Gopher's #33 on Rivals, ahead of Nebraska @ Oregon!

Donate To GopherHole
F

froggopher

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
549
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Noy too bad for a .500 season. Let's hope the final year of Brew's recruits meet all the requirements for a great season next year!! Remember, all you Gh'ers, that next year will be the year we really turn this program around. Right?

Go Gophers!!!!
 


froggopher said:
Noy too bad for a .500 season. Let's hope the final year of Brew's recruits meet all the requirements for a great season next year!! Remember, all you Gh'ers, that next year will be the year we really turn this program around. Right?

Go Gophers!!!!
Click to expand...

That can be deceiving as some of the schools behind Minnesota are taking a smaller class this year. I would suggest looking at the average stars per player if you want a more accurate representation of who is getting the better athletes according to Rivals regardless of class size. If you view it this way the gophers rank tied for 52nd in the nation with Colorado.
 

This is a pretty good class I would say. An additional defensive lineman and back wouldn't hurt. It will take years to verify one way or another. If one or two members of the class play next year that would be all you can expect.
 

GopherGod said:
That can be deceiving as some of the schools behind Minnesota are taking a smaller class this year. I would suggest looking at the average stars per player if you want a more accurate representation of who is getting the better athletes according to Rivals regardless of class size. If you view it this way the gophers rank tied for 52nd in the nation with Colorado.
Click to expand...

This is also not a good measure yet. A couple of the current commits have not been rated yet (Lewis and Veazie) and having 0 stars for two guys really skews the average. Also, based on past history with Brew's recruits, some of these guys may get new higher ratings before NSD.
 


GopherGod said:
That can be deceiving as some of the schools behind Minnesota are taking a smaller class this year. I would suggest looking at the average stars per player if you want a more accurate representation of who is getting the better athletes according to Rivals regardless of class size. If you view it this way the gophers rank tied for 52nd in the nation with Colorado.
Click to expand...


Can we go back and re-rank Mason's classes? So instead of being 50th in the country he was really 86th?
 

koppco1 said:
This is also not a good measure yet. A couple of the current commits have not been rated yet (Lewis and Veazie) and having 0 stars for two guys really skews the average. Also, based on past history with Brew's recruits, some of these guys may get new higher ratings before NSD.
Click to expand...


Alot of the other programs around Minnesota in the rankings can say the same thing as well, unranked prospects is not unique to Minnesota. However, I do agree if you want to rank the classes most accurately I would go based on average stars per player once all schools commits have been ranked.
 

Not too shabby, but we need to move up significantly not just in the rankings but in our avg star power. All else equal, it needs to be in 3.5-4.0 if we are to be in a position next year and beyond, talent wise, to overcome the poor coaching outcomes we've seen this season, assuming that does not improve (here's hoping)....Weber/offense regression, limited use of Gray, penalties, play calling (how 'bout that full back dive twice in a row), ill advised timeouts, on field confusion, turnovers, etc. Talent only gets you so far folks. You get the pic.
 

GopherGod said:
That can be deceiving as some of the schools behind Minnesota are taking a smaller class this year. I would suggest looking at the average stars per player if you want a more accurate representation of who is getting the better athletes according to Rivals regardless of class size. If you view it this way the gophers rank tied for 52nd in the nation with Colorado.
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point in schools taking in smaller classes. Now I haven't looked into this recruiting class much as none of the players signed L.O.I. However, in previous classes instead of looking at stars I always averaged the rivals ratings instead of the stars as I personally would rather have a bunch of 5.7 players (almost 4 stars) and a few 5.4 players (two stars) than all 5.5 players (low 3 stars) even though it may hurt the star ratings and make the class appear not as strong.
 



GopherGod said:
Alot of the other programs around Minnesota in the rankings can say the same thing as well, unranked prospects is not unique to Minnesota. However, I do agree if you want to rank the classes most accurately I would go based on average stars per player once all schools commits have been ranked.
Click to expand...

If you want to rank the classes in the most accurate manner, go with results on the field. The games are the only results that matter.
 


GVBadger said:
If you want to rank the classes in the most accurate manner, go with results on the field. The games are the only results that matter.
Click to expand...

ok! do you have an 86 delorean with a flux capaciter?
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
How did I know that was coming?
Click to expand...

The coaching graveyard is littered with guys that could supposedly recruit but couldn't coach their way out of a paper bag.

Unless you are recruiting top 5 or 10 talent, (and even that is no guarantee, see Weis, Charlie) which University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster is not, then finding the right players for your system (does he have one?) and developing them is far more important to the success of a program then what any recrutiing service thinks of the players that the coach is bringing in.

Just don't want everyone to be disappointed with the 6-6 or worse record next year when all the great University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster's recruits are on the field.

Of course, you will still have the Weber excuse next year, and everyone knows he was a lowly Mason recruit. Which begs the question, what happened to heralded 4 star recuit Gray, the poster boy for the new regime. Wasn't he just the type of recruit that University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster was going to turn around the program with?
 



IMHO rivals is correct in penalizing smaller recruiting classes with a lower rating. A class of 25 players with an average star rating of 2.8 is probably going to yield better results in a 4 year span than a class of 15 players with an average start rating of 3.0.
 

GVBadger said:
Just don't want everyone to be disappointed with the 6-6 or worse record next year when all the great University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster's recruits are on the field.
Click to expand...

Glad to know you're concerned. I think that everyone knows that winning and losing games on the field is what matters. I think that everyone (or almost everyone) also knows that ranking the potential of recruits is an inexact science. However, some people enjoy following and talking recruiting. Posting your "results of the field are what matters" comment every time recruiting is mentioned on this board gets old. I understand that its your passive-aggressive way to try remind everyone that Wisconsin has had some success on the field since the mid nineties but it gets old just the same.
 

GopherGod said:
That can be deceiving as some of the schools behind Minnesota are taking a smaller class this year. I would suggest looking at the average stars per player if you want a more accurate representation of who is getting the better athletes according to Rivals regardless of class size. If you view it this way the gophers rank tied for 52nd in the nation with Colorado.
Click to expand...

I agree with the smaller class statement. That's why the 2009 class was rated lower. If we go by star average, the Gophers had the 30th ranked class in '09. I know some Gopherholers and many media members were wondering why last year's class was "so bad" (which it wasn't, just using their words). We just had a smaller class last year.
 

GVBadger said:
The coaching graveyard is littered with guys that could supposedly recruit but couldn't coach their way out of a paper bag.

Unless you are recruiting top 5 or 10 talent, (and even that is no guarantee, see Weis, Charlie) which University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster is not, then finding the right players for your system (does he have one?) and developing them is far more important to the success of a program then what any recrutiing service thinks of the players that the coach is bringing in.

Just don't want everyone to be disappointed with the 6-6 or worse record next year when all the great University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster's recruits are on the field.

Of course, you will still have the Weber excuse next year, and everyone knows he was a lowly Mason recruit. Which begs the question, what happened to heralded 4 star recuit Gray, the poster boy for the new regime. Wasn't he just the type of recruit that University of Minnesota Golden Gophers head coach Tim Brewster was going to turn around the program with?
Click to expand...

It pains me to give props to a Badger troll, but basically what he said. Brewster is a poor coach. The only way to overcome that is with truly exceptional recruiting (say top 10 nationally or at least top 3 Big 10). None of his classes have done this, and it doesn't appear this year's will either. Improving our classes from the 50's to the 30's is all well and good, but it doesn't help if the game-day coaching is weak. That appears to be the case here. So unless that somehow magically improves, I'm afraid we all know what we'll be talking about one year from now.

Here's to that magical improvement occuring. If it doesn't, getting a competent coach here to teach Brewster's higher caliber atheletes may be the ticket to at least short-term success. If that coach can harness that momentum into sustained recruiting success, well then you have something. Ron Zook was a great recruiter and terrible coach at Florida. Urban Meyer took his athletes and won a national title. He took a program that had begun to slip towards mediocrity right along side Miami and FSU and vaulted it back to the top. I'm not comparing us to Florida, but on a smaller scale, perhaps it can be done. (Vaulting us to the Outback Bowl's not too much to ask.)
 


Average stars means little. Stars are almost worthless except it's pretty. RR values are most the important number on rivals. The rivals team point system isn't bad for analyzing the impact of a certain class in the future. It's measuring the strength of the class, and depth is an important factor. The size of the class is important.

To take it to the next level you have to measure the strength of the entire team, using a rolling four year measurement and weighting experience accordingly (seniors are more productive than freshmen). It's relatively easy to do, although a bit time consuming. But when done quite predictive of future success.
 

GopherGod said:
Alot of the other programs around Minnesota in the rankings can say the same thing as well, unranked prospects is not unique to Minnesota. However, I do agree if you want to rank the classes most accurately I would go based on average stars per player once all schools commits have been ranked.
Click to expand...

Perhaps average rating (numerical)...or average rating for say, the top-20 players (those most likely to have a significant future). But certainly NOT average stars. A team of all 5.7-rated Rivals players would still have a 3* average, yet so would a team of all 5.5-rated players. There is a significant difference, though, as attested by the fact that Rivals rated them differently. Moreover, if that team with all 5.5 players gets just one 4* player, then their STAR average is higher than the other team. Rivals has given recruiting points for just that reason - because they view 6.0s 4* players as significantly better than 5.8 4* players, and 5.7 3* players as significantly better than 5.5 3* players. Rivals only gives those players stars because that's what the eye catches - less people would care about Rivals rankings if they were just numbers between 5.0 and 6.x.

What you're saying is that Iowa and Minnesota, who average a lot of 5.7 and 5.6 rated recruits, does no better than Indiana or Purdue, who get mostly 5.5 star players. Obviously there is a difference.
 

Schnoodler said:
To take it to the next level you have to measure the strength of the entire team, using a rolling four year measurement and weighting experience accordingly (seniors are more productive than freshmen). It's relatively easy to do, although a bit time consuming. But when done quite predictive of future success.
Click to expand...

How do you account for the redshirt year if you use a four year cycle? Every year there are at least a few seniors from two classes.

Would like to see the data.
 

Rankings by Rivals

Thanks for your responses GH'ers. If anyone can remember back in 1959, Murray Warmath was about to run out out of town. He responded by winning the national championship the next year at the U. Could Brew do something fantastic at the U next year? I think their is a chance he could.

Why not?
 



howeda7 said:
It pains me to give props to a Badger troll, but basically what he said. Brewster is a poor coach. The only way to overcome that is with truly exceptional recruiting (say top 10 nationally or at least top 3 Big 10). None of his classes have done this, and it doesn't appear this year's will either. Improving our classes from the 50's to the 30's is all well and good, but it doesn't help if the game-day coaching is weak. That appears to be the case here. So unless that somehow magically improves, I'm afraid we all know what we'll be talking about one year from now.

Here's to that magical improvement occuring. If it doesn't, getting a competent coach here to teach Brewster's higher caliber atheletes may be the ticket to at least short-term success. If that coach can harness that momentum into sustained recruiting success, well then you have something. Ron Zook was a great recruiter and terrible coach at Florida. Urban Meyer took his athletes and won a national title. He took a program that had begun to slip towards mediocrity right along side Miami and FSU and vaulted it back to the top. I'm not comparing us to Florida, but on a smaller scale, perhaps it can be done. (Vaulting us to the Outback Bowl's not too much to ask.)
Click to expand...

the "ron zook was a terrible coach at florida" is stupid. he came in and was building his program and he won a lot more then he lost! he then went to illinois and took them to a rose bowl. the guy can coach and hearing people speak about coaches that are amazing or horrid make me laugh! these guys all can coach or they wouldn't have a job anywhere. its all about the right situation. I think brew could be a good coach, but brew being positive about the U and life in general makes me think he won't work in Minny? I think we need some negative guy that calls out all players and officials etc. the twin cities treats all sports as if they are professionals and its annoying and laughable
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom