Why Talent/Recruiting Rankings Matter

Donate To GopherHole
GopherWeatherGuy said:
False, there is a strong correlation between recruiting rankings and wins.
Click to expand...

If a recruiting service knows that its subscribers (and potential subscribers) are going to evaluate its quality on the basis of correlation between rankings and wins, then it has all the incentive in the world to just give a higher ranking to the recruits who have committed to teams that usually win more games.


The chicken proves the egg, which proves the chicken. :rolleyes:


"I have been placing rocks all about the city for the last three years, and the number of tiger maulings in this town is highly correlated with the number of rocks! That is a mathematical fact! SEE! It proves that I provide a valuable service to this city! You should pay me!"


GopherWeatherGuy said:
The ratings are subjective, but there is plenty of value.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for you, dpo, anyone, to provide even a hypothetical example of why or how this could be true. All ears
 

MnplsGopher said:
If a recruiting service knows that its subscribers (and potential subscribers) are going to evaluate its quality on the basis of correlation between rankings and wins, then it has all the incentive in the world to just give a higher ranking to the recruits who have committed to teams that usually win more games.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing some correlation across the population of recruits and those that make the NFL and it was strongly correlated that the higher rated a player was as a recruit, the better their chance of playing in the NFL. This would seem to indicate that recruiting services are looking at talent and not what schools they are committed to.
 

Ski U Master said:
I remember seeing some correlation across the population of recruits and those that make the NFL and it was strongly correlated that the higher rated a player was as a recruit, the better their chance of playing in the NFL. This would seem to indicate that recruiting services are looking at talent and not what schools they are committed to.
Click to expand...

If that were true, it would simply mean that:

- despite the sheer number of high school aged football players in this country, there are still a limited number of kids who are at the elite level of talent, and any person, with even a very basic and limited set of knowledge, can slap a four or five star rating on said players.

Any grandma can do that, quilt in hand.


So what?? That takes zero skill, and provides zero value. All of those players are already going to P5 schools. It's simply a matter of who's going to which particular school. The only value provided is in the reporting of who is going where.
 


Unregistered User said:
No, you're not.

You've made up your mind and no amount of data will convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

No one has provided any data, or any actual argument.

The typical post thus far has gone one of two ways: i) "You're wrong, because I say so", or ii) "You're wrong, this has all been discussed in the past".
 


MnplsGopher said:
If that were true, it would simply mean that:

- despite the sheer number of high school aged football players in this country, there are still a limited number of kids who are at the elite level of talent, and any person, with even a very basic and limited set of knowledge, can slap a four or five star rating on said players.

Any grandma can do that, quilt in hand.
Click to expand...
Please provide some data to back this up, we don't argue based on feelings here right? We have provided data points but you brush them off as meaningless while providing no evidence of your own.
 

You didn't provide any data.

What I offered is a logical argument. There is no such thing as "data to back that up". That would be like asking for data to back up that "1+1=2". You evaluate a logic argument on the logic. You evaluate a data argument on the data.
 

MnplsGopher said:
If a recruiting service knows that its subscribers (and potential subscribers) are going to evaluate its quality on the basis of correlation between rankings and wins, then it has all the incentive in the world to just give a higher ranking to the recruits who have committed to teams that usually win more games.


The chicken proves the egg, which proves the chicken. :rolleyes:


"I have been placing rocks all about the city for the last three years, and the number of tiger maulings in this town is highly correlated with the number of rocks! That is a mathematical fact! SEE! It proves that I provide a valuable service to this city! You should pay me!"




I'm waiting for you, dpo, anyone, to provide even a hypothetical example of why or how this could be true. All ears
Click to expand...

It's almost like the players on higher rated teams are better than those on lower rated teams. Crazy
 

MnplsGopher said:
You didn't provide any data.

What I offered is a logical argument. There is no such thing as "data to back that up". That would be like asking for data to back up that "1+1=2". You evaluate a logic argument on the logic. You evaluate a data argument on the data.
Click to expand...

Try reading post #1, or many of the other links that have been provided.
 




Johnnyboy18 said:
It's almost like the players on higher rated teams are better than those on lower rated teams. Crazy
Click to expand...

But do teams that win more cause their recruits to get ranked higher, or do higher ranked recruits just happen to always choose the same schools and then cause those schools to win?

Does the egg cause the chicken, or does the chicken cause the egg?



Both sides are firmly entrenched and refuse to admit the other viewpoint is valid.


GopherWeatherGuy said:
Try reading post #1, or many of the other links that have been provided.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the OP proves the argument that the top teams in the country get to choose whichever recruits they want and then develop them into the top NFL talent. As an unrelated coincidence, some private websites also choose to give the highest "rating" to whichever recruits are selected by those top schools, which in corollary "proves" a correlation between these ratings and winning.
 

MnplsGopher said:
But do teams that win more cause their recruits to get ranked higher, or do higher ranked recruits just happen to always choose the same schools and then cause those schools to win?

Does the egg cause the chicken, or does the chicken cause the egg?



Both sides are firmly entrenched and refuse to admit the other viewpoint is valid.




Indeed, the OP proves the argument that the top teams in the country get to choose whichever recruits they want and then develop them into the top NFL talent. As an unrelated coincidence, some private websites also choose to give the highest "rating" to whichever recruits are selected by those top schools, which in corollary "proves" a correlation between these ratings and winning.
Click to expand...

Those blue chip recruits aren't being developed, they are playing as freshman because they are more talented and physically skilled.

Why would players that aren't committed anywhere be rated higher? So if they don't commit to a helmet school their ranking would automatically go to 3 stars right?
 

MnplsGopher said:
But do teams that win more cause their recruits to get ranked higher, or do higher ranked recruits just happen to always choose the same schools and then cause those schools to win?

Does the egg cause the chicken, or does the chicken cause the egg?



Both sides are firmly entrenched and refuse to admit the other viewpoint is valid.




Indeed, the OP proves the argument that the top teams in the country get to choose whichever recruits they want and then develop them into the top NFL talent. As an unrelated coincidence, some private websites also choose to give the highest "rating" to whichever recruits are selected by those top schools, which in corollary "proves" a correlation between these ratings and winning.
Click to expand...

That’s not what the OP states at all. Try reading again.
 



Johnnyboy18 said:
Those blue chip recruits aren't being developed, they are playing as freshman because they are more talented and physically skilled.

Why would players that aren't committed anywhere be rated higher? So if they don't commit to a helmet school their ranking would automatically go to 3 stars right?
Click to expand...

Because they're going to a P5, or they're going to a helmet school. It's just a question of which.

Like I said, any quilting grandma can slap a 4/5 star rating on a player that is simply deciding which helmet school to go to. Why is that rating valuable? To whom?


GopherWeatherGuy said:
That’s not what the OP states at all. Try reading again.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Just because you want it to say something else, doesn't mean it does.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Because they're going to a P5, or they're going to a helmet school. It's just a question of which.

Like I said, any quilting grandma can slap a 4/5 star rating on a player that is simply deciding which helmet school to go to. Why is that rating valuable? To whom?




Sure it does. Just because you want it to say something else, doesn't mean it does.
Click to expand...

And the 4 and 5 star prospect that don't go to helmet schools?
 


MnplsGopher said:
Proves that the ratings are silly.

Thanks for making my point?
Click to expand...

How does that prove that?

So you're saying the only difference between 5 star and 3 star prospects are that 5 stars typically go to helmet schools?
 

I'm saying, as I said from the beginning (the post that GWG eventually replied to), that there has yet to be a logical argument made that the ratings themselves provide value to the subscribers.


I'm freely willing to be content with the idea that the website provide great value to those who wish to pay for recruiting news, ie who is leaning towards who, how visits went, commitments, etc. If you like that stuff, go for it. The ratings part of it is made up, though.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I'm saying, as I said from the beginning (the post that GWG eventually replied to), that there has yet to be a logical argument made that the ratings themselves provide value to the subscribers.


I'm freely willing to be content with the idea that the website provide great value to those who wish to pay for recruiting news, ie who is leaning towards who, how visits went, commitments, etc. If you like that stuff, go for it. The ratings part of it is made up, though.
Click to expand...

Got it so the difference between 3 and 5 stars are totally made up.
 

Johnnyboy18 said:
Got it so the difference between 3 and 5 stars are totally made up.
Click to expand...

Lay your cards on the table.

Your ploy is apparent now -- you like to play dumb, even though you've got some link, stat, whatever up your sleeve that you like to spring out after you get the poster to commit to saying something.

So lay down your hand, let's see what you've got. My guess: not much.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Lay your cards on the table.

Your ploy is apparent now -- you like to play dumb, even though you've got some link, stat, whatever up your sleeve that you like to spring out after you get the poster to commit to saying something.

So lay down your hand, let's see what you've got. My guess: not much.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to debate with someone who thinks there's no difference between a 3 and 5 star prospect. That person is clearly trolling.
 

Thought so, nothing it is.

Simply declare victory and walk off, when you run out of links.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Only including the players on the team is more accurate, which is why I used it. Your turn. Show proof that a 5 year composite recruiting average deviates significantly from the team talent rankings.
Click to expand...

I actually think you and Spoofin aren't as far off in your opinions on this as you are making it out to be. I think GWG is placing a little more emphasis on the raw athlete (stars) and Spoofin is saying that coaching matters a little more (and thus stars matter a little less).

I don't think either of you are saying that coaching doesn't matter at all or that stars don't matter at all. It's just which side you believe has more importance. I'm firmly in the middle - I think they are both about equally important.

Just trying to bring you two together!
 

OK, let's say you pay money to subscribe to a website.

The website says that player XYZ is warm on the Gophers, warm on Wisconsin, warm on Iowa. Has offers from all three. Taking visits to all three. Etc.

How does actually provide value to you, the reader, to know what this website chooses to rate said player, whether that be "3", "4", or "5" stars?

How? Why? Why isn't it enough that all three coaching staffs like the player, and have offered him?? Why do you need to know what the website says?? Why/How is that valuable, above that he has been offered??
 

Ski U Master said:
I remember seeing some correlation across the population of recruits and those that make the NFL and it was strongly correlated that the higher rated a player was as a recruit, the better their chance of playing in the NFL. This would seem to indicate that recruiting services are looking at talent and not what schools they are committed to.
Click to expand...

Yes, it points out that 4-star and 5-star recruits have higher talent/potential/ability than 2-star and 3-star recruits. No one I have seen would dispute that and the pro-ranking gurus on this site are arguing that fact against no one. Where I think it gets hairy, and I disagree with many, is this whole "high"/"mid"/"low" 3-star comparisons - those filling up the 25-50 (give/take) ranked teams. IMO, which of those teams got the best recruiting class is a crap-shoot and depends more on the coaches ability to evaluate & find the right fit for his team/roster/style/etc. than anything else. See Tim Brewster as exhibit A. Dear, they rank that mass of kids to 4-decimal places now and I'm to be told simple math proves a .8434 player is better than a .8433 player?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MnplsGopher said:
OK, let's say you pay money to subscribe to a website.

The website says that player XYZ is warm on the Gophers, warm on Wisconsin, warm on Iowa. Has offers from all three. Taking visits to all three. Etc.

How does actually provide value to you, the reader, to know what this website chooses to rate said player, whether that be "3", "4", or "5" stars?

How? Why? Why isn't it enough that all three coaching staffs like the player, and have offered him?? Why do you need to know what the website says?? Why/How is that valuable, above that he has been offered??
Click to expand...

You can view that information for free. What are you even asking?
 

Spoofin said:
Yes, it points out that 4-star and 5-star recruits have higher talent/potential/ability than 2-star and 3-star recruits. No one I have seen would dispute that and the pro-ranking gurus on this site are arguing that fact against no one. Where I think it gets hairy, and I disagree with many, is this whole "high"/"mid"/"low" 3-star comparisons - those filling up the 25-50 (give/take) ranked teams. IMO, which of those teams got the best recruiting class is a crap-shoot and depends more on the coaches ability to evaluate & find the right fit for his team/roster/style/etc. than anything else. See Tim Brewster as exhibit A. Dear, they rank that mass of kids to 4-decimal places now and I'm to be told simple math proves a .8434 player is better than a .8433 player?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

MnplsGopher is quite clearly disputing that.
 


MnplsGopher said:
Ha! When the question is too hard, find some minutae to point out.




Wrong again
Click to expand...

Why do people want to know which players are better than other players according to scouts? Why wouldn't they want to know?
 

Here is post #264 even more simply stated, so that even JB18 can't find some irrelevant trivial thing to avoid answering the question:


Let's say some website says that player XYZ has been offered by the Gophers, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Warm on all three. Taking visits to all three. Etc.

Why is that information alone not enough for you? Why/How is it valuable to you, above that he has been offered by all three, what the website evaluates the player's talent?? Describe why/how this adds value.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom