is typical of this board. Really not very helpful or enjoyable. Get your geek on and do a simple study on another variable and become a GH legend in the process. Otherwise shut your traps.
We need to know what the r[SUP]2[/SUP] actually is to determine the percentage the recruiting variable commands in winning programs and non winning programs. I think I read somewhere on this board, or somewhere else, that it was a fairly low percentage, less than 30%. Other variables are certainly necessary for success like coaching ability, coaching tenure, conditioning level (the measurables), player intelligence, and a whole slew of other variables. As far as our ranking as numbe 11 does not mean we can not elevate our chances in the remaining 70% of variables with the package we have right now in players, coaches, facilities and commitment. What MV evaluated was just one variable and in that we only know of one factor of success. Getting into pissing contests without knowing how strong these other variables may be is typical of this board. Really not very helpful or enjoyable. Get your geek on and do a simple study on another variable and become a GH legend in the process. Otherwise shut your traps.
Dean S
You just broke a cardinal rule of pissing matches. You should never, ever use actual useful information when posting in a pissing match. Facts have no place in this type of discussion. You are only allowed to post your beliefs, half truths, and biases.
You just broke a cardinal rule of pissing matches. You should never, ever use actual useful information when posting in a pissing match. Facts have no place in this type of discussion. You are only allowed to post your beliefs, half truths, and biases.
Deleted_User
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 7,831
- Reaction score
- 535
- Points
- 113
Sorry. I missed orientation.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Huh? I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'm not defending Chadima. I'm just saying given the situation, the only way this becomes an NCAA matter is if something far bigger is going on. There doesn't seem to be any indication of that.
Badger2010
And what don't you understand about this per Originally Posted by Unregistered User:
"Shouldn't you be in the other thread defending your boy Chadima about his second...oops I mean third allegation?"
"Keep burying your head in the sand about that one. Just don't do it in front of Chadima."
As I recall you said something to effect there is nothing to these charges and these things happen all the time. Then you added that any of us could be charged with this. I don't know about you but I couldn't be charged.
And what don't you understand about this per Originally Posted by Unregistered User:
"Shouldn't you be in the other thread defending your boy Chadima about his second...oops I mean third allegation?"
"Keep burying your head in the sand about that one. Just don't do it in front of Chadima."
As I recall you said something to effect there is nothing to these charges and these things happen all the time. Then you added that any of us could be charged with this. I don't know about you but I couldn't be charged.
GophersInIowa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 40,900
- Reaction score
- 21,928
- Points
- 113
Rivals and other sights rank recruits/teams based on talent and potential. I think they do a pretty good job of that (even in out 2008 class). The rankings don't take into account:
1. Academics, a history of trouble, bad character, etc.
2. Positions of need for a certain team. A team can go out and sign three stud RBs and that will help their recruiting rankings. What if that team already had a bunch of very good RBs on their roster? And what if that same team was thin at DB and signed no one at that position? Rivals doesn't take into account those situations.
3. Coaching and system. If Navy signed Gunner Kiel and tried using him as an option QB, their recruiting rankings would have increased but their success on the field probably wouldn't have (I know that's an extreme and unrealistic situation, but you get the point).
Most people get it, high rankings do not guarantee success. But it's much easier when you do have more talent and potential on the team.
I like our class this year for a couple of reasons:
1. We filled positions of need, and evened out the classes a little bit more
2. At least on paper, it seems Kill went after more guys with little to no "extra baggage". Guys that are in good academic standing, etc. That has been a big problem in the past. No matter how talented a guy is, if he can't get into school or stay eligible, it does us no good.
Most like this class because they feel it's a step in the right direction. Most don't think this class is going to propel us into BT contention all by itself, and most agree that the talent level needs to increase in the coming years.
1. Academics, a history of trouble, bad character, etc.
2. Positions of need for a certain team. A team can go out and sign three stud RBs and that will help their recruiting rankings. What if that team already had a bunch of very good RBs on their roster? And what if that same team was thin at DB and signed no one at that position? Rivals doesn't take into account those situations.
3. Coaching and system. If Navy signed Gunner Kiel and tried using him as an option QB, their recruiting rankings would have increased but their success on the field probably wouldn't have (I know that's an extreme and unrealistic situation, but you get the point).
Most people get it, high rankings do not guarantee success. But it's much easier when you do have more talent and potential on the team.
I like our class this year for a couple of reasons:
1. We filled positions of need, and evened out the classes a little bit more
2. At least on paper, it seems Kill went after more guys with little to no "extra baggage". Guys that are in good academic standing, etc. That has been a big problem in the past. No matter how talented a guy is, if he can't get into school or stay eligible, it does us no good.
Most like this class because they feel it's a step in the right direction. Most don't think this class is going to propel us into BT contention all by itself, and most agree that the talent level needs to increase in the coming years.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
With sexual assault? Absolutely, most people could have been charged with sexual assault at some point in their lives. Chadima is a POS for using his power to try and keep the staffer from talking. The guy let him get his belt completely undone before Chadima grabbed his junk. That's pretty incredible. Like I said in the other thread, if I got a girl's bra off, I would be pretty confused if she accused me of sexual assault for subsequently touching her boob. However, if she decided, she could have me charged with sexual assault for touching her boob in that situation, or at least that's what I've gathered from the Chadima situation.
It's not like Chadima walked up to the guy and quickly grabbed his dick. They were alone drinking, he moved close to the guy, undid his belt and THEN grabbed his junk. I don't know about you, but I know it never would have gotten that far if I were the staffer. It's not like we are talking about children here who are being robbed of their innocence or being taken advantage of. We are talking about a closet homosexual who makes a move on a straight guy, gets turned down, is embarrassed, and subsequently tries to use his power to keep the straight guy from outing his sexuality.
Unregistered User
Wild animal with a keyboard
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 14,788
- Reaction score
- 4,993
- Points
- 113
Oh...well when you state it like that, I don't think the guy should have even been fired.
What stage is denial? It's time you move on to acceptance.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Acceptance of what exactly? What am I in denial about?
Deleted_User
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 7,831
- Reaction score
- 535
- Points
- 113
I think coach Kill has done something that is necessary in vetting scholarship candidates, which is can they sustain their academic career so they can sustain their availability as athletes. If the answer is yes, he offers them a scholarship and goes after them. He also set a realistic goal of reaching a certain level of player. As most of his players reached at least a 3 star rating and showed good character, I think it is a very solid class. The idea is to achieve what might be called a player efficiency. If the candidate has a solid work ethic, has decent athletic measurables that can be improved, is not going to be academically challenged, and has really hot chile for the program, they have a good fit for success. In the past we had guys who wanted to succeed, but could only succeed at one area at a time and committed to their academic future more than success on the football field. If Kill is identifying candidates that could succeed both in the classroom and the field, he will have met his football efficiency. I think he needed to limit his selection to high academic achievers or potential achievers. Then, he needed to identify fit for his system. I think he has done very well in finding balance between his need for players this year and players from this class 4 and 5 years from now. I think 2 years from now, this class gives us at least 4-5 victories and an outside chance at 6. I think the current members can give us that right now. If we get to 6 this year, Kill can begin to upgrade his target level a little higher with a good chance at success. I think many small incremental steps forward over the coming years will raise performance on the field. I think if we gain in victories on 5 year moving averages forward, Jerry Kill will have the place rocking in no time at all. I especially like that the U is talking student experience at the games as being a vital component of the U cultural experience. If our students are partying like no tomorrow on game day, recruits will have one more thing to talk about when they go home from their recruiting visits. I really like the new emphasis on the total sports experience at the U. By next fall, I would expect a frenzy of excitement about the season. I can't wait.
Technically correct ....yet totally missing the op's point. To imply that these guys were really superstars that somehow were overlooked by Rivals, etc. (e.g. not evaluated) is ludicrous.
The writer was "saying" that the Patriots consistently get more out of what they are given then other teams. That good/smart coaching/team building can mean as much as raw talent (stars). (Often many of these highly rated recruits are so full of themselves that they don't understand there is no "i" in TEAM.)
Coaching, character, and team chemistry are what some coaches are able to bring to the table. Bellicheck is likely one of them. I believe Coach Kill is one of them.
Wow, just wow.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Pretend that what Chadima did was with a girl and it was her boob he grabbed after getting her bra off. What's the difference? Have you never tried to hook up with a girl before? What did I say that was incorrect? If that's sexual assault, then I could have been charged with sexual assault before. I remember in high school I was making out with a girl and I was interested in going further. She stopped me, and I respected her decision, however, because I touched her boob without asking, I could have been charged with sexual assault.
Bottom line here is that it has been statistically proven that there is a link between recruiting stars and success. Not because getting more stars makes a player better, but because better players generally have better rankings. Recruiting sites like Rivals and Scout are for fans, but even those evaluators can often tell who the best players are because they stand out on film. Plus they DO take into account the schools that are after kids. When the schools that can get the best of the best go after a kid it usually means that physically, the kid is an elite talent. If only lower level programs are after a kid, it usually means he's not the same level of athlete and player as the guys at his position that Bama and USC are after. Obviously once a guy gets on campus some guys show the capability to max out their potential by getting bigger, stronger, faster and smarter while others don't. But to say the rankings don't matter as if the level at which a team normally recruits (you have to look at these things over 4-5 years) has no correlation to where they end up in the standings is crazy. Also you have to take into account what happens on the field. When 9 SEC teams finish in the top 25 in recruiting, obviously over the next few years those teams will beat themselves up so some fool will point to TNs 6-6 record and top 25 recruiting classes as a reason stars don't matter while ignoring the fact that almost every conference game they play is against a team with similar or better rankings.
I am sorry; I didn't realize that you graduated from Penn State. Normally I find name calling here inappropriate and in poor taste (Unless it is wren) but in your case I am going to have to move beyond denial and right into acceptance and say you are really an idiot or as Maximus would say "Wow, just wow".
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
It's a simple question. What am I in denial about? What do I need to accept? I think Chadima is a bad person and he acted horribly. Is there something I am missing? Where does Penn State come into the equation? There are no young boys being tragically robbed of their innocence. To compare the two situations is an insult to the victims of Jerry Sandusky. The humiliation and torment those poor children have had live with is beyond words. To say their pain is comparable to what Chadima's victims feel is disgusting. You should be ashamed.
You’re the guy who said what Chadima did was no big deal and then you go on and say that the victim didn't protest fast enough and therefore Chadima was getting mixed signals. The truth is that Chadima was in a position of power which may have made it very difficult for the victim to react. That is why this situation is not unlike Penn State and that is why they are asking other victims to come forward. The good news is that appears that, unlike you, Wisconsin is not in denial and is trying to do the right thing now.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
So incredibly wrong. So now a 20 something guy gets his junk grabbed for a second = 10 year old boy being forcibly anally raped by a grown man? You can not be serious.
I truly believe what Chadima did was wrong, but his sexual act in and of itself was not wrong at all. He didn't force anyone to do anything. He didn't take advantage of the naivety of a child. He didn't merciless rape someone as they cried out for help. Do you see the difference between the two situations? I sure hope so. If not, you are sick in the mind and should really consider a psychological evaluation. Disgusting.
Badger2010
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Asking victims to come forward is the right thing to do, obviously.
Again, what am I in denial about? Seriously, what do I need to understand and accept?