Oyenmwen Uzebu commits!

Donate To GopherHole
GopherHusky said:
It's not an official commitment thread until someone says Claeys would have gotten this guy too...
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy but someone needs to make a checklist of all the necessary hot takes that have to be shared during a commitment thread for it to be a true GH commitment thread.
 

GopherHomer said:
Well, "we" can mean a lot of different things, but okay I get where you were coming from. Thanks.

My point about it being arbitrary is that you limit yourself by only using 5 rating points. I'm going to take 5 star recruits and 2 star recruits out of comparison because I think history pretty much solidifies the difference between the two. Since they only have "5" different strata I think the difference between 3 and 4 stars is pretty arbitrary. I feel like guys get both 3 and 4 star ratings solely based on where they commit...there have been many Gopher commits that were unrated (mostly local guys in this scenario) that have UMN, NDSU, SDSU offers for example. When they commit to the Gophers they are given a 3 star rating. I'd be willing to bet if they chose one of the Dakotas, they would maintain being unrated or given a 2 star ranking. My main point is that they should use a 7 star system - much like a lot of statistical modeling. Unfortunately that would require a bunch of young journalists actually having to put some thought into their click-bait.

Has anybody ever done analysis on how rivals 5.7 recruits (3 star) do VS 5.8 recruits (4 star)? My guess is that it would be completely random or based on situation/surrounding talent. Hence - none of this matters and we should just wait and see how these guys perform.
Click to expand...

The only thing arbitrary here is your opinion. It's very clear that you don't closely following recruiting sites and are basing your opinions off of ideas that are not factual.
 

hungan1 said:
I can't imagine how big a deal it will be to see Andries, Uzebu, and Carroll should he decide to stay home on the same O-Line.
Click to expand...

^^^This would be an absolute dream come true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Johnnyboy18 said:
Yes, we get it you think he needs 4 stars to have a top 40 class in 10 months others don't agree. You don't need to post it every time they get a commit.
Click to expand...

It's not that I just think it, the rating/ranking sites pretty much verify it year in and year out. Never said Fleck won't get some, just that they are needed for a top 40 class.

Not seeing what's so hard to understand.
 

You might get one P5 team a year that finishes in the top 25 while having a roster composed of mainly poor classes. Last year the only team was Colorado who finished 17th. Anyone who says the ranking don't matter hasn't looked at actual data.
 


Halsey Hall said:
Why does everything you write piss me off?
Click to expand...
Because truth hurts. [emoji41]

Actually it was some other poster that mentioned he didn't like Fleck's maize colored jacket. In the interview after the spring game Fleck wore the jacket and...sure enough...it's maize. Check it out for yourself.

The first comment was because I knew your inferiority complex would kick in. [emoji41]
 

Am I the only one that thinks the causal link between having one or more 4 * commits is that it provides cover for other highly rated players to seriously consider and even commit to a school that isn't yet a "helmet" school? Imagine you're discussing your choices with your peers and family and you have offers from a school that is a regular finisher in the top 25 (perhaps an instate school) and you say you think you want to be a Gopher...if you can point to the school being an up and comer that a number of other 4*'s are committed to, you have a kind of top-cover to what otherwise might be a more controversial decision. In that way, there's a potential herding effect.
 

btowngopher said:
You might get one P5 team a year that finishes in the top 25 while having a roster composed of mainly poor classes. Last year the only team was Colorado who finished 17th. Anyone who says the ranking don't matter hasn't looked at actual data.
Click to expand...

If you're a Badger fan recruiting rankings don't mean a thing. They rarely get top 25 classes yet they finish in the top 25 every year.
 

beatles said:
If you're a Badger fan recruiting rankings don't mean a thing. They rarely get top 25 classes yet they finish in the top 25 every year.
Click to expand...

Yep. Tennessee is the poster child for the opposite lately. I've made the argument both ways and basically got hammered. The success difference between 20-40 and 40-60 comes more down to recruiting the right type of player for the schemes and developing/coaching them to their potential.
 



beatles said:
If you're a Badger fan recruiting rankings don't mean a thing. They rarely get top 25 classes yet they finish in the top 25 every year.
Click to expand...

It's also relative to who you're playing. They have the benefit of playing in one of the weakest if not the weakest P5 division in football. Wisconsin and Nebraska are always the highest ranked classes in the West. It's also why Nebraska fans continue to be frustrated with their coaching. They have the talent to win the West. Iowa is the 3rd best recruiting team in the West.

It's no surprise that Wisconsin keeps winning the west and that those three teams were the top 3 teams last year.

As others have said simple statistics proves there is a strong correlation to recruiting rankings and success. There are always outliers in every dataset but the correlation is there.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
It's also relative to who you're playing. They have the benefit of playing in one of the weakest if not the weakest P5 division in football. Wisconsin and Nebraska are always the highest ranked classes in the West. It's also why Nebraska fans continue to be frustrated with their coaching. They have the talent to win the West. Iowa is the 3rd best recruiting team in the West.

It's no surprise that Wisconsin keeps winning the west and that those three teams were the top 3 teams last year.

As others have said simple statistics proves there is a strong correlation to recruiting rankings and success. There are always outliers in every dataset but the correlation is there.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin was a top 25 program before the conference split into divisions. But yes I agree with you. The correlation of recruiting rankings and winning is undeniable. There's plenty of data showing just that.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
It's also relative to who you're playing. They have the benefit of playing in one of the weakest if not the weakest P5 division in football. Wisconsin and Nebraska are always the highest ranked classes in the West. It's also why Nebraska fans continue to be frustrated with their coaching. They have the talent to win the West. Iowa is the 3rd best recruiting team in the West.

It's no surprise that Wisconsin keeps winning the west and that those three teams were the top 3 teams last year.

As others have said simple statistics proves there is a strong correlation to recruiting rankings and success. There are always outliers in every dataset but the correlation is there.
Click to expand...

Good point GWG...it's not like Wisconsin ever wins the Cotton Bowl or beats LSU, or Auburn, or USC or any helmet school, they just keep beating up on the Big Ten West.
 




PMWinSTP said:
Yep. Tennessee is the poster child for the opposite lately. I've made the argument both ways and basically got hammered. The success difference between 20-40 and 40-60 comes more down to recruiting the right type of player for the schemes and developing/coaching them to their potential.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. This is how schools like Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Iowa when successful do it. It's the way Minnesota has to do it as well. Consistently better recruiting classes could come in time but you need to develop a consistent winning brand of football on the field and recruit to your system.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Yep. Tennessee is the poster child for the opposite lately. I've made the argument both ways and basically got hammered. The success difference between 20-40 and 40-60 comes more down to recruiting the right type of player for the schemes and developing/coaching them to their potential.
Click to expand...

Who has been finishing in the top 25 with any consistency at all that recruits in the 40-60 range normally?
 

beatles said:
Wisconsin was a top 25 program before the conference split into divisions. But yes I agree with you. The correlation of recruiting rankings and winning is undeniable. There's plenty of data showing just that.
Click to expand...

Right, but they are always at worst in the middle of the Big Ten in the recruiting rankings. Still easier to make the jump up than being ranked near the bottom and trying to jump to the top.

leadpipegopher said:
Good point GWG...it's not like Wisconsin ever wins the Cotton Bowl or beats LSU, or Auburn, or USC or any helmet school, they just keep beating up on the Big Ten West.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah an 8 win LSU team who fired their coach, an 8 win Auburn team, an 8 win USC team who fired their coach, and a Mac team.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
Right, but they are always at worst in the middle of the Big Ten in the recruiting rankings. Still easier to make the jump up than being ranked near the bottom and trying to jump to the top.



Oh yeah an 8 win LSU team who fired their coach, an 8 win Auburn team, an 8 win USC team who fired their coach, and a Mac team.
Click to expand...

Does any of that matter? I thought LSU, Auburn, and USC had kick @ss recruiting rankings?
 


leadpipegopher said:
Does any of that matter? I thought LSU, Auburn, and USC had kick @ss recruiting rankings?
Click to expand...

They do but it's also an average over time. Like I already said, there are always outliers, especially for 1 season. There is reason why those coaches were fired and it wasn't for a lack of talent.
 

Apparently some of Wisconsin's wins didn't count either. This is so confusing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Oh yeah an 8 win LSU team who fired their coach, an 8 win Auburn team, an 8 win USC team who fired their coach, and a Mac team.
Click to expand...

IALTO! Those seasons/wins here get you a lifetime contract and a statue.

GWG, step away from the keyboard a couple days.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
It's also relative to who you're playing. They have the benefit of playing in one of the weakest if not the weakest P5 division in football. Wisconsin and Nebraska are always the highest ranked classes in the West. It's also why Nebraska fans continue to be frustrated with their coaching. They have the talent to win the West. Iowa is the 3rd best recruiting team in the West.

It's no surprise that Wisconsin keeps winning the west and that those three teams were the top 3 teams last year.

As others have said simple statistics proves there is a strong correlation to recruiting rankings and success. There are always outliers in every dataset but the correlation is there.
Click to expand...

And yet, the West went 11 and 10 vs. the East last season. Must mean the BIG is the weakest P5 conference in the country
 

LesBolstad said:
IALTO! Those seasons/wins here get you a lifetime contract and a statue.

GWG, step away from the keyboard a couple days.
Click to expand...

Except that we just fired a coach coming off a 9 win season...
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
JG, where have you been the last 4 months? Those 9 wins didn't count. We are talking about wins that count.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you guys were not in attendance at the Northwestern game? Apparently the fans did not think those wins counted either because the turn out was embarrassing. Not buying the "too cold excuse" either. It was time for a change.
 

***9 wins. If you look in the fine print you'll notice the asterisk has been there for the past 13 years...
 


oldauggie said:
Perhaps you guys were not in attendance at the Northwestern game? Apparently the fans did not think those wins counted either because the turn out was embarrassing. Not buying the "too cold excuse" either. It was time for a change.
Click to expand...

Uh oh that's going to go against the narrative that it was the best season in Gopher history.
 

Johnnyboy18 said:
Uh oh that's going to go against the narrative that it was the best season in Gopher history.
Click to expand...

A. Not a single person has said that
B. Attendance plays zero role in determining the quality of a season on the field
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom