Why Talent/Recruiting Rankings Matter

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Jimmys and Joes over Xs and Os. Who is saying talent doesn't matter? Isn't the debate about using recruiting rankings as the gospel in regards to talent? And, btw, I already pointed out a couple ways you did "bend" data to fit your agenda - but you chose to dismiss them. That's fine, but not everyone has to agree with you. That's fine too.

By saying I’m over simplifying? I’m not, because you don’t need to get any more complicated than that. It has been proven time and again based on recruiting rankings.

My only agenda is reality and it has always been that way. For some reason you continue to try and ignore reality.

 

[Iceland12]

Why do the matter? Two reasons. First, as others have mentioned, better talent matters. Generally, the higher the stars, the better the player.

Second? It allows people to focus on future teams when their present team is looking bad.

 

[Spoofin]

By saying I’m over simplifying? I’m not, because you don’t need to get any more complicated than that. It has been proven time and again based on recruiting rankings.

My only agenda is reality and it has always been that way. For some reason you continue to try and ignore reality.

I didn't just say you are over simplifying. I outlined a couple reasons in detail (post 20), which you responded to - so why now act like all I said was simplifying? I get that you love your recruiting rankings. Black/White is a single variable equation that all can understand. Multi-variable equations scare some. The faults of recruiting rankings have also been proven over and over on here, but that doesn't fit your belief and is therefore dismissed as "not reality." Again, GWG, some just don't agree with you. Not sure why that bothers you so very much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

By saying I’m over simplifying? I’m not, because you don’t need to get any more complicated than that. It has been proven time and again based on recruiting rankings.

My only agenda is reality and it has always been that way. For some reason you continue to try and ignore reality.

i think the argument can stop right there. If he can't acknowledge other factors there's no point in continuing the argument. I totally disagree but I'm not going to argue with someone that misses the point.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

i think the argument can stop right there. If he can't acknowledge other factors there's no point in continuing the argument. I totally disagree but I'm not going to argue with someone that misses the point.

Sure I understand there are other factors. Those other factors still only point to the less talented team winning ~25% of the time. The Gophers are a prime example of that. That’s the point of the entire thread.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Sure I understand there are other factors. Those other factors still only point to the less talented team winning ~25% of the time. The Gophers are a prime example of that. That’s the point of the entire thread.

Ok. Like I said, you're missing the trees for the forest.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Ok. Like I said, you're missing the trees for the forest.

No I’m not, you are.

Do you really think the last 50 years of losing is due to every coach being bad? Or do you think it has more to do with they couldn’t get enough talent to Minnesota?

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I didn't just say you are over simplifying. I outlined a couple reasons in detail (post 20), which you responded to - so why now act like all I said was simplifying? I get that you love your recruiting rankings. Black/White is a single variable equation that all can understand. Multi-variable equations scare some. The faults of recruiting rankings have also been proven over and over on here, but that doesn't fit your belief and is therefore dismissed as "not reality." Again, GWG, some just don't agree with you. Not sure why that bothers you so very much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn't bother me at all when people disagree with my opinion. It blows my mind that people like yourself continue to argue with statistic based facts.

 

[bottlebass]

No I’m not, you are.

Do you really think the last 50 years of losing is due to every coach being bad? Or do you think it has more to do with they couldn’t get enough talent to Minnesota?

I don't know why this is so hard for you. Everyone agrees talent level is part of the equation but it's only part of the equation. There are a lot of other parts besides talent. That's a fact, a simple fact and easy for everyone to understand besides you.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I don't know why this is so hard for you. Everyone agrees talent level is part of the equation but it's only part of the equation. There are a lot of other parts besides talent. That's a fact, a simple fact and easy for everyone to understand besides you.

Again, I perfectly understand. That's why the more talented teams only win 75% of the time and not 100% of the time.

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

LSU, Tennessee, Texas aTm have all had exceptional recruiting classes over the last 3-4 years and all three of these schools have struggled and have coaches on the hot seat. Alabama and FSU have had great classes but they also have great coaches. I have asked my Aggie friends why they have put themselves in a position to play so many freshmen with the great recruiting classes they keep bringing in. The answer is simple, many of the kids have left school for various reasons leaving those great recruiting classes decimated.

The bottom line is there are many factors involved!

 

[bottlebass]

Again, I perfectly understand. That's why the more talented teams only win 75% of the time and not 100% of the time.

No you don't. Or you wouldn't have even posted this thread in the first place. But keep . Never once have I seen a poster state that recruiting rankings and talent matter in 0% of the equation. Everyone has acknowledged it is part of the equation. It's just not the only thing that matters, as you your statistics clearly show.

 

[bottlebass]

I'll add if anything the people that argue the most against recruiting statistics are just saying the recruiting websites that rank them are for the most part bogus which is true for most of the kids outside the top 100 players. There are plenty of 2 star guys that are better than 4 star guys.

OK not sure why I'm arguing this with you, I know it won't make a difference.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

No you don't. Or you wouldn't have even posted this thread in the first place. But keep . Never once have I seen a poster state that recruiting rankings and talent matter in 0% of the equation. Everyone has acknowledged it is part of the equation. It's just not the only thing that matters, as you your statistics clearly show.

Where did I say it was the only thing that matters? If that was the case then once again talent would win 100% of the time.

It's not the only thing that matters, but it's by far the most important, which is why it's the #1 predictor of success.

 

[Johnnyboy18]

I'll add if anything the people that argue the most against recruiting statistics are just saying the recruiting websites that rank them are for the most part bogus which is true for most of the kids outside the top 100 players. There are plenty of 2 star guys that are better than 4 star guys.

OK not sure why I'm arguing this with you, I know it won't make a difference.

No, there are not plenty of 2 star kids that are better than 4 star kids. That's just false.

 

[Spoofin]

I'll add if anything the people that argue the most against recruiting statistics are just saying the recruiting websites that rank them are for the most part bogus which is true for most of the kids outside the top 100 players. There are plenty of 2 star guys that are better than 4 star guys.

OK not sure why I'm arguing this with you, I know it won't make a difference.

You can't speak rational to someone who is irrational. Some just want to see everything black/white. One variable equations. It makes understanding life easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

You can't speak rational to someone who is irrational. Some just want to see everything black/white. One variable equations. It makes understanding life easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, I post statistics that you disregard, yet you believe posters who post blatant lies. And I am the irrational one?

Not only is talent the #1 predictor of success, Spoofin posting is the #1 predictor of every thread turning into a pissing match, and the #1 reason why GH has become unreadable to most.

 

[Spoofin]

Lol, I post statistics that you disregard, yet you believe posters who post blatant lies. And I am the irrational one?

Not only is talent the #1 predictor of success, Spoofin posting is the #1 predictor of every thread turning into a pissing match, and the #1 reason why GH has become unreadable to most.

And still, still, you fail to realize what people are saying about 'talent'. Still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bottlebass]

No, there are not plenty of 2 star kids that are better than 4 star kids. That's just false.

That is 100% true. Every year there are guys who were rated 2 star that are taken in the draft over guys who were rated 4 star.

 

[bottlebass]

You can't speak rational to someone who is irrational. Some just want to see everything black/white. One variable equations. It makes understanding life easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, that's why I usually avoid arguing this one, not sure why I jumped in. I instantly regretted it.

 

[Spoofin]

Agreed, that's why I usually avoid arguing this one, not sure why I jumped in. I instantly regretted it.

LOL. I instantly regret half of what I post here [emoji3].


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[short ornery norwegian]

No, there are not plenty of 2 star kids that are better than 4 star kids. That's just false.

let's try this - there are players who were classified as "2-star" kids who later turned out to be more productive players than recruits who were classified as "4-star" kids. the point is that the initial classification was in error.

The '2-star' and '4-star' rankings are estimations of a player's talent level and future potential. If the system was perfect, every 5-star player would become a superstar, and no 2-star player would ever become a star player. The system isn't perfect. It is generally successful in assigning grades to players, but it's not 100% perfect. Mistakes are made. players are classified incorrectly or erroneously. Some kids peak early, others are late bloomers. some kids work harder than others. some kids just have more heart than others - which is almost impossible to measure or predict.

I am NOT saying the star ratings are worthless. they have merit. BUT, they are not a 100% infallible system.

 

[WoodburyTim]

You continue to oversimplify what people say about rankings and you know it. Then you accuse Swingman of having an agenda. Do you not realize that you are so transparent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to think he knew he was oversimplifying things, but I have started to realize he doesn't....

 

[Maverick]

let's try this - there are players who were classified as "2-star" kids who later turned out to be more productive players than recruits who were classified as "4-star" kids. the point is that the initial classification was in error.

The '2-star' and '4-star' rankings are estimations of a player's talent level and future potential. If the system was perfect, every 5-star player would become a superstar, and no 2-star player would ever become a star player. The system isn't perfect. It is generally successful in assigning grades to players, but it's not 100% perfect. Mistakes are made. players are classified incorrectly or erroneously. Some kids peak early, others are late bloomers. some kids work harder than others. some kids just have more heart than others - which is almost impossible to measure or predict.

I am NOT saying the star ratings are worthless. they have merit. BUT, they are not a 100% infallible system.

Agree. I'll add that these ranking as a whole class (25 or so kids) will be pretty accurate, while within those rankings individuals could be way off.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

That is 100% true. Every year there are guys who were rated 2 star that are taken in the draft over guys who were rated 4 star.

And every year there is a higher percentage of 4* players drafted than 2*. Just looking at the 1st round in last year's draft, 11 4*s were taken, but only 2 2*s and 1 unrated player.

 

[bottlebass]

And every year there is a higher percentage of 4* players drafted than 2*. Just looking at the 1st round in last year's draft, 11 4*s were taken, but only 2 2*s and 1 unrated player.

An unrated player! Proof the rankings don't matter!

I kid I kid of course. Just making a joke. But in all seriousness keep , it's entertaining.

 

[bottlebass]

And every year there is a higher percentage of 4* players drafted than 2*. Just looking at the 1st round in last year's draft, 11 4*s were taken, but only 2 2*s and 1 unrated player.

Oh and thanks for proving jonnyboy an idiot, again.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I used to think he knew he was oversimplifying things, but I have started to realize he doesn't....

Because for the 10th time in this thread you don't have to. Kill/Claeys almost always beat the teams they were more talented than, but rarely beat the teams that had more talent than them. That's why their average finish in the west was 4.5.

Last year there were 4 teams in the west that had more talent than them. They lost to 3 of them, so 75%. The same % and correlation I've posted over and over again.

Again, I've said coaching matters, but it is not more important than talent. If you want to say coaching is more important than talent, then you're saying Kill/Claeys were bad coaches. I don't believe that. I think they were good coaches who were not good enough recruiters to raise the talent level here.

 

[dpodoll68]

No I’m not, you are.

Do you really think the last 50 years of losing is due to every coach being bad? Or do you think it has more to do with they couldn’t get enough talent to Minnesota?

It's both. Since Warmath left, we've only had one good coach - and he hightailed it out of here as quickly as possible.

 

[dpodoll68]

I'll add if anything the people that argue the most against recruiting statistics are just saying the recruiting websites that rank them are for the most part bogus which is true for most of the kids outside the top 100 players. There are plenty of 2 star guys that are better than 4 star guys.

OK not sure why I'm arguing this with you, I know it won't make a difference.

It's not true.