A flaw in strategy

[cowe6453]

Anyone that is anti-option has not watched UCF play. Scott Frost has taken Chip Kelly's offense, added in power and option plays into it, and disguises everything inside of standard packages that the defense cannot read because it is counter intuitive. Nobody should run just option, that is only for service academies because they have new players every year with service and other reasons. Or Georgia Tech, which I think is getting pretty bored with it.

The basics of the initial strategy listed in this string are very solid in premise. Power Running, Dual Threat QB's, and creative Spread-Option concepts would be very beneficial and has a proven track record with the best teams in the country right now. I think we could quickly tweak ourselves into this style with a change in Offensive Coordinators. It will be very interesting to see how Chip Kelly morphs UCLA's offense with the style he wants and the personnel they have?

Alabama has a RB playing QB and runs over people (Recruiting advantage is so massive though it does not really matter)
Clemson has been using Dual Threat QB's for the past 5 years and is Top 5
Wisconsin is undefeated and has changed coaches 3 times, but never lost its power, and has one of the worst starting QB's in the top 20
Ohio State wants to use Dual Threat QB's and the next guy after Barrett looks freaking awesome
Stanford runs it down your throat and has not had a good QB since Luck and it has not mattered
Oklahoma essentially has a Dual Threat QB that is crazy competitive, and they have taken great pride in their running game

I think the summary of this strategy is that we are acting like a PAC 12 team in every way except recruiting and success, while the top teams in the rest of the country are doing what we are discussing???

I don't know much about Scott Frost's offense but I like the premise that we need to mix it up and stop trying to outPAC the PAC with lesser talent. I think Mike Leach is the poster boy for what a creative offensive mind can accomplish with average talent. Of course, easier said than done, but I agree that we need to start thinking outside the box if we want to compete at a high level.

I especially like the idea that should be looking at some dual-threat QBs rather than the average passing QBs we seem to recruit. Case and point, Montez is neither a great runner nor a great passer, so teams just force him to pass out of the pocket and he fails miserably. As a result our offense has no identity and we become predictable. OTOH, you get a guy like Khalil Tate who is a great runner and below average passer, pair him with a Lindsay (running backs are easier to find / plug) and all of a sudden you've got a dynamic offense. Granted, Tate is an incredible talent, but I think you have a better shot at finding a guy like him rather than trying for a blue-chip pocket passer and then settling for 3-star guys like Montez and Noyer. Which is what I think you're trying to say with the comparisons to Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson. They've had success with unconventional QB's, recruiting advantage aside.

 

[ZandiBuff]

I don't know much about Scott Frost's offense but I like the premise that we need to mix it up and stop trying to outPAC the PAC with lesser talent. I think Mike Leach is the poster boy for what a creative offensive mind can accomplish with average talent. Of course, easier said than done, but I agree that we need to start thinking outside the box if we want to compete at a high level.

I especially like the idea that should be looking at some dual-threat QBs rather than the average passing QBs we seem to recruit. Case and point, Montez is neither a great runner nor a great passer, so teams just force him to pass out of the pocket and he fails miserably. As a result our offense has no identity and we become predictable. OTOH, you get a guy like Khalil Tate who is a great runner and below average passer, pair him with a Lindsay (running backs are easier to find / plug) and all of a sudden you've got a dynamic offense. Granted, Tate is an incredible talent, but I think you have a better shot at finding a guy like him rather than trying for a blue-chip pocket passer and then settling for 3-star guys like Montez and Noyer. Which is what I think you're trying to say with the comparisons to Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson. They've had success with unconventional QB's, recruiting advantage aside.

Both Noyer and Montez were listed as DT QBs

 

[skibum]

Boy Auwuzie looked fast and seemed like he could ball out. But wait he was a 2 star recruit. Guess we go with the objective measure...dude sucked.

I know this is hard for someone who doesn't like quantitative measurements, or who doesn't understand math, but stars are accurate in aggregate, not individually.

Lottery tickets are losers in aggregate, but not individually: most of them lose, but some of them do, in fact, win. Just because some of them win, does not disprove that most of them lose.

Health statistics are accurate in aggregate, but not individually: just because someone smokes a couple packs a day their entire life doesn't mean that they are going to die an early death. A surprising number of those people live to their 90s.

Should we stop measuring smoking rates because researchers found a few thousand people that lived to their 90s and never got lung cancer? Should you not encourage people you love to quit, because there are lots of people who defy expectations?

The overwhelming majority of 2 and low 3 star players never even sniff a real chance in the league - just because you can name one, two, or even a couple hundred who do does not disprove the statement. A majority of 5 star players do get or at least come close to getting a real chance in the league, just because you can name one, two, or even a few dozen who don't does not disprove the statement.

 

[cowe6453]

Both Noyer and Montez were listed as DT QBs

Sure, but do you really believe they are true dual-threat QBs? That label seems to get thrown around a lot and slapped on guys who aren't quite good enough to be considered "pro-style QBs" and can run for a first down every once in a while. Decent, but not great rushing QBs. I'm talking about run first QBs

 

[8Jah]

I know this is hard for someone who doesn't like quantitative measurements, or who doesn't understand math, but stars are accurate in aggregate, not individually.

Lottery tickets are losers in aggregate, but not individually: most of them lose, but some of them do, in fact, win. Just because some of them win, does not disprove that most of them lose.

Health statistics are accurate in aggregate, but not individually: just because someone smokes a couple packs a day their entire life doesn't mean that they are going to die an early death. A surprising number of those people live to their 90s.

Should we stop measuring smoking rates because researchers found a few thousand people that lived to their 90s and never got lung cancer? Should you not encourage people you love to quit, because there are lots of people who defy expectations?

The overwhelming majority of 2 and low 3 star players never even sniff a real chance in the league - just because you can name one, two, or even a couple hundred who do does not disprove the statement. A majority of 5 star players do get or at least come close to getting a real chance in the league, just because you can name one, two, or even a few dozen who don't does not disprove the statement.

Your making false equivalences. The people who print lottery tickets know the odds ahead of time bro, then they mix all the tickets and send them out. Those tickets aren't still growing from gangly teenagers into men. The recruiting agencies have a couple of dudes that need to evaluate over a quarter million players spread across four million square miles and spread across 8 time zones if you count American Samoa. Most importantly those dudes are here for your entertainment, they have no skin in making the bets. They follow rumors of who's getting offers from who. They sit in the areas that produce most of the talent. They spend the their time looking at the blue-chips and high 3-stars...who are obviously players. With a rumor and a few minutes of tape do you think they can accurately resolve a 73 from a 74 rated recruit? That's ridiculous! Ranking High School kids is not a Science!

Everyone knows that in aggregate most NFL players were 2-3 stars in high school (cause there are more 2-3 stars), but that it is more likely 4-5 star players make the NFL (but there are fewer of 4-5 stars). This fact is observed in aggregate over time. The flip side of this same damn fact is that the recruiting services do a **** job picking which individual 3-star will make an NFL roster and which will not. Because it is nearly impossible to do that!

That is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about comparing recruiting classes made of mostly two and three star kids (recruiting classes below about 30) while they are still in high school! Are State's mid-three stars better than whataU's low three stars?

 

[skibum]

Are State's mid-three stars better than whataU's low three stars?

Over 2 or 3 classes, yes.

Stars matter in the aggregate. One class (20-25 recruits) is probably not enough aggregation. Three classes (60-75 recruits), is definitely enough.

I'm not going to freak out if one recruiting class is ranked in the 50s, 60s, or even 70s. If they all are, even with one anomaly, then yeah, I'm concerned.

A P5 that consistently recruits in the high 50s/low 60s is going to struggle to make bowl games nearly every year unless it pads its schedule with a patsy OOC lineup every year - and even that's no guarantee (ask MM about how that plan worked out this year).

Likewise a DL that is made up entirely of 2* and low 3* recruits is going to struggle more often than it succeeds. It will still succeed every now and then, but over time...

 

[Duff Man]

Over 2 or 3 classes, yes.

Stars matter in the aggregate. One class (20-25 recruits) is probably not enough aggregation. Three classes (60-75 recruits), is definitely enough.

I'm not going to freak out if one recruiting class is ranked in the 50s, 60s, or even 70s. If they all are, even with one anomaly, then yeah, I'm concerned.

A P5 that consistently recruits in the high 50s/low 60s is going to struggle to make bowl games nearly every year unless it pads its schedule with a patsy OOC lineup every year - and even that's no guarantee (ask MM about how that plan worked out this year).

Likewise a DL that is made up entirely of 2* and low 3* recruits is going to struggle more often than it succeeds. It will still succeed every now and then, but over time...

You will have to excuse him, he keeps treating all 3* players as exactly the same.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Your making false equivalences. The people who print lottery tickets know the odds ahead of time bro, then they mix all the tickets and send them out. Those tickets aren't still growing from gangly teenagers into men. The recruiting agencies have a couple of dudes that need to evaluate over a quarter million players spread across four million square miles and spread across 8 time zones if you count American Samoa. Most importantly those dudes are here for your entertainment, they have no skin in making the bets. They follow rumors of who's getting offers from who. They sit in the areas that produce most of the talent. They spend the their time looking at the blue-chips and high 3-stars...who are obviously players. With a rumor and a few minutes of tape do you think they can accurately resolve a 73 from a 74 rated recruit? That's ridiculous! Ranking High School kids is not a Science!

Everyone knows that in aggregate most NFL players were 2-3 stars in high school (cause there are more 2-3 stars), but that it is more likely 4-5 star players make the NFL (but there are fewer of 4-5 stars). This fact is observed in aggregate over time. The flip side of this same damn fact is that the recruiting services do a **** job picking which individual 3-star will make an NFL roster and which will not. Because it is nearly impossible to do that!

That is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about comparing recruiting classes made of mostly two and three star kids (recruiting classes below about 30) while they are still in high school! Are State's mid-three stars better than whataU's low three stars?

Is this what you think their job is? Because it's not. Recruiting services are trying to project who is most likely to be successful at the college level, not the NFL, so your constant references to who makes the NFL is irrelevant to the rankings. CU is not recruiting players who they think will be successful in the NFL, they are looking for successful players in their college program. It's why a player who didn't have much of an NFL career like Ryan Miller can be a 5*, while a pro-bowler like David Bakhtiari was a 2*.

 

[AllStarBuffs]

Is this what you think their job is? Because it's not. Recruiting services are trying to project who is most likely to be successful at the college level, not the NFL, so your constant references to who makes the NFL is irrelevant to the rankings. CU is not recruiting players who they think will be successful in the NFL, they are looking for successful players in their college program. It's why a player who didn't have much of an NFL career like Ryan Miller can be a 5*, while a pro-bowler like David Bakhtiari was a 2*.

Bakhtiari was a tiny 18 year old and then turned into a beast, ya never know

 

[SINKRATZ]

Bakhtiari was a tiny 18 year old and then turned into a beast, ya never know

Exactly, and Miller was the more productive college payer for the Buffs. Rankings are not about NFL potential.

 

[8Jah]

Over 2 or 3 classes, yes.

Stars matter in the aggregate. One class (20-25 recruits) is probably not enough aggregation. Three classes (60-75 recruits), is definitely enough.

I'm not going to freak out if one recruiting class is ranked in the 50s, 60s, or even 70s. If they all are, even with one anomaly, then yeah, I'm concerned.

A P5 that consistently recruits in the high 50s/low 60s is going to struggle to make bowl games nearly every year unless it pads its schedule with a patsy OOC lineup every year - and even that's no guarantee (ask MM about how that plan worked out this year).

Likewise a DL that is made up entirely of 2* and low 3* recruits is going to struggle more often than it succeeds. It will still succeed every now and then, but over time...

you don't know what your sample size needs to be. Could be even 100 is too small. you would have to look at your confidence intervals. Do you think 24/7 is off doing that? I'm don't know but id bet that 500 is too small-see below.

More importantly you not sampling at random. Coaches pick from different regions and look for 'their type' of kids. It is well known that some coaches get way better results using kids the recruiting services rank lower. Is it because they coach better? Partly. More than anything they know how to pick dudes way better than the recruiting services do. Many analysts, you can go find the articles, even uprank MM's classes over the past few years. How could that be? Outside the blue-bloods I can guarantee you that coaches don't give a **** about recruiting rank from ESPN, they care about the quality of the guys they see with their eyeballs.

you look at recruiting rank vs performance data even averaged over a few years. Now for those blue-bloods data shows that recruiting class rank DOES tell you a lot about future performance of those programs. Almost every program that gets an NC had years of top ten recruiting. But those top ten recruiting classes are made of kids we had little doubt would be good. Now most folks read all the stories talking about this and make the following brain fart: they extrapolate to think that recruiting rank is correlated to performance NO MATTER WHAT.

The same data shows that after a class rank between 30 and 40, about where classes are made up of mostly mid three stars, the results go haywire because the error bars get so damn big (they swamp the mean results). Now you can smooth some of those errors out by doing **** like averaging the performance of ALL the programs between a rank of 60 and 80 recruiting class, but you trick yourself. The average temp of the whole world is 61 degrees...guess i'll wear my shorts even though I'm in ****ing Saskatoon in January. We are talking about predicting the performance of an individual program by recruiting class rank....which is nearly meaningless after a rank of about 30.

 

[8Jah]

Is this what you think their job is? Because it's not. Recruiting services are trying to project who is most likely to be successful at the college level, not the NFL, so your constant references to who makes the NFL is irrelevant to the rankings. CU is not recruiting players who they think will be successful in the NFL, they are looking for successful players in their college program. It's why a player who didn't have much of an NFL career like Ryan Miller can be a 5*, while a pro-bowler like David Bakhtiari was a 2*.

I was only responding to @skibum - who brought up that NFL thing

 

[skibum]

you don't know what your sample size needs to be. Could be even 100 is too small. you would have to look at your confidence intervals. Do you think 24/7 is off doing that?

More importantly you not sampling at random. Coaches pick from different regions and look for 'their type' of kids. It is well known that some coaches get way better results using kids the recruiting services rank lower. Is it because they coach better? Partly. More than anything they know how to pick dudes way better than the recruiting services do. Many analysts, you can go find the articles, even uprank MM's classes over the past few years. How could that be? Outside the blue-bloods I can guarantee you that coaches don't give a **** about recruiting rank from ESPN, they care about the quality of the guys they see with their eyeballs.

you look at recruiting rank vs performance data even averaged over a few years. Now for those blue-bloods data shows that recruiting class rank DOES tell you a lot about future performance of those programs. Almost every program that gets an NC had years of top ten recruiting. But those top ten recruiting classes are made of kids we had little doubt would be good. Now most folks read all the stories talking about this and make the following brain fart: they extrapolate to think that recruiting rank is correlated to performance NO MATTER WHAT.

The same data shows that after a class rank between 30 and 40, about where classes are made up of mostly mid three stars, the results go haywire because the error bars get so damn big (they swamp the mean results). Now you can smooth some of those errors out by doing **** like averaging the performance of ALL the programs between a rank of 60 and 80 recruiting class, but you trick yourself. The average temp of the whole world is 61 degrees...guess i'll wear my shorts even though I'm in ****ing Saskatoon in January. We are talking about predicting the performance of an individual program by recruiting class rank....which is nearly meaningless after a rank of about 30.
you don't know what your sample size needs to be. Could be even 100 is too small. you would have to look at your confidence intervals. Do you think 24/7 is off doing that?

More importantly you not sampling at random. Coaches pick from different regions and look for 'their type' of kids. It is well known that some coaches get way better results using kids the recruiting services rank lower. Is it because they coach better? Partly. More than anything they know how to pick dudes way better than the recruiting services do. Many analysts, you can go find the articles, even uprank MM's classes over the past few years. How could that be? Outside the blue-bloods I can guarantee you that coaches don't give a **** about recruiting rank from ESPN, they care about the quality of the guys they see with their eyeballs.

you look at recruiting rank vs performance data even averaged over a few years. Now for those blue-bloods data shows that recruiting class rank DOES tell you a lot about future performance of those programs. Almost every program that gets an NC had years of top ten recruiting. But those top ten recruiting classes are made of kids we had little doubt would be good. Now most folks read all the stories talking about this and make the following brain fart: they extrapolate this result to mean that recruiting rank is correlated to performance NO MATTER WHAT.

The same data shows that after a class rank between 30 and 40, about where classes are made up of mostly mid three stars, the results go haywire because the error bars get so damn big (they swamp the mean results). Now you can smooth some of those errors out by doing **** like averaging the performance of ALL the programs between a rank of 60 and 80 recruiting class, but you trick yourself. The average temp of the whole world is 61 degrees...guess i'll wear my shorts even though I'm in ****ing Saskatoon in January. We are talking about predicting the performance of an individual program by recruiting class rank....which is nearly meaningless after a rank of about 30.
you don't know what your sample size needs to be. Could be even 100 is too small. you would have to look at your confidence intervals. Do you think 24/7 is off doing that?

More importantly you not sampling at random. Coaches pick from different regions and look for 'their type' of kids. It is well known that some coaches get way better results using kids the recruiting services rank lower. Is it because they coach better? Partly. More than anything they know how to pick dudes way better than the recruiting services do. Many analysts, you can go find the articles, even uprank MM's classes over the past few years. How could that be? Outside the blue-bloods I can guarantee you that coaches don't give a **** about recruiting rank from ESPN, they care about the quality of the guys they see with their eyeballs.

you look at recruiting rank vs performance data even averaged over a few years. Now for those blue-bloods data shows that recruiting class rank DOES tell you a lot about future performance of those programs. Almost every program that gets an NC had years of top ten recruiting. But those top ten recruiting classes are made of kids we had little doubt would be good. Now most folks read all the stories talking about this and make the following brain fart: they extrapolate this result to mean that recruiting rank is correlated to performance NO MATTER WHAT.

The same data shows that after a class rank between 30 and 40, about where classes are made up of mostly mid three stars, the results go haywire because the error bars get so damn big (they swamp the mean results). Now you can smooth some of those errors out by doing **** like averaging the performance of ALL the programs between a rank of 60 and 80 recruiting class, but you trick yourself. The average temp of the whole world is 61 degrees...guess i'll wear my shorts even though I'm in ****ing Saskatoon in January. We are talking about predicting the performance of an individual program by recruiting class rank....which is nearly meaningless after a rank of about 30.

Verbs and shift keys help a lot in communicating. It also helps to not repeat the exact same three paragraphs three different times.

Aside from the lack of editing, you not linking or sharing data. What "data" set are you using? you making lots of claims about what other people are doing, but don't say what you doing. I'll throw down on the math with you if you want (trust me, I'm glad to throw down on math with someone who thinks bringing up individual players is a good idea "Boy Auwuzie looked fast and seemed like he could ball out. But wait he was a 2 star recruit. Guess we go with the objective measure...dude sucked.").

So, pick a data set. Run your numbers. Prove that teams whose recruiting rankings are regularly in 60s perform at the same level as teams whose recruiting rankings are regularly in the 30s.

We're not arguing about the difference between average recruiting rankings of 45 and 48. We're talking about differences between average rankings of 36 and 62. Prove there's no difference.

Copying and pasting 3 paragraphs 3 times in a row is not proof.

 

[SBG]

Stanford recruits at a high level, not just about pure toughness.

Each year they have a nasty OL. They aren’t really whiffing and have a consistent line. Requires consistency. Dudes gets replaced with new guys each year. Not coincidental.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

We also produced a RB in the top 10 in rushing yardage and top 12 in TDs by an RB with this POS O-Line in 2017.

Don't forget that he got about 7,478 more carries than any other back in the nation.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

All this talk of lack of an offensive identity; am I the only one that noticed that running QB-Power until your QB is a battered corpse is our offensive identity?

 

[4BienemyTDs]

All this talk of lack of an offensive identity; am I the only one that noticed that running QB-Power until your QB is a battered corpse is our offensive identity?

It seems like you could load up on true athletic Dual Threat QB's and could take the risk that one might likely get hurt if they get crushed, while it is pretty hard to load up on Passing QB's and if one goes down, the whole house of cards goes down (Ask Michigan). What amazes the hell out of me is that Wisconsin and Stanford are in the Top 20 with half ass throwing QB's??? If either of those teams had a Jalen Hurts type of kid they would be right where Clemson and Alabama are as far as perception goes. I would really like to see a commitment to a running game that just pounds the piss out the opponent (especially at altitude), and then opens up the middle of the field and long passes. Westbrook, Pritchard, and all those guys were amazing receivers that only caught about 50 total passes in their college career. Mike Pritchard had 28 receptions for 733 yards, for an average of about 26 yards per catch!!! Those teams ran for 3,000 yards and passed for 2,000 yards. Also, the lack of commitment to the TE considering the effect the TE has on the NFL seems counter-intuitive?

 

[8Jah]

Verbs and shift keys help a lot in communicating. It also helps to not repeat the exact same three paragraphs three different times.

Aside from the lack of editing, you not linking or sharing data. What "data" set are you using? you making lots of claims about what other people are doing, but don't say what you doing. I'll throw down on the math with you if you want (trust me, I'm glad to throw down on math with someone who thinks bringing up individual players is a good idea "Boy Auwuzie looked fast and seemed like he could ball out. But wait he was a 2 star recruit. Guess we go with the objective measure...dude sucked.").

So, pick a data set. Run your numbers. Prove that teams whose recruiting rankings are regularly in 60s perform at the same level as teams whose recruiting rankings are regularly in the 30s.

We're not arguing about the difference between average recruiting rankings of 45 and 48. We're talking about differences between average rankings of 36 and 62. Prove there's no difference.

Copying and pasting 3 paragraphs 3 times in a row is not proof.

Here you go man:



I use Football Outsiders F/+ as metric for performance and only look at P5 teams because of the schedules. This graph looks a litle different every year, but the conclusions you can draw from it are the same. If you want a chance at the playoffs better have a top 30 recruiting class. Outside a recruiting class rank of 30 good luck telling me anything.

Recruiting is important. My point here is to say that after you get past the classes filled with the blue-chipers and into the 'dark-matter' that are three and two star recruits, the recruiting ranks from the recruiting services aren't equal to the 'true' recruiting rank. Colorado, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona are all given five year average recruiting class ranks between ~40 and 60 by these services. From the data above I can't see how one can say we are doing any better or worse than these programs in recruiting.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

Here you go man:

View attachment 24382

I use Football Outsiders F/+ as metric for performance and only look at P5 teams because of the schedules. This graph looks a litle different every year, but the conclusions you can draw from it are the same. If you want a chance at the playoffs better have a top 30 recruiting class. Outside a recruiting class rank of 30 good luck telling me anything.

Recruiting is important. My point here is to say that after you get past the classes filled with the blue-chipers and into the 'dark-matter' that are three and two star recruits, the recruiting ranks from the recruiting services aren't equal to the 'true' recruiting rank. Colorado, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona are all given five year average recruiting class ranks between ~40 and 60 by these services. From the data above I can't see how one can say we are doing any better or worse than these programs in recruiting.

There appears to be weak positive linear correlation of F+ and 5yr avg recruiting ranking, and you should throw an R^2 value and linear fit on that graph. The residuals look bigger in the middle x-values which supports your statements about the middle of the rankings not being as informative.

Your conclusion of "If you want a chance at the playoffs better have a top 30 recruiting class," disagrees with the 6th ranked team which has a 35ish recruiting ranking.

I'm curious what the data would look like if you weighted the class rankings based on how much we'd expect each class to contribute to the current team, e.g. you could give the most weight to the classes from 4 and 3 years ago (RS-So through Sr) and a little less weight to 5 years (graduated or RS-Sr) and 2 years ago (RS-Fr/So) and the least weight to last year's class (redshirting or true Fr).

All that said I think you're arguing with someone who is rightly saying that you'd prefer to have the 37th ranked recruiting class to the 64th ranked recruiting class. It also makes sense that there's a whole host of other factors which also matter, which you are rightly stating.

 

[8Jah]

There appears to be weak positive linear correlation of F+ and 5yr avg recruiting ranking, and you should throw an R^2 value and linear fit on that graph. The residuals look bigger in the middle x-values which supports your statements about the middle of the rankings not being as informative.

Your conclusion of "If you want a chance at the playoffs better have a top 30 recruiting class," disagrees with the 6th ranked team which has a 35ish recruiting ranking.

I'm curious what the data would look like if you weighted the class rankings based on how much we'd expect each class to contribute to the current team, e.g. you could give the most weight to the classes from 4 and 3 years ago (RS-So through Sr) and a little less weight to 5 years (graduated or RS-Sr) and 2 years ago (RS-Fr/So) and the least weight to last year's class (redshirting or true Fr).

All that said I think you're arguing with someone who is rightly saying that you'd prefer to have the 37th ranked recruiting class to the 64th ranked recruiting class. It also makes sense that there's a whole host of other factors which also matter, which you are rightly stating.

The R^2 value is 0.17...so no linear trend.

35th recruiting rank is Wisconsin...they are the outlier I know of in the past few years.

the apparent class recruiting ranks usually don't change much over five years. There are a handful of big jumpers...usually no more than 20 spots in the ranking. Also five years is needed to average out effect of smaller and bigger classes.

Best way to put it is that there is no evidence that we should believe the recruiting services in their class rankings after a certain point. There are certainly many reasons not to. I want better recruiting, but I don't feel any better at 37 than I do at 64.

 

[MtnBuff]

Trying to argue that Stanford doesn't recruit well on the OL is a joke. They have multiple 4* kids and the rest mostly high 3*. Yes there is a difference between a high 3* and a low 3*.

I have often advocated looking at Wisconsin as a model for how CU could be successful but to say we are recruiting similar players to them is an absolute joke. They like Stanford have multiple 4* OL recruits. They have a higher percentage of 3* guys but again these kids are mostly high 3* and unlike us they bring them in with quantities that allow them to have individuals each year who are lost to injuries or simply don't pan out and still have enough quality kids in the pipeline to fill in and perform.

You can look at certain outlier teams who don't score as high in the recruiting rankings but a closer look will tell you that they are getting the kids they want for their system. Much different than what looks to be our current strategy of grabbing kids we think will be easier to hold on to or taking kids who were overlooked or passed on by the bigger programs "hoping" that they can be polished into gems.

I tend to watch OL play closer than most fans and while not an "expert" consider myself to be reasonably knowledgeable. Watching out OL this year I see us playing some individuals who have been in the system multiple years but who have very low ceilings as players, have reached their potential, and that potential isn't good enough. Other than Irwin and Lynott (who would be a guard not a center) who do we have on the OL that would be a starter or even on the 2 deep for more than a couple of our conference opponents. Kaiser? Kough? Huckins? Haigler? Nope good hard working guys but not PAC12 level talents.

The old saying still applies. The Jimmys and Joes are much more important than the Xs and Os. Talent wins consistently, recruiting is how you get talent. Don't recruit effectively and you lose more than you win.

 

[Buff fanatic]

I know this is hard for someone who doesn't like quantitative measurements, or who doesn't understand math, but stars are accurate in aggregate, not individually.

Lottery tickets are losers in aggregate, but not individually: most of them lose, but some of them do, in fact, win. Just because some of them win, does not disprove that most of them lose.

Health statistics are accurate in aggregate, but not individually: just because someone smokes a couple packs a day their entire life doesn't mean that they are going to die an early death. A surprising number of those people live to their 90s.

Should we stop measuring smoking rates because researchers found a few thousand people that lived to their 90s and never got lung cancer? Should you not encourage people you love to quit, because there are lots of people who defy expectations?

The overwhelming majority of 2 and low 3 star players never even sniff a real chance in the league - just because you can name one, two, or even a couple hundred who do does not disprove the statement. A majority of 5 star players do get or at least come close to getting a real chance in the league, just because you can name one, two, or even a few dozen who don't does not disprove the statement.

I'm not a great reader, but you're saying our 2 star recruits should smoke? I LIKE IT!

 

[8Jah]

Trying to argue that Stanford doesn't recruit well on the OL is a joke. They have multiple 4* kids and the rest mostly high 3*. Yes there is a difference between a high 3* and a low 3*.

I have often advocated looking at Wisconsin as a model for how CU could be successful but to say we are recruiting similar players to them is an absolute joke. They like Stanford have multiple 4* OL recruits. They have a higher percentage of 3* guys but again these kids are mostly high 3* and unlike us they bring them in with quantities that allow them to have individuals each year who are lost to injuries or simply don't pan out and still have enough quality kids in the pipeline to fill in and perform.

You can look at certain outlier teams who don't score as high in the recruiting rankings but a closer look will tell you that they are getting the kids they want for their system. Much different than what looks to be our current strategy of grabbing kids we think will be easier to hold on to or taking kids who were overlooked or passed on by the bigger programs "hoping" that they can be polished into gems.

I tend to watch OL play closer than most fans and while not an "expert" consider myself to be reasonably knowledgeable. Watching out OL this year I see us playing some individuals who have been in the system multiple years but who have very low ceilings as players, have reached their potential, and that potential isn't good enough. Other than Irwin and Lynott (who would be a guard not a center) who do we have on the OL that would be a starter or even on the 2 deep for more than a couple of our conference opponents. Kaiser? Kough? Huckins? Haigler? Nope good hard working guys but not PAC12 level talents.

The old saying still applies. The Jimmys and Joes are much more important than the Xs and Os. Talent wins consistently, recruiting is how you get talent. Don't recruit effectively and you lose more than you win.

I think the point where the recruiting services start to fall down is at mid-three star. The high threes get several looks.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

The R^2 value is 0.17...so no linear trend.

35th recruiting rank is Wisconsin...they are the outlier I know of in the past few years.

the apparent class recruiting ranks usually don't change much over five years. There are a handful of big jumpers...usually no more than 20 spots in the ranking. Also five years is needed to average out effect of smaller and bigger classes.

Best way to put it is that there is no evidence that we should believe the recruiting services in their class rankings after a certain point. There are certainly many reasons not to. I want better recruiting, but I don't feel any better at 37 than I do at 64.

.17 doesn't mean it's a useless model or that there's no trend. It means the linear model explains 17% of the variation, it's far lower than we generally like but by itself is not sufficient reason to throw out an explanatory variable (recruiting ranking) as a predictor for performance. This is especially true as we rightly expect that this should be a complex process with other explanatory variables.

To really test your hypothesis that recruiting rankings in the 30-60 range offer no predictive value relative to one another, you should select only the group of teams in that range and make your plot again, that may provide more support for your argument.

 

[MtnBuff]

I think the point where the recruiting services start to fall down is at mid-three star. The high threes get several looks.

It gets less accurate but is still a pretty good indicator.

I tend to trust the opinion of other P5 coaches more than the services. These guys keep or lose their jobs based on recruiting the right guys. The services can't deeply evaluate hundreds or thousands of HS kids each year but the rating tend to follow the offers. If a low 3* kid gets offers from Oklahoma and Iowa the services will take another look and normally his rating jumps.

I don't buy that the guys who don't get those offers are overlooked often. The big schools can't look at every kid but every kid worth looking at will get looked at by at least a few big programs and if a kid doesn't get major offers it is because those coaches don't think he is worth offering.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

The teams that really beat their recruiting rankings on your plot are #17 Washington State, #22 Iowa State, #24 Wake Forest, and #30 Purdue.

 

[8Jah]

.17 doesn't mean it's a useless model or that there's no trend. It means the linear model explains 17% of the variation, it's far lower than we generally like but by itself is not sufficient reason to throw out an explanatory variable (recruiting ranking) as a predictor for performance. This is especially true as we rightly expect that this should be a complex process with other explanatory variables.

To really test your hypothesis that recruiting rankings in the 30-60 range offer no predictive value relative to one another, you should select only the group of teams in that range and make your plot again, that may provide more support for your argument.

thanks for the feedback. To me R^2 below .5 are pretty bad even for social science.

But I took your suggestion. My hypothesis is that there isn't a difference between the 5-year recruiting class ranking of Colorado, WSU, OSU, Arizona and California. Between 40 and 60 R^2 is 0.02. If we believe "it is the Joes not the X's and the O's," and I certainly do...then recruiting should be the dominant variable. So to me a R^2 of 0.02 means that any recruiting service ranking between 40 and 60 is the same.

 

[8Jah]

The teams that really beat their recruiting rankings on your plot are #17 Washington State, #22 Iowa State, #24 Wake Forest, and #30 Purdue.

Yeah it is interesting. Are these teams pulling in better recruits than the ratings suggest (ISU for sure), or are they system teams(WSU for sure)

 

[8Jah]

It gets less accurate but is still a pretty good indicator.

I tend to trust the opinion of other P5 coaches more than the services. These guys keep or lose their jobs based on recruiting the right guys. The services can't deeply evaluate hundreds or thousands of HS kids each year but the rating tend to follow the offers. If a low 3* kid gets offers from Oklahoma and Iowa the services will take another look and normally his rating jumps.

I don't buy that the guys who don't get those offers are overlooked often. The big schools can't look at every kid but every kid worth looking at will get looked at by at least a few big programs and if a kid doesn't get major offers it is because those coaches don't think he is worth offering.

I just think a lot of those kids on the bubble who end up being good are changing alot. either they are learning football, or their bodies are still changing. And that is a pretty big group.

 

[8Jah]

thanks for the feedback. To me R^2 below .5 are pretty bad even for social science.

But I took your suggestion. My hypothesis is that there isn't a difference between the 5-year recruiting class ranking of Colorado, WSU, OSU, Arizona and California. Between 40 and 60 R^2 is 0.02. If we believe "it is the Joes not the X's and the O's," and I certainly do...then recruiting should be the dominant variable. So to me a R^2 of 0.02 means that any recruiting service ranking between 40 and 60 is the same.