Class rated 37th by Rivals

Donate To GopherHole

That is great. For a small class, this is good and ahead of Bucky.

I think it will change as there are a number of Blue Chippers still out there that may bump us down when they sign.
 

I was hoping for 14.972 or better, but, who knows, maybe a lot of these guys will be good Big Ten players.
 


Iowa, working hard to crack the Top 60. That program better hope Ferentz never leaves cause they won't find another coach good enough to coach up this lackluster talent that has been getting brought in the past few years. Is this the 3rd year in a row they haven't cracked the top 50??? That will catch up with them at some point.
 


sonnygarcia said:
Iowa, working hard to crack the Top 60. That program better hope Ferentz never leaves cause they won't find another coach good enough to coach up this lackluster talent that has been getting brought in the past few years. Is this the 3rd year in a row they haven't cracked the top 50??? That will catch up with them at some point.
Click to expand...

A HOME loss of Floyd to Iowa by a score of 55-0 would suggest to me that we should say nothing about Iowa until after we beat them in a football game.:(
 

Something I just noticed on Rivals. Our two-star guys are Oreske and Rengel. Oreske is a punter and I don't know how many stars those guys usually get and Rengel won't enroll this fall due to his injury. In other words, all of the "every play" guys who will join the program are 3-star or better.

I don't worship the "star" system of evaluation, but at least on paper, this is a pretty good looking class.
 

39th now, but the avr star is 3.05 and that is equal to or better then 7 teams that are ranked ahead of us. There is no one below us with a higher or equal avr star rating either. So I think this is a very solid class, a couple more 3 stars and we'd probably shoot up significantly.
 

Is 3.05 better than 3? No, it is not. It is not any better than 2.51 nor any worse than 3.49. These places to the right of the decimal have no meaning in this context. You can't invent accuracy by inventing decimal places.

Sorry, we must all work at fighting back the return to mysticism, superstition and fake science. Such is the burden of an educated mind.
 



Goldy74s said:
Is 3.05 better than 3? No, it is not. It is not any better than 2.51 nor any worse than 3.49. These places to the right of the decimal have no meaning in this context. You can't invent accuracy by inventing decimal places.

Sorry, we must all work at fighting back the return to mysticism, superstition and fake science. Such is the burden of an educated mind.
Click to expand...

God you are an annoying ass......
 

Goldy74s said:
It is not any better than 2.51 nor any worse than 3.49. These places to the right of the decimal have no meaning in this context. You can't invent accuracy by inventing decimal places.

Sorry, we must all work at fighting back the return to mysticism, superstition and fake science. Such is the burden of an educated mind.
Click to expand...

Considering this is an average of integers, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
 

Goldy74s said:
I

Sorry, we must all work at fighting back the return to mysticism, superstition and fake science. Such is the burden of an educated mind.
Click to expand...

Sounds like more the burden of a Canadian Public School education...
 




sonnygarcia said:
Iowa, working hard to crack the Top 60. That program better hope Ferentz never leaves cause they won't find another coach good enough to coach up this lackluster talent that has been getting brought in the past few years. Is this the 3rd year in a row they haven't cracked the top 50??? That will catch up with them at some point.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where that idea started. Iowa's 2005 - 2007 classes were quite good. A solid number of three and four star recruits.

Take a look: http://iowa.rivals.com/commitlist.asp
 

Gold Vision said:
Considering this is an average of integers, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Click to expand...

Never use solid argument when name calling distractions is all you have got. There are no integers here, just estimates made by pizza salesmen. Therefore, there are no numbers to the right of the decimal.
 

Iceland12 said:
Sounds like more the burden of a Canadian Public School education...
Click to expand...

Illinois Catholic education followed by public high school in the suburbs. You know, Hillary Clinton and all that. (wait, is that good ?:confused:)
 

Iceland12 said:
I'm not sure where that idea started. Iowa's 2005 - 2007 classes were quite good. A solid number of three and four star recruits.

Take a look: http://iowa.rivals.com/commitlist.asp
Click to expand...


2006: 2 four+ stars
2008: 0 four+ stars
2009: 2 four+ stars

Just lots and lots of 2 stars the last 4 years, I'm just saying those 2 star guys will catch up with them (although 2007 was a good year for them recruiting wise) if Ferentz isn't there coaching them up (or even if he is there who knows if he will be able to coach them up, we'll see).
 

Goldy74s said:
A HOME loss of Floyd to Iowa by a score of 55-0 would suggest to me that we should say nothing about Iowa until after we beat them in a football game.:(
Click to expand...

Tool bag, I'll say whatever I want about Iowa, they have football on us (currently), they can't touch us in basketball or baseball, and their football days are soon to be over!!
 

Goldy74s said:
Is 3.05 better than 3? No, it is not. It is not any better than 2.51 nor any worse than 3.49. These places to the right of the decimal have no meaning in this context. You can't invent accuracy by inventing decimal places.

Sorry, we must all work at fighting back the return to mysticism, superstition and fake science. Such is the burden of an educated mind.
Click to expand...

It's called a mean. That is a basic statistical measure. Nothing is 'invented'. It is a simple, rudimentary tool used by statisticians to make comparisons among data sets.
 


Goldy74s said:
Is 3.05 better than 3? No, it is not. It is not any better than 2.51 nor any worse than 3.49. These places to the right of the decimal have no meaning in this context. You can't invent accuracy by inventing decimal places.

Sorry, we must all work at fighting back the return to mysticism, superstition and fake science. Such is the burden of an educated mind.
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon but the places to the right of the decimal do have meaning. Those are called numbers.

Perhaps this is why you are in your 50s and unemployed, sir.
 

sonnygarcia said:
2006: 2 four+ stars
2008: 0 four+ stars
2009: 2 four+ stars

Just lots and lots of 2 stars the last 4 years, I'm just saying those 2 star guys will catch up with them (although 2007 was a good year for them recruiting wise) if Ferentz isn't there coaching them up (or even if he is there who knows if he will be able to coach them up, we'll see).
Click to expand...

No problem; I agree with you. I hope that 2008 and 2009 are the start of a trend. What was strange is the number of posts after the last game, from a lot of Iowa fans oddly enough, who said that the talent level was equal. That Iowa only had two or three 4 Star players.

Well they had 7 in 2005 and 1 5 star. The 2 you mentioned in 2006 and another 5 in 2007. They might have fallen out but that's at least 15 that still had eligibility for last November's game.

Depth and talent may be swinging the Gopher's way. It certainly wasn't there in 2007 or 2008.
 

Yea, definetely have high class athletes left over from the 2005 class you mention, so it will take some time for the committments from this year and last year to show through for Iowa. 2 four+ stars the last two years just aren't going to cut it.
 

biggieb45 said:
It's called a mean. That is a basic statistical measure. Nothing is 'invented'. It is a simple, rudimentary tool used by statisticians to make comparisons among data sets.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if you are counting something solid like "dead bodies in a room" you can end up with a mean (average) of 3.55 per room. If you are counting an estimate like "about 3 stars" you can only end up with "ours is about 3, theirs is about 3". That is all. Once you start with something vague you never get any more than vague.

You can not use any sort of statistical crap to make something inexact seem more exact. Bogus, fake science, science.
 


sec105 said:
Baseball? What's that got to do with anything?
Click to expand...

4 Major Sports in America:

Football
Baseball
Basketball
Hockey


Just comparing us to Iowa in each since Goldy74 seems to think we can't talk Iowa smack (in any regards, not just football) cause we lose one blowout game in football.
 

Goldy74s said:
Sorry, if you are counting something solid like "dead bodies in a room" you can end up with a mean (average) of 3.55 per room. If you are counting an estimate like "about 3 stars" you can only end up with "ours is about 3, theirs is about 3". That is all. Once you start with something vague you never get any more than vague.

You can not use any sort of statistical crap to make something inexact seem more exact. Bogus, fake science, science.
Click to expand...

What's so inexact about the star ranking system? Sorry, but your argument is really lame.
 

Goldy74s said:
Sorry, if you are counting something solid like "dead bodies in a room" you can end up with a mean (average) of 3.55 per room. If you are counting an estimate like "about 3 stars" you can only end up with "ours is about 3, theirs is about 3". That is all. Once you start with something vague you never get any more than vague.

You can not use any sort of statistical crap to make something inexact seem more exact. Bogus, fake science, science.
Click to expand...

So, Loon, how do you end up with partial bodies in a room by averaging?
 

Guys, you are once again letting Loon hijack a thread. We all know he's from the Glen Mason School of Recruiting, and he will spend the next 50 posts explaining why if you let him.
 

Goldy74s said:
Sorry, if you are counting something solid like "dead bodies in a room" you can end up with a mean (average) of 3.55 per room. If you are counting an estimate like "about 3 stars" you can only end up with "ours is about 3, theirs is about 3". That is all. Once you start with something vague you never get any more than vague.

You can not use any sort of statistical crap to make something inexact seem more exact. Bogus, fake science, science.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. The "about 3 stars" this is where .05, .61, etc. would come into play. That is your 'about'. You can have a mean (average) of 3.05 stars per recruit. You're the one saying 'about 3 stars', no one else is. You're making the statements vague. Our recruits are listed as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 stars, that is pretty specific. You're telling me if I gave you this set of numbers: 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, you cannot give me a sample mean? I get 3.05. Not that difficult of a concept, unless you went to NIACC! Kidding, I have friends that went to NIACC. I know they have at least that education.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom