Stars vs Offers

[justthefacts]

In case others are juvenile like me and want to continue this:

Pirsig became a 4 star when Ohio State offered.

Believe he went back down to a three when he committed to the gophs

According to this, Pirsig was offered by OSU on Feb 2, 2011: http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/threads/12-mn-ot-jonah-pirsig-minnesota-verbal.623632/
According to this, he was still a 3* on Rivals on July 28, 2011: http://www.twincities.com/gophers/ci_18563726
According to this, he committed to Minn on July 30, 2011: http://www.twincities.com/ci_18585390
According to this, he was a 4* on both Scout and 247 on Feb 5, 2012: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/big-ten-recruiting-rankings-2-5-12

I suppose there's the possiblity that he became a 4* somewhere between July 28 and July 30 and then later reverted back to a 3*, but that seems unlikely.

If someone has a more recent example, we can check the Internet Archive and the 247 timeline, but neither were helpful in this case.

 

[TheBulldog]

There is no proving or disproving anything based on individual examples. It's a case by case basis.

Have some athletes been upgraded because of an SEC offer because of lazy evaluators riding coattails? I'm positive that has happened.

Have some athletes been downgraded for lack of recognition, or a downturn in interest from a blue blood? I'm positive that has happened at some point.

Have some athletes been upgraded or downgraded based on further scouting, independent of any offers/commitments? Of course.

Point: this argument is asinine. We may as well debate which religion holds the most validity, which political party has the best policy initiatives, or which piece of art is the "best." It's a debate that can't be won or lost. Neither side of this thing is going to concede to the other because of an example. You're on a hamster wheel.

It's a flawed system. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not. There are inherent limitations when it comes to human judgement. Can't we just leave it at that, and give the dog-chasing-tail argument a break? Who really cares about how a 16 year old child is "rated," by some guy whose resources consist of a lap-top and second-hand, shaky high school tape? It's a freaking projection. There is nothing factual about it. My God.

 

[justthefacts]

Saying it's impossible to prove or disprove based on some specific examples is a bit of a copout when all the specific examples provided are on one side of the argument.

 

[TheBulldog]

Saying it's impossible to prove or disprove based on some specific examples is a bit of a copout when all the specific examples provided are on one side of the argument.

What are you even talking about? I'm not arguing either side, because it's totally irrational to do so. How can that be a cop- out? The only cop-out here is you cherry-picking two examples that support your point. If it rains today, do you conclude that it rains every day? If you want to get objective about it, which you really don't, put every recruit and their "ratings" progressions in a database over about 100 years, and you may have a shred of credibility, even though that still wouldn't provide reasonable assurance.

It is in fact impossible to prove anything, because this is based on the opinions of evaluators. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. You don't know which evaluators have seen the kid and which haven't. Half of the evaluators could be assigned stars at random, for all you know. You're looking for a mathematical pattern in total chaos. By definition, there isn't one.

Myself, I could care less about what some semi-pro evaluator with a blog says about a 16 year old kid. It literally means nothing. But, if you want to make your life's work trying to find some kind of pattern, knock yourself out. You won't be any closer on your death bed than your are today.

 

[justthefacts]

What are you even talking about? I'm not arguing either side, because it's totally irrational to do so. How can that be a cop- out? The only cop-out here is you cherry-picking two examples that support your point. If it rains today, do you conclude that it rains every day? If you want to get objective about it, which you really don't, put every recruit and their "ratings" progressions in a database over about 100 years, and you may have a shred of credibility, even though that still wouldn't provide reasonable assurance.

It is in fact impossible to prove anything, because this is based on the opinions of evaluators. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. You don't know which evaluators have seen the kid and which haven't. Half of the evaluators could be assigned stars at random, for all you know. You're looking for a mathematical pattern in total chaos. By definition, there isn't one.

Myself, I could care less about what some semi-pro evaluator with a blog says about a 16 year old kid. It literally means nothing. But, if you want to make your life's work trying to find some kind of pattern, knock yourself out. You won't be any closer on your death bed than your are today.

Only arguments that can be definitively decided allowed on Gopherhole. Got it.

Also, you don't care about what semi-private evaluators have to say, but you seem to care a great deal about what I write. I am pretty sure that makes me an Internet celebrity.

 

[Spoofin]

Only arguments that can be definitively decided allowed on Gopherhole.

This one has been definitively decided. Dpo told us yesterday that you need only 1 example to prove it as fact. That has been provided on both sides of the argument. Therefore, both are true. Both are therefore untrue as well. Time for everyone to divide by zero and move on.

 

[go_gophers]

This one has been definitively decided. Dpo told us yesterday that you need only 1 example to prove it as fact. That has been provided on both sides of the argument. Therefore, both are true. Both are therefore untrue as well. Time for everyone to divide by zero and move on.

It was my understanding there would be no math...

 

[Replacement Gopher]

This one has been definitively decided. Dpo told us yesterday that you need only 1 example to prove it as fact. That has been provided on both sides of the argument. Therefore, both are true. Both are therefore untrue as well. Time for everyone to divide by zero and move on.

Post of the day!