Minnesota Now at #36 on Rivals, "Pig Red Machine" at #69

Donate To GopherHole
highwayman

highwayman

Knows Less Than Coaching Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
7,894
Reaction score
1,577
Points
113
And the Budgie's ranking includes the savior of the program, Konrad "Zbigniew Zabriskie" Zagzebski.
 

highwayman said:
And the Budgie's ranking includes the savior of the program, Konrad "Zbigniew Zabriskie" Zagzebski.
Click to expand...

yea, not surprising here, Becky doesn't have any recruits, ZERO, that are rated above a 5.6. You can pull out the "they are just ratings" line in some cases, but not this one, that is just pathetic.
 

>>Pig Red Machine<<

How have I gone through life not having heard this?

ROFLMAO.
 

Studwell55 said:
>>Pig Red Machine<<

How have I gone through life not having heard this?

ROFLMAO.
Click to expand...

Just made it up today. I try and come up with a new one every time. It's kind of brain exercise like Sudoku, but with hatred thrown in.
 



This is great.

How about beating Whisky on the football field instead of some nerds' recruiting poll? That would be even better.
 


I just think it's great how many guys we've gotten from WIS this year.
 

I hate to even put this out there because this is a massively fun thread thus far. But I think the Rivals rankings might be a little screwed up right now. Wiscy's ranking makes about zero sense. Compare it to others ahead of them.

don't mean to rain on the parade but I'm thinking whatever error they have in the system will be corrected at some point.
 



31 in Scout's ratings for the Badgers, 38 for Minnesota. I know, Scout's ratings stink.

Recruiting rankings don't win games on the field, but I am pretty sure you figure that out every year, especially when you play the Badgers.
 

GVBadger said:
31 in Scout's ratings for the Badgers, 38 for Minnesota. I know, Scout's ratings stink.

Recruiting rankings don't win games on the field, but I am pretty sure you figure that out every year, especially when you play the Badgers.
Click to expand...

No, not really actually, we just started out-recruiting the badgers 2 years ago (since Brewster bolstered our program and BB started to bring yours down) so you've just been beating us with the nice classes Barry had and that BB was able to reel in before people caught onto him.

But however you want to spin it to hide your fears is cool
 

You are one crazy lady GVBadger

<a href="http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/1418396143031139159ChaDho"><img src="http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/44419/1418396143031139159S600x600Q85.jpg" alt="Captain Morgan & Me on the Lake"></a>
 

Gold Vision said:
You are one crazy lady GVBadger

<a href="http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/1418396143031139159ChaDho"><img src="http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/44419/1418396143031139159S600x600Q85.jpg" alt="Captain Morgan & Me on the Lake"></a>
Click to expand...

So GVBadger is a woman?

Interesting...

(I would never apply the term lady to a female from Wisconsin. Pretty much a contradiction in terms.)
 



sonnygarcia said:
No, not really actually, we just started out-recruiting the badgers 2 years ago (since Brewster bolstered our program and BB started to bring yours down) so you've just been beating us with the nice classes Barry had and that BB was able to reel in before people caught onto him.

But however you want to spin it to hide your fears is cool
Click to expand...

In the important category, UW 2 Punky 0.

In the numbers you care about:

Scout

2007

UW 41
UM 60

2008

UW 26
UM 28

2009

UM 46
UW 51

2010

UW 31
UM 38

You have an interesting way of interpreting numbers.

Also, Alvarez did not have highly rated classes. Since you are making a stupid argument, I will help you out. The recruiting has not changed at all, perhaps gotten a little better. Keep holding on to the "Badgers won with Barry's high ranked classes though." It is good for a nice laugh.

2002 51
2003 36
2004 37
2005 35
 

Not too many people will dispute that Barry was good to great at all aspects of the NCAA football. Probably not statue worthy, but i didn't pay for it....
 

GVBadger said:
In the important category, UW 2 Punky 0.

In the numbers you care about:

Scout

2007

UW 41
UM 60

2008

UW 26
UM 28

2009

UM 46
UW 51

2010

UW 31
UM 38

You have an interesting way of interpreting numbers.

Also, Alvarez did not have highly rated classes. Since you are making a stupid argument, I will help you out. The recruiting has not changed at all, perhaps gotten a little better. Keep holding on to the "Badgers won with Barry's high ranked classes though." It is good for a nice laugh.

2002 51
2003 36
2004 37
2005 35
Click to expand...

Now use the same statistics from Rivals and you have no argument, which is where this topic was referenced in the first place. :cry:

Not to mention your class this year looks horrible.
 

GVBadger said:
In the important category, UW 2 Punky 0.

In the numbers you care about:

Scout

2007

UW 41
UM 60

2008

UW 26
UM 28

2009

UM 46
UW 51

2010

UW 31
UM 38

You have an interesting way of interpreting numbers.

Also, Alvarez did not have highly rated classes. Since you are making a stupid argument, I will help you out. The recruiting has not changed at all, perhaps gotten a little better. Keep holding on to the "Badgers won with Barry's high ranked classes though." It is good for a nice laugh.

2002 51
2003 36
2004 37
2005 35
Click to expand...

She's right. Wins and losses are all that matter. And while I understand recruiting debates in the off season, they seem somewhat out of place when we're actually playing games. But I'll give it a try.

Using only Scouts numbers is a bit misleading, as Rivals disagrees almost across the board. I won't use 2007, because that was not Brewster's class (there is no rational argument that he got those kids to Minnesota, although you could argue he was able to keep them from decommitting). Here's the breakdown:

2008 (U of M v. UW)

17 v. 41

2009

39 v. 43

2010

36 v. 69

If you average the ranking evenly using both Scout and Rivals, you get:

2008 (U of M v. UW)

22.5 v. 33.5

2009

42.5 v. 47

2010

37 v. 50

So Brewster wins in a walk. But all this proves is recruiting arguments are too subjective and the "rankings" are easily manipulated. We'll probably have a better idea about the condition of are respective programs Oct. 3rd.

Personally, I'm very excited about where our program is right now. I have numerous friends who are Badger fans, and none of them are happy with the condition of their program.
 

Listen up drunken lady, most of the world sets the standard using Rivals Ratings, I'm sure Scout would show about the same trend though. All they really show is that Wisconsin recruiting has been consistantly mediocre, but light years ahead of Minnesota pre Brew. Minnesota's classes have been significantly upgraded since Brewster came aboard. Throw out the 69 that rivals has right now for the drunken sconnies (see photo above) and Minnesota classes have been on average over 10 spots higher than Wisconsin.

Per Rivals:

MN 2002-2007
55
37
58
55
62
57
Average 54

MN 2008-2010
17
39
36
Average 30.67

WI 2002-2007
50
40
39
33
42
34
Average 39.67

WI 2008-2010
41
43
69

Average 51
 

GVBadger said:
In the important category, UW 2 Punky 0.

In the numbers you care about:

Scout

2007

UW 41
UM 60

2008

UW 26
UM 28

2009

UM 46
UW 51

2010

UW 31
UM 38

You have an interesting way of interpreting numbers.

Also, Alvarez did not have highly rated classes. Since you are making a stupid argument, I will help you out. The recruiting has not changed at all, perhaps gotten a little better. Keep holding on to the "Badgers won with Barry's high ranked classes though." It is good for a nice laugh.

2002 51
2003 36
2004 37
2005 35
Click to expand...

These are the rankings by Rivals (the site I choose to pay money for) for the classes that have been on the field for the games that Bielema has coached vs. Brewster.

2004 (Seniors in 2007):
Wisc: 39
Minn: 58

2005:
Wisc: 33
Minn: 55

2006:
Wisc: 42
Minn: 62

2007:
Wisc: 34
Minn: 57

Enter Brewster

2008:
Wisc: 41
Minn: 17

2009:
Wisc: 43
Minn: 39

2010:
Wisc: 69
Minn: 36
 

GVBadger said:
In the important category, UW 2 Punky 0.

In the numbers you care about:

Scout

2007

UW 41
UM 60

2008

UW 26
UM 28

2009

UM 46
UW 51

2010

UW 31
UM 38

You have an interesting way of interpreting numbers.

Also, Alvarez did not have highly rated classes. Since you are making a stupid argument, I will help you out. The recruiting has not changed at all, perhaps gotten a little better. Keep holding on to the "Badgers won with Barry's high ranked classes though." It is good for a nice laugh.

2002 51
2003 36
2004 37
2005 35
Click to expand...

Calling me stupid then you go using Scout for ratings. Check BB's record each year hes been there, if I recall its gotten worse each year :clap: .


Keep trolling tool, heres a suggestion: get a job or a hobby instead of trolling Big Ten message boards, God I can only image how few friends you have :(
 

ooooooooooohohhhhhhh, damn GV, looks like Grunkie just proved you wrong. Like I said, enjoy it while it lasts, you better keep scheduling cupcakes over there in Madison so your record at least stays close to .500
 

All of the big long comments with all the meaningless numbers lost me. All I enjoyed was the reference to "Pig Red Machine" .
 

Numbers:

6 > 0.

Even Iowa (yeah, Iowa) can make a good argument for one.
 

But it would take them an hour to determine if it is true or not, MrGopher.
 

sonnygarcia said:
ooooooooooohohhhhhhh, damn GV, looks like Grunkie just proved you wrong. Like I said, enjoy it while it lasts, you better keep scheduling cupcakes over there in Madison so your record at least stays close to .500
Click to expand...

It is so not worth it, but I will try again.

You don't win anything when someone tells you that you are recruting well. You win by outscoring the opposition.

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand, but I guess it is.

If you want to hang your hat on the theory that you wll suddenly start beating Wisconsin because some internet recruiting service says you are recruiting better, knock yourself out. If that theory was true, the Badgers would rarely win a Big Ten game. The Badgers have consistently beaten teams that have "recruited" better then them.

I promise that when the Badgers keep beating the Gophers 10 out of every 12 games, I will make you a recruting axe that you can put in the empty trophy case.

If you can't see how subjective recruiting rankings are simply by comparing Rivals and Scout, then I can't help you.

Keep living in your fantasy world. I wouldn't hang your hat much on the cupcake theory either. I would post the numbers but I know numbers that are not in your favor don't mean anything to you.

Good luck against NU. That is going to be a tough football game.
 

Enjoy it while it lasts badger. There is a lag to recruiting as it pertains to W's. The party in Madison is almost over. You may have two more years of mediocrity and then you guys are right back where you belong, the barry fiesta is over.
 

Done at last?

And it all started with a "Pig Red Machine"...

Look for "Best Wisconsin Nickname Rips" thread next week...
 

Maybe things are different in 2009, but in 2008 you could step over Bret's head in the men's room at the Dry Bean off of Verona Rd in Fitch.
They will regret ever giving the head job to a Hawkeye.
 

GVBadger said:
It is so not worth it, but I will try again.

You don't win anything when someone tells you that you are recruting well. You win by outscoring the opposition.

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand, but I guess it is.

If you want to hang your hat on the theory that you wll suddenly start beating Wisconsin because some internet recruiting service says you are recruiting better, knock yourself out. If that theory was true, the Badgers would rarely win a Big Ten game. The Badgers have consistently beaten teams that have "recruited" better then them.

I promise that when the Badgers keep beating the Gophers 10 out of every 12 games, I will make you a recruting axe that you can put in the empty trophy case.

If you can't see how subjective recruiting rankings are simply by comparing Rivals and Scout, then I can't help you.

Keep living in your fantasy world. I wouldn't hang your hat much on the cupcake theory either. I would post the numbers but I know numbers that are not in your favor don't mean anything to you.

Good luck against NU. That is going to be a tough football game.
Click to expand...


Nice effort. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are pretending to miss the point. Brewster has only two recruiting classes in the bank. The oldest are sophomores(with a few JCs sprinkled in), and most are freshmen or redshirts. We all know that Wisconsin had our number in the Mason years, and many of his recruits are still on the field. The power shift to the west isn't quite complete yet, but it's moving in that direction.
 

Hates Monikers said:
Nice effort. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are pretending to miss the point. Brewster has only two recruiting classes in the bank. The oldest are sophomores(with a few JCs sprinkled in), and most are freshmen or redshirts. We all know that Wisconsin had our number in the Mason years, and many of his recruits are still on the field. The power shift to the west isn't quite complete yet, but it's moving in that direction.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. The point is that higher ranked recruiting classes do not guarantee wins on the field. Not to mention, his second class was rated 51st on Scout after taking into account who got into school, sounds pretty Grinster like to me.

But for arguments sake, let's assume the recruiting services do think he is recruiting better. Just because a recruiting service says you are recruiting better, does not mean you will win more games. If the recruiting rankings were the only important thing, the Badgers would win 3 games a year.

The Badgers recruiting has not changed at all compared to the last 15 years. If people want to hold out the hope that improved recruiting by Minnesota is going to change the tide of the series, that's great. The good news is the results on the field will tell the story.

The notion that the UW program is falling apart and it is a result of a downward trend in recruiting is absurd.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom