Pirsig no longer on ESPN 150 Watchlist

Donate To GopherHole
P

pointer

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Looks like McDonald is the only MN representative now.
 


That was a close call! I'm glad this news is out before Kill wastes any more of his time recruiting this obvious non-DI athlete.

Good luck to him at Mankato!
 

BisonGopher said:
That was a close call! I'm glad this news is out before Kill wastes any more of his time recruiting this obvious non-DI athlete.

Good luck to him at Mankato!
Click to expand...

You've told us time and again how offers are the only thing that matters to the recruiting services when handing out rankings. Surely, a player with offers from most of the Big Ten and the defending national/SEC champions, as well as interest (and a probable offer forthcoming) from USC, is worthy of at least a Top 150 rating, right?
 




which is why ratings don't matter...did we not all learn from the Brew regime?
 


Another star rank pissing match where 45% of the posters will say "rankings are all that matter", 45% will say they don't, and 10% of us will shake our heads and wonder why those idiots don't get that there is a wide area shaded gray and a smart coach (like say, Jerry Kill) recruits with that in mind.
 



Ratings don't matter. Mason brought in lower rated recruits than Brewster did and he won much more with those recruits than Brewster did. That's why I laugh when people say the one thing Brewster did better than Mason was recruiting, and they say that based solely on recruiting rankings. When it's clear to anyone that Mason brought in better players than Brewster did, and it's not even very close. Mason has many of his players in the NFL and had All-Americans. Brewster's recruits had more stars by their names, but that's it. Brewster's higher rated recruits don't compare to Mason's lower rated recruits.

Recruiting rankings are a joke and are meaningless for the most part.
 

dpodoll68 said:
False
Click to expand...

how did brew's highly rated first class do?

yes, overall, teams with higher rated recruits win more, but a ranking does not take into account a recruit's value in terms of fitting in with their respective coach's philosophy and schemes.
But I hate posters who hijack threads with pissing matches, so lets end this and agree we both would love to see Pirsig anchoring the gopher line in a rose bowl win.
 

DMB123 said:
Ratings don't matter. Mason brought in lower rated recruits than Brewster did and he won much more with those recruits than Brewster did. That's why I laugh when people say the one thing Brewster did better than Mason was recruiting, and they say that based solely on recruiting rankings.
Click to expand...

Your point would have merit if the players showed up on campus and practiced themselves, coached themselves, called all the plays themselves, etc. Unfortunately for your point, there are things called "player development", "player retention", "play calling", and so forth that all fall under the realm of what is known as "coaching". You will see how talented Brewster's recruits are this fall when they have had several months in the hands of people who know what they're doing.

DMB123 said:
When it's clear to anyone that Mason brought in better players than Brewster did, and it's not even very close. Mason has many of his players in the NFL and had All-Americans. Brewster's recruits had more stars by their names, but that's it. Brewster's higher rated recruits don't compare to Mason's lower rated recruits.
Click to expand...

The great majority of Brewster's recruits are underclassmen. You're going to hold it against players who aren't even draft-eligible that they haven't been selected for the NFL yet? Hmm, that's a new anti-Brewster slam.

Also, most of Mason's NFL players were Wacker recruits. Mason was great at developing talent, but the problem is that he didn't give even pedestrian effort in recruiting. Thus, the entire premise of his program at Minnesota was to take, for the most part, 2-star type recruits and try to turn them into 4-star players. If he tried at all in recruiting, he would have gotten 3-star type recruits and turned them into 4-star players. Mason could coach, and Brewster could recruit. Neither was worth a damn at the either. Kill can do both.

DMB123 said:
Recruiting rankings are a joke and are meaningless for the most part.
Click to expand...

False. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but it has been disproven and is categorically wrong.
 

Curseislifted33 said:
how did brew's highly rated first class do?
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous question. They are all Sr and RS Jr. Many of them will be starting this fall, and a lot of them haven't played more than a few plays at a time. Let's at least let them finish their college careers before we deem them total failures.
 



dpodoll68 said:
What a ridiculous question. They are all Sr and RS Jr. Many of them will be starting this fall, and a lot of them haven't played more than a few plays at a time. Let's at least let them finish their college careers before we deem them total failures.
Click to expand...

deal, i regretted that as soon as i posted it. my main point was that if someone only looks at a recruit's rivals or espn ranking they will miss out on a lot of talented players and will over-rate a lot of players as well.
And in terms of Pirsig, I think it would be idiotic for them to exclude him from the 150. there is no way someone has offers from the schools he does if he isn't one of the best. Coaches are far superior to rivals in my opinion in determining a player's talent, and in his case his offers do the talking in defending him deserving a top-notch ranking.
 

Finally!

GoAUpher said:
Another star rank pissing match where 45% of the posters will say "rankings are all that matter", 45% will say they don't, and 10% of us will shake our heads and wonder why those idiots don't get that there is a wide area shaded gray and a smart coach (like say, Jerry Kill) recruits with that in mind.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how many times people have the same conversation about ratings. Nobody has seemed to changed their minds or has learned anything from this. But at last, we have something new on the subject, i.e. a simple quantification of where everybody is at. As usual, I fall in that 10% who don't seem to get the word.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom