Next Pissing Contest

[Killjoy]

In my never ending quest to supply this board with pissing match content I present you this interesting tidbit from the Strib:

"Seven players on the Patriots' Super bowl roster were labled no-star recruits by Rivals.com coming out of high school:"

1. Kyle Arrington
2. Dane Fetcher
3. James Ihedigbo
4. Nick McDonald
5. Antwaun Molden
6. Donald Thomas
7. Danny Woodhead

Hopefully this will give us something to "discuss" until the sring game arrives. Well at least it will be new slant on the star rankings question. I wonder what these guys 40 times are?

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

O.K. Then can we discuss this problem I'm having, see, I've got this rash and it itches like hell and...

 

[dpodoll68]

No one is "labeled" a no-star recruit by Rivals. Recruits with no stars are players who were never evaluated. Being "labeled" as a no-star implies that they were looked at and deemed worthy of no stars. It is not a subtle distinction, but I wouldn't expect a writer like Michael Rand to grasp such nuance.

 

[Gopher07]

Now I know why they lost. Shoulda had more 4 stars.

 

[MNfootballfan]

[*]Danny Woodhead

I wonder what these guys 40 times are?

Just to start an argument... It was reported that his 40 time was from 4.33 to 4.38 when coming out of college....

Pretty fast for a D2 guy!

 

[Killjoy]

No one is "labeled" a no-star recruit by Rivals. Recruits with no stars are players who were never evaluated. Being "labeled" as a no-star implies that they were looked at and deemed worthy of no stars. It is not a subtle distinction, but I wouldn't expect a writer like Michael Rand to grasp such nuance.

As you already know you are right again.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Didn't see the article but was there some angle he was going for, did he try and tie to Gophers recruiting or anything like that? And to build on dpodoll's comment there is a huge difference between unranked and no star. Who knows why those players were not ranked but chances are that if they had been most would have been high 2 to low 3 star guys.

 

[DMB123]

All recruiting rankings are a joke, including Rivals. Anyone who pays any attention to them whatsoever simply doesn't trust their own two eyes when evaluation players. It's funny how people actually think the 2008 class was so good simply due to the amount of stars when the talent level in that class wasn't any better than this year's class, or most of Mason's classes. That class is only better if you look at stars, which I pay no attention to.

When recruiting rankings give 4 stars to players like...Paris Hamilton, Hayo Carpenter, Michael Carter, Brandon Green, Spencer Reeves(Scout or ESPN had him a 4 star), Keenon Cooper, and then give 2 or even zero stars to players like...Eric Decker, Marion Barber, Greg Eslinger, etc. I can't believe anyone pays attention to those people.

If Pirsig would have chosen Auburn or Ohio State or any other national power he would be a 4 star recruit. Same goes with Phil Nelson. If a 3 star recruit starts getting offers from the OSU's, FSU's, and Alabama's of the world they automatically go up to a 4 star recruit. The whole thing is a joke. Wisconsin has been a top 10 team for a while now and they do it with classes ranked in the 30's and 40's nationally. And Texas has been bad for two years in a row now with top 5 type of classes. Cases like those simply wouldn't be possible if these rankings were even remotely accurate.

 

[GophersInIowa]

All recruiting rankings are a joke, including Rivals. Anyone who pays any attention to them whatsoever simply doesn't trust their own two eyes when evaluation players.

These kind of sights are for fans. Hard to trust our own two eyes when the players are all over the country. The highlight videos you see on youtube are not a good way to evaluate a player because it only shows the good they've done.

It's funny how people actually think the 2008 class was so good simply due to the amount of stars when the talent level in that class wasn't any better than this year's class, or most of Mason's classes. That class is only better if you look at stars, which I pay no attention to.

I don't think you can deny that there wasn't a lot of talent in that class, and not simply because of stars. Many of those guys didn't live up to their potential but in many cases it wasn't because of lack of talent (Hill, Whaley, Maresh, Broderick Smith, Green, Edwards). On paper, yes, that was a very talented group. That's not the only thing that matters in the end (work ethic, discipline, etc.), but that's all a sight like rivals has to go by at that point.

When recruiting rankings give 4 stars to players like...Paris Hamilton, Hayo Carpenter, Michael Carter, Brandon Green, Spencer Reeves(Scout or ESPN had him a 4 star), Keenon Cooper, and then give 2 or even zero stars to players like...Eric Decker, Marion Barber, Greg Eslinger, etc. I can't believe anyone pays attention to those people.

It's not an exact science, just like the weather. Do you not listen to the weatherman because he's been wrong before?
"A tornado warning just went up on the tv screen. We better go to the basement."
"Who cares, those guys have been wrong before so I'm going to the beach."
It's also easy to pick and choose examples to help your cause. There are much more examples of guys who were highly recruited that ended up being good and low rated guys not doing much of anything.

If Pirsig would have chosen Auburn or Ohio State or any other national power he would be a 4 star recruit. Same goes with Phil Nelson. If a 3 star recruit starts getting offers from the OSU's, FSU's, and Alabama's of the world they automatically go up to a 4 star recruit. The whole thing is a joke. Wisconsin has been a top 10 team for a while now and they do it with classes ranked in the 30's and 40's nationally. And Texas has been bad for two years in a row now with top 5 type of classes. Cases like those simply wouldn't be possible if these rankings were even remotely accurate.

I agree a little bit about the Pirsig thing. That's why looking solely at stars is the wrong way to do it IMO.

I think you view the rankings the wrong way. Again, rankings are based off of talent and talent alone. Doesn't take into account fitting into the system, good coaching, or anything like that. In the two examples you gave here: 1) Texas had tremendous talent, that's not why they haven't been that great lately 2) Wisconsin's has done a great job developing players. I believe there are some recruits that can go just about anywhere and be successful. Then there are others that need to be in the right situation/system.

I wonder how many of those players in the super bowl were 4 or 5 star recruits? It's never going to be 100% accurate or even close to that. I look at it as a way for fans to get more information on the recruits. It's fun to look at. Some people take them too serious. But it's all for fun, I doubt coaches ever look at them.

 

[Killjoy]

MNVCGUY

Didn't see the article but was there some angle he was going for, did he try and tie to Gophers recruiting or anything like that? And to build on dpodoll's comment there is a huge difference between unranked and no star. Who knows why those players were not ranked but chances are that if they had been most would have been high 2 to low 3 star guys.

No. It was just a short blurb on the second page under the 2-DO LIST heading.

 

[atsgopher]

Thanks for doing the dirty work Killjoy.

Does the Strib writer intend this to be an indictment of Rivals? There are far better ways to criticize the site.

The stars are used to project college football recruits, not super bowl rosters, not the NFL draft, not even the practice squad.

The makeup of an NFL roster and College football recruiting are worlds apart.

 

[station19]

Stars are important to coaches who do their recruiting based on stars.(see brewster).

 

[DMB123]

Stars are important to coaches who do their recruiting based on stars.(see brewster).

Exactly. And Brewster, in spite of his reputation, was a bad recruiter in my opinion. He recruited a very low level of talent in his 3 1/2 years here. But star wise he did ok which is why he has a decent rep as a recruiter. What a joke.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Exactly. And Brewster, in spite of his reputation, was a bad recruiter in my opinion. He recruited a very low level of talent in his 3 1/2 years here. But star wise he did ok which is why he has a decent rep as a recruiter. What a joke.

He wasn't ok "star wise". He was dreadful.

People use Brewster as the poster boy to why they think recruiting rankings are completely arbitrary, but they do it without looking into the numbers.

The 2008 class was highly ranked and it has been our best class in a long time. There were obviously some duds mixed into that bunch, but when evaluating that class today...it still was pretty good.

The 2009 class was god awful. The 2010 class was probably worse. The 2007 class....terribly bad. If you ran through our recruiting rankings per rivals on the 2009, 2010, 2007 classes with the players in the program today, they would look terrible. So rivals was right, those classes have stunk.

I'll say it again, if all of our classes ended up as good as the 2008 class, we'd be a good football team.

 

[btowngopher]

Go look at how many BCS conference teams finish in the top 25 without having a top 25 recruiting class on the roster. There are very few.

 

[re3886]

You don't want to go there...

Go look at how many BCS conference teams finish in the top 25 without having a top 25 recruiting class on the roster. There are very few.

Boise State any year. Never in top 25 class rankings, always end up in the top 25. That was without even trying. The slightest effort ends that line of thinking.

I think stars and class rankings are like Cliff's Notes verus actually reading War and Peace.
You will probably get enough to pass the test, but you will not get all that is going on and you will not find the diamonds in the rough.

 

[josh087]

Boise State any year. Never in top 25 class rankings, always end up in the top 25.

Weird, I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable fan and I didn't know Boise state played in a BCS conference the last few years.

 

[Nate]

Go look at how many BCS conference teams finish in the top 25 without having a top 25 recruiting class on the roster. There are very few.

Which recruiting class? The one leading into the season they finish top 25, or the one after they end in the top 25?

 

[MNVCGUY]

Boise State any year. Never in top 25 class rankings, always end up in the top 25. That was without even trying. The slightest effort ends that line of thinking.

I think stars and class rankings are like Cliff's Notes verus actually reading War and Peace.
You will probably get enough to pass the test, but you will not get all that is going on and you will not find the diamonds in the rough.

The poster asked how many BCS conference teams finish in the top 25 without top 25 recruiting classes. Boise is an easy example of a school that is the exception to pretty much every rule in college football so to use them to prove your point is pretty weak. On top of which they are not a BCS school as was also pointed out.

 

[re3886]

Boise State any year. Never in top 25 class rankings, always end up in the top 25. That was without even trying. The slightest effort ends that line of thinking.

I think stars and class rankings are like Cliff's Notes verus actually reading War and Peace.
You will probably get enough to pass the test, but you will not get all that is going on and you will not find the diamonds in the rough.

screw the BCS part. If you want we could shorten anything to fit. Well, fine. just last year alone recruiting top 25 not in ap's final top 25: Texas, Auburn, Norte Dame, ohio state, Florida, North Carolina, Ole Miss, Wasington, and Virgina. In top 25 AP, BCS or not, but ranked out of top 25 in recruiting classes: West Virginia, Cinci, Houston, Virginia Tech, Kansas State, wisconsin, Oklahoma State, TCU, and Baylor. While many of those are not "B.S.C" conferences, I do not care.
Now the next excuses will be...well just a down year for...or an odd appearance in the recruiting class top 25...why only use last years rankings, ect. If I really wanted to I could quit my job and spend all day looks this stuff up, but that aint going to happen anytime soon. Just know that when you paint with too big a brush, you miss alot.

 

[dpodoll68]

All recruiting rankings are a joke, including Rivals.

False.

Anyone who pays any attention to them whatsoever simply doesn't trust their own two eyes when evaluation players.

What does this even mean?

It's funny how people actually think the 2008 class was so good

Because it was.

simply due to the amount of stars

And the quality and quantity of offers.

when the talent level in that class wasn't any better than this year's class

We'll see, but very doubtful.

or most of Mason's classes

Oh my goodness, it would be difficult for this to be more wrong.

That class is only better if you look at stars, which I pay no attention to.

And, as already mentioned, the quality and quantity of offers.

When recruiting rankings give 4 stars to players like...Paris Hamilton, Hayo Carpenter, Michael Carter, Brandon Green, Spencer Reeves(Scout or ESPN had him a 4 star), Keenon Cooper, and then give 2 or even zero stars to players like...Eric Decker, Marion Barber, Greg Eslinger, etc. I can't believe anyone pays attention to those people.

Find me one person, ever, who has said, even once, that recruiting rankings are infallible. Anyone can cherry-pick outliers to support their claim. Look at the data set as a whole. I can't believe this is coming up again.

If Pirsig would have chosen Auburn or Ohio State or any other national power he would be a 4 star recruit.

Doubtful. They had plenty of time to give him a 4-star after he got all those offers and before he committed to the U. They could always downgrade him to a 3-star after he committed. It never happened, because he never was, and never would be, a 4-star.

Same goes with Phil Nelson.

Nope.

If a 3 star recruit starts getting offers from the OSU's, FSU's, and Alabama's of the world they automatically go up to a 4 star recruit.

Wrong. There are dozens upon dozens of 3-stars (and sometimes even 2-stars) each and every year with insane offer lists. Alabama, who had far and away the #1 recruiting class this year according to Rivals, signed 9 3-stars. OSU signed 9 as well. FSU signed 5 in a class of 19. You may want to do a modicum of homework before running your mouth so as to avoid looking stupid.

The whole thing is a joke. Wisconsin has been a top 10 team for a while now and they do it with classes ranked in the 30's and 40's nationally. And Texas has been bad for two years in a row now with top 5 type of classes. Cases like those simply wouldn't be possible if these rankings were even remotely accurate.

Look at me! I can cherry-pick more outliers! That totally invalidates statistical data which proves that recruiting rankings correlate highly with team and individual success!

 

[btowngopher]

Which recruiting class? The one leading into the season they finish top 25, or the one after they end in the top 25?

Any class on the roster, so up to 5 yrs ago. Not the one after.

 

[HopHead]

Weird, I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable fan and I didn't know Boise state played in a BCS conference the last few years.

Careful. This is from the BCS's official website (bscfootball.org).

All eleven conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision are "BCS conferences." There is some confusion associated with this as the terms "BCS conference" is often used incorrectly to describe an "Automatic Qualifying" conference. The five non-AQ conferences are just as much BCS conferences as the six AQ conferences. Conferences earn AQ status by on-field competition.

 

[btowngopher]

screw the BCS part. If you want we could shorten anything to fit. Well, fine. just last year alone recruiting top 25 not in ap's final top 25: Texas, Auburn, Norte Dame, ohio state, Florida, North Carolina, Ole Miss, Wasington, and Virgina. In top 25 AP, BCS or not, but ranked out of top 25 in recruiting classes: West Virginia, Cinci, Houston, Virginia Tech, Kansas State, wisconsin, Oklahoma State, TCU, and Baylor. While many of those are not "B.S.C" conferences, I do not care.
Now the next excuses will be...well just a down year for...or an odd appearance in the recruiting class top 25...why only use last years rankings, ect. If I really wanted to I could quit my job and spend all day looks this stuff up, but that aint going to happen anytime soon. Just know that when you paint with too big a brush, you miss alot.

The bcs part matters because we play in a bcs conference. Your boise point is bad. Boise doesn't need to recruit in the top 25 to have the best recruiting rankings in the WAC. WVU and Cinci have made noise without top25 classes (although i think wvu has landed some in past years) because they are in the bigeast where no one really consistently lands top25 classes. Wisconsin, VT, and Okie St have top25 classes on the roster I'm pretty sure. WVU might as well. Im not talking about just the year before.

 

[FrothyGopher]

Go look at how many BCS conference teams finish in the top 25 without having a top 25 recruiting class on the roster. There are very few.

No idea why I'm getting into this, but....

Per Coaches by the Numbers on 1/31/2012: For active HCs since '07 with at least 4 yrs as AQ HC, 11 of 20 w/best WP% have not had top 15 recruiting class since 2002.

It doesn't invalidate your point, but certainly suggests it may not be as black and white as you've indicated. MV ran some correlations a while ago that suggested about 20% of the variability in W/L is attributable to recruiting. I can't attest to the veracity of that finding, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Regardless, recruiting is important. Is it the most important predictor of future success? Probably not as defined by the recruiting site evaluation methods; but I'd bet the number of offers from AQ schools (it's arguable about the extent to which this is a factor in Rivals/Scout/ESPN/247 rankings) would be second only to coaching as a variable for prognostication.

 

[EG#9]

In my never ending quest to supply this board with pissing match content I present you this interesting tidbit from the Strib:

"Seven players on the Patriots' Super bowl roster were labled no-star recruits by Rivals.com coming out of high school:"

1. Kyle ArringtonHofstra
2. Dane FetcherMontana State
3. James Ihedigbo UMass
4. Nick McDonald-Grand Valley State
5. Antwaun MoldenEastern Kentucky
6. Donald ThomasUConn
7. Danny WoodheadChadron State

Hopefully this will give us something to "discuss" until the sring game arrives. Well at least it will be new slant on the star rankings question. I wonder what these guys 40 times are?

Just like many other things that become "pissing matches" on this board, there is clearly a right side and a wrong side. Of those seven players, just one went to a BCS school in Donald Thomas. Many of these players played lower division football. Rivals did not rate any of these players because they didn't evaluate them and they were obviously not on the radar of division one schools. There will always be exceptions, guys who are underrated/overrated or guys who are overlooked completely.

 

[DMB123]

False.



What does this even mean?



Because it was.

And the quality and quantity of offers.



We'll see, but very doubtful.



Oh my goodness, it would be difficult for this to be more wrong.



And, as already mentioned, the quality and quantity of offers.



Find me one person, ever, who has said, even once, that recruiting rankings are infallible. Anyone can cherry-pick outliers to support their claim. Look at the data set as a whole. I can't believe this is coming up again.



Doubtful. They had plenty of time to give him a 4-star after he got all those offers and before he committed to the U. They could always downgrade him to a 3-star after he committed. It never happened, because he never was, and never would be, a 4-star.



Nope.



Wrong. There are dozens upon dozens of 3-stars (and sometimes even 2-stars) each and every year with insane offer lists. Alabama, who had far and away the #1 recruiting class this year according to Rivals, signed 9 3-stars. OSU signed 9 as well. FSU signed 5 in a class of 19. You may want to do a modicum of homework before running your mouth so as to avoid looking stupid.



Look at me! I can cherry-pick more outliers! That totally invalidates statistical data which proves that recruiting rankings correlate highly with team and individual success!

Your post is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Regarding the 2008 class, please tell me why that class is better than a typical Mason class. Because a typical Mason class turned out to have all-americans and all Big Ten performers, and they won individual awards that we hadn't seen in our program in a long time. What has the 2008 class done, besides being a huge part of two of the worst back to back seasons in the history of the program? And what individual awards have any of them earned?

So a typical Mason class would finish their career with close to a .500 record in the Big Ten, most likely go to 4 bowl games, and would have about 1 all conference or all-american among them.

But that 2008 class had all those stars, I keep forgetting that. I guess that class must be better than Mason's classes who ACTUALLY ACHIEVED things like bowl games, individual honors, and Big Ten wins. Silly me, I don't know why I actually thought results were more important than stars.

 

[RodentRampage]

You forget, the recruit class of 08 had Brewster as the head coach.

 

[btowngopher]

So during Mason's tenure was Minnesota better then OSU, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU, and Purdue? No we usually weren't. Did we Mason usually recruit better then those schools? No he usually did not. There are the on field results. But because 10 Mason classes produced better players then Brewster's one highly rated class nothing matters to you. I don't get how this makes sense to you. Who were the best players on the team last year? Gray, Tinsley, and McKnight would probably be in most peoples top 5. All were from the one highly rated class. A lot of players never panned out from that class and arne't even with the program anymore, but that class clearly put some good players in the program. Some of the juco players in that class were key in Brewster's one bowl run, obviously they are no long here. Others never made it in or transferred out. We'll see how it pans out but that highly rated class is looking better so far then the 2 classes that followed and the one before it that were less highly rated.

 

[Badger2010]

False.



What does this even mean?



Because it was.



And the quality and quantity of offers.



We'll see, but very doubtful.



Oh my goodness, it would be difficult for this to be more wrong.



And, as already mentioned, the quality and quantity of offers.



Find me one person, ever, who has said, even once, that recruiting rankings are infallible. Anyone can cherry-pick outliers to support their claim. Look at the data set as a whole. I can't believe this is coming up again.



Doubtful. They had plenty of time to give him a 4-star after he got all those offers and before he committed to the U. They could always downgrade him to a 3-star after he committed. It never happened, because he never was, and never would be, a 4-star.



Nope.



Wrong. There are dozens upon dozens of 3-stars (and sometimes even 2-stars) each and every year with insane offer lists. Alabama, who had far and away the #1 recruiting class this year according to Rivals, signed 9 3-stars. OSU signed 9 as well. FSU signed 5 in a class of 19. You may want to do a modicum of homework before running your mouth so as to avoid looking stupid.



Look at me! I can cherry-pick more outliers! That totally invalidates statistical data which proves that recruiting rankings correlate highly with team and individual success!

Owned.

People who think that analysts of Rivals, Scout, etc essentially just draw names out of a hat and give the lucky winners more stars are just ridiculous. There is absolutely a direct correlation between highly ranked recruiting classes and on the field success. The system certainly isn't infallible, but to say that recruiting ranking are a joke is just stupid.