bigbang2
blindslighted
Flores will help a lot of teams in the running game. Brock Berglund was a running back, that had a funky throwing motion.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
The psychology and success of in-state kids - a discussion
- Thread starter aeroxx
- Start date
Flores will help a lot of teams in the running game. Brock Berglund was a running back, that had a funky throwing motion.
aeroxx
New Member
Hey NorCal, I was looking at the 2008 recruiting class, which is a tiny sample...
You are right of course there are a lot of causal factors that make an recruit a 5*, and those factors give them a much better shot at making it. There is a strong positive correlation.
The numbers are so small who make it in the NFL, that the percentages might not mean that much. Just off the top of my head, there are around 10,000 Div 1 players, and 2500 pro's (that number includes all the practice squads and everything). I think the top 250 high school players are 4* and above. don't remember how many 5* there are in class (25? maybe it changes? idk)
Given the Darrel Scott situation, we know that correlation is not causation. He is one example of someone without the right kind of mental and emotional tools, in my book.
There is not a negative correlation: just because an athlete is a 2* or unrated, doesn't mean that they won't be in the nfl. I just learned today, for instance, that Sproles was unrated out of HS. went to kansas (in state, haha), and is now tearing up the nfc, because the silly chargers, apparently didn't want to pay for his lack of stars...
You are right of course there are a lot of causal factors that make an recruit a 5*, and those factors give them a much better shot at making it. There is a strong positive correlation.
The numbers are so small who make it in the NFL, that the percentages might not mean that much. Just off the top of my head, there are around 10,000 Div 1 players, and 2500 pro's (that number includes all the practice squads and everything). I think the top 250 high school players are 4* and above. don't remember how many 5* there are in class (25? maybe it changes? idk)
Given the Darrel Scott situation, we know that correlation is not causation. He is one example of someone without the right kind of mental and emotional tools, in my book.
There is not a negative correlation: just because an athlete is a 2* or unrated, doesn't mean that they won't be in the nfl. I just learned today, for instance, that Sproles was unrated out of HS. went to kansas (in state, haha), and is now tearing up the nfc, because the silly chargers, apparently didn't want to pay for his lack of stars...
There certainly is a negative correlation. A 2* is much less likely to be drafted into the NFL.
Looking at the 2010 draft, of the 230 draftees in the Rivals database:
20 five stars
72 four stars
74 three stars
64 two stars or unrated
Of the 9,554 athletes in the 2010 recruiting database there were 27 5*, 395 4*, 1664 3*, and 7,468 2* or less. Assuming that ratio is about the same every year and the ratios for the 2010 draft are constant, the following percentages of each star rating group get drafted:
5* = 74.1%
4* = 18.2%
3* = 4.4%
2* or less = 0.9%
Now, looking at it in terms of a recruiting class of 25, here are how many of the players a team is likely to have drafted into the NFL if they were all of the same star rating:
5* = 19
4* = 5
3* = 1
2* or less = .23 (about 1 ever 4 years)
So, while being a 5* doesn't guarantee that the player will be drafted to the NFL and while a 2* doesn't guarantee he won't, if we're playing probabilities in recruiting in hopes of getting the best possible players on the team... it's extremely beneficial to recruit guys with higher star ratings. As a simple rule of thumb, each increase in star rating makes the player about 4 times more likely to be drafted into the League.
chitownbuff
Club Member
Face!
Del
Well-Known Member
I agree with B4L and at least the kids know where Embree is coming from and they know exactly how its going to be when and if they sign with CU. From listening to some of the other posters who have relationships with some of the commits this class, most of them seem to appreciate the fact that Embree and company aren't trying to blow any smoke up the kids arse. I think Adam made a great point on Buff Chips radio a few weeks back regarding recruiting. We can't expect to get a bunch of 4 and 5 * guys right now when we haven't made it to a bowl yet. We can get some solid 3* guys who see the opportunity to play early and maybe get lucky and snag 1 or 2 4* guys. Until we start winning more than we lose we shouldn't expect much different. He also said part of the reason why the in-state guys might take a little bit longer is that they are so familiar with the program living here and are more exposed to local media negativity etc. The in state kids will come around maybe as early as next year if we can get into a bowl game. Once we turn the corner and start winning again then they will start to get interested. I really think we will build the program back up from the outside in this time - Out of state kids will come first and lay the foundation and then the in state guys will be the mortar that holds everything together in the years to come.
This recruiting stuff ain't rocket science!
13Buff
Club Member
What I remember from my stats class at UWYO
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" Popularized by Mark Twain
I'd say that 64% of the people on this board agree with you.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Am I the only one who worries about the psyche of people who take a second hand comment from anonymous posters with 4 total posts (who most likely reported quotes taken out of context) and then turn it into a detailed discussion of JE messaging and how recruits take accept it. That appears to be psycho to me.
13Buff
Club Member
No, you are not the only one. But Psycho is a common trait around here.
CanadianDuck
Well-Known Member
"I would be very interested to see the statistics of the highly rated kids who grew up in places like nebraska, went in-state, and then proceeded to have successful careers in the NFL. Given the fact that the NFL is populated by a majority of players who didn't have 5* or even 4* ratings, there is a pretty strong correlation for my argument."
I think a lot of people forget there are many reasons that the general population of the NFL is not 4 or 5 star athletes. First off there are not a lot of 4-5 stars in every class so it would make sense there are not as many in the NFL. I also think the biggest reason there are not as many 4 or 5 stars in the NFL is because they are being rated for college. A high school prospect is given his stars based on how they think he will do in college and not the NFL. Would LMJ have been a 4 star recruit if they based his star rating off of his NFL future? Probably not and there are a lot more examples of that.
I think a lot of people forget there are many reasons that the general population of the NFL is not 4 or 5 star athletes. First off there are not a lot of 4-5 stars in every class so it would make sense there are not as many in the NFL. I also think the biggest reason there are not as many 4 or 5 stars in the NFL is because they are being rated for college. A high school prospect is given his stars based on how they think he will do in college and not the NFL. Would LMJ have been a 4 star recruit if they based his star rating off of his NFL future? Probably not and there are a lot more examples of that.
**** you!
EastCoastBuff
Member
aeroxx, I appreciate your discussion, but I look at these things in perhaps a more direct way. I'm not one who thinks that Jon Embree's comments in one get-together made a huge difference in where a bunch of highly rated in-state players have ended up choosing to play. Instead, I tend to look at what most 16 and 17 year old want. They want to to be associated with a winner. They want to be part of something very special. If they think they're good, they want to play where they'll be seen. And perhaps most importantly, they want to be doing something that their peers look up to, that makes them "special" in their teen environment.
Some may also have other key factors -- family legacy at a school, home state pride, a desire for a different climate (weather or inner city problems or whatever), their parents or grandparents preference.
After you get past all of this, then there's the "moment", the time when a kid decides whether he's comfortable with the coaches, whether he trusts them, connects with them, feels they can make him into something better, and perhaps, holds the keys to playing in the NFL. For players with offer lists that stretch past a page, these choices can be pretty challenging.
But the bottom line, from what I've seen, is when you show up at your high school wearing the tee shirt and cap from a school you're considering, whether you get thumbs up and high-fives, confused looks or no notice, or snickers and sneers. Ask any kid who wears a Penn State tee shirt what that's like, and you'll get a quick answer. Ask one wearing an LSU sweatshirt, and it'll be very, very clear. Give CU a Pac-12 conference championship, gameday visits by SportCenter, and clips every night on ESPN, and in-state kids who aren't native Coloradans will set aside the psychology and want to be Buffs.
Some may also have other key factors -- family legacy at a school, home state pride, a desire for a different climate (weather or inner city problems or whatever), their parents or grandparents preference.
After you get past all of this, then there's the "moment", the time when a kid decides whether he's comfortable with the coaches, whether he trusts them, connects with them, feels they can make him into something better, and perhaps, holds the keys to playing in the NFL. For players with offer lists that stretch past a page, these choices can be pretty challenging.
But the bottom line, from what I've seen, is when you show up at your high school wearing the tee shirt and cap from a school you're considering, whether you get thumbs up and high-fives, confused looks or no notice, or snickers and sneers. Ask any kid who wears a Penn State tee shirt what that's like, and you'll get a quick answer. Ask one wearing an LSU sweatshirt, and it'll be very, very clear. Give CU a Pac-12 conference championship, gameday visits by SportCenter, and clips every night on ESPN, and in-state kids who aren't native Coloradans will set aside the psychology and want to be Buffs.
Wonderfully condescending. Rep.
Nah man I'm Economics, don't you remember one of the many threads dedicated to that?
Interesting thread but I wouldn't trust aeroxx, I think he stole my keyboard.
Unless you live in a state where the entire identity of the state is tied up in one school and kids are raised with the expectation of going to the in state school (Nebraska, Louisiana, Texas) you are going to have top flight kids who go out of state. When a kid has the option to go wherever he wants, the grass is often going to look greener on the other side.
What will help the most is when we start winning games. If you remember back a number of years there was a time when USC wasn't getting most of the top recruits in California and neither was UCLA, most of the top Cali players were going out of state. A few years later after USC had started winning 10 games a year, being on TV every week, and going to the Rose Bowl or better every year all the sudden every top kid in California (and seemingly the entire PAC footprint) was suddenly holding out for a USC offer. Kids were told commit now and don't take other visits or we will give your scholly to someone else and a lot of kids were willing to commit.
The kids in Colorado were just coming out of elementary school the last time CU was a relavant team. A couple of year of post "scandal" Barnett followed by the disaster that was Hawkins took CU out of a lot of kids interest. Add to that the fact that Hawkins alienated a huge number of the HS coaches in this state who are usually significant in a kids decision.
Let this team start to win some games and be in at least a bowl conversation, let Embree and staff build those relationships with the coaches and we will do much better in state. Even then we likely won't be close to closing 100%. Colorado has a lot of kids who's families come from other places and who were raised on other schools. Others will compare the lukewarm response CU gets from a lot of the state and be impressed by a school where that school is everything in the area.
Unless you live in a state where the entire identity of the state is tied up in one school and kids are raised with the expectation of going to the in state school (Nebraska, Louisiana, Texas) you are going to have top flight kids who go out of state. When a kid has the option to go wherever he wants, the grass is often going to look greener on the other side.
What will help the most is when we start winning games. If you remember back a number of years there was a time when USC wasn't getting most of the top recruits in California and neither was UCLA, most of the top Cali players were going out of state. A few years later after USC had started winning 10 games a year, being on TV every week, and going to the Rose Bowl or better every year all the sudden every top kid in California (and seemingly the entire PAC footprint) was suddenly holding out for a USC offer. Kids were told commit now and don't take other visits or we will give your scholly to someone else and a lot of kids were willing to commit.
The kids in Colorado were just coming out of elementary school the last time CU was a relavant team. A couple of year of post "scandal" Barnett followed by the disaster that was Hawkins took CU out of a lot of kids interest. Add to that the fact that Hawkins alienated a huge number of the HS coaches in this state who are usually significant in a kids decision.
Let this team start to win some games and be in at least a bowl conversation, let Embree and staff build those relationships with the coaches and we will do much better in state. Even then we likely won't be close to closing 100%. Colorado has a lot of kids who's families come from other places and who were raised on other schools. Others will compare the lukewarm response CU gets from a lot of the state and be impressed by a school where that school is everything in the area.
aeroxx
New Member
I agree that winning is the single most important thing a program can do to recruit well. But if an athlete is signing up for a school just because the school has a winning record, then I think he is prone to the kinds of problems and difficulties which I mentioned earlier. (and as a result the success of the program doesn't last) Coach Embree likely understands that and is appropriately focusing on the individual and his qualities.
I don't want you to trust me!!! What difference does it make how many posts I have or don't have? That has nothing to do with the validity of my argument or the quality of my reasoning. I didn't go into such a detailed explanation of the psychological forces involved simply to conclude "you can trust me". I was trying to shed some light on the differences in people's psychology so you could evaluate these concepts independently. If I was trying to make myself an authority (always a deceitful method of reasoning), then I wouldn't have posted anonymously. Duh
If you can find a more complete explanation for why virtually all the best in state athletes (Norgard excepted) left while we have some top athletes coming from out-of state by all means, share.
The theory that the "grass is always greener" might have some truth to it. However, that theory doesn't seem to apply to athletes in other states like nebraska, texas, florida...! Rather than just throw up one's hands then and say it is impossible to understand these kids, one can try to empathize with the athletes and understand things from their various perspective(s), and see what insight emerges.
For Coach Hawkins (if I dare to use the C word), coaching did seem to be rocket science... how else to explain all his blow ups, crashes, and mid-air collisions
Hawkins has a quintessential ESFP psychology type (or conceivably ESTP but i doubt it). The Psychology theory predicts that this kind of person is impulsive, unable to make or stick to a plan, always attracted to something new and exciting, and has real difficulty in being able to predict or care about the long-term consequences. Ring any bells...perhaps with respect to which quarterback to play?
To me this is the type of mentality which should never be in coaching. (at least not outside of elementary school)
Maybe everyone here can agree with me on that... haha
I don't want you to trust me!!! What difference does it make how many posts I have or don't have? That has nothing to do with the validity of my argument or the quality of my reasoning. I didn't go into such a detailed explanation of the psychological forces involved simply to conclude "you can trust me". I was trying to shed some light on the differences in people's psychology so you could evaluate these concepts independently. If I was trying to make myself an authority (always a deceitful method of reasoning), then I wouldn't have posted anonymously. Duh
If you can find a more complete explanation for why virtually all the best in state athletes (Norgard excepted) left while we have some top athletes coming from out-of state by all means, share.
The theory that the "grass is always greener" might have some truth to it. However, that theory doesn't seem to apply to athletes in other states like nebraska, texas, florida...! Rather than just throw up one's hands then and say it is impossible to understand these kids, one can try to empathize with the athletes and understand things from their various perspective(s), and see what insight emerges.
For Coach Hawkins (if I dare to use the C word), coaching did seem to be rocket science... how else to explain all his blow ups, crashes, and mid-air collisions
Hawkins has a quintessential ESFP psychology type (or conceivably ESTP but i doubt it). The Psychology theory predicts that this kind of person is impulsive, unable to make or stick to a plan, always attracted to something new and exciting, and has real difficulty in being able to predict or care about the long-term consequences. Ring any bells...perhaps with respect to which quarterback to play?
To me this is the type of mentality which should never be in coaching. (at least not outside of elementary school)
Maybe everyone here can agree with me on that... haha
Last edited:
touche'I agree that winning is the single most important thing a program can do to recruit well. But if an athlete is signing up for a school just because the school has a winning record, then I think he is prone to the kinds of problems and difficulties which I mentioned earlier. (and as a result the success of the program doesn't last) Coach Embree likely understands that and is appropriately focusing on the individual and his qualities.
I don't want you to trust me!!! What difference does it make how many posts I have or don't have? That has nothing to do with the validity of my argument or the quality of my reasoning. I didn't go into such a detailed explanation of the psychological forces involved simply to conclude "you can trust me". I was trying to shed some light on the differences in people's psychology so you could evaluate these concepts independently. If I was trying to make myself an authority (always a deceitful method of reasoning), then I wouldn't have posted anonymously. Duh
If you can find a more complete explanation for why virtually all the best in state athletes (Norgard excepted) left while we have some top athletes coming from out-of state by all means, share.
The theory that the "grass is always greener" might have some truth to it. However, that theory doesn't seem to apply to athletes in other states like nebraska, texas, florida...! Rather than just throw up one's hands then and say it is impossible to understand these kids, one can try to empathize with the athletes and understand things from their various perspective(s), and see what insight emerges.
For Coach Hawkins (if I dare to use the C word), coaching did seem to be rocket science... how else to explain all his blow ups, crashes, and mid-air collisions
Hawkins has a quintessential ESFP psychology type (or conceivably ESTP but i doubt it). The Psychology theory predicts that this kind of person is impulsive, unable to make or stick to a plan, always attracted to something new and exciting, and has real difficulty in being able to predict or care about the long-term consequences. Ring any bells...perhaps with respect to which quarterback to play?
To me this is the type of mentality which should never be in coaching. (at least not outside of elementary school)
Maybe everyone here can agree with me on that... haha
Idot Buff
Guest
dooshe'
Those guys aren't douches!
Idot Buff
Guest
correct.....now you, on the other hand (or vag...).
Is that some sort of fisting joke?
Idot Buff
Guest
Perhaps.....I loved Fletch.
MattSlapped!If you are looking for pictures and fact-free and logic-free discussion Creebuzz, there are many alternatives...
This is hardly tolstoy. And if you think it is, then you probably need to some more practice reading...
lawdogg
Club Member
Far from Tolstoy, just verbose.
aeroxx
New Member
I agree; it is verbose. On the other hand, if one spent the time to make it succinct, then it probably wouldn't be free.
As to those who call other members "douches":
I, and many others, understand very well why you think this way: Concepts which requires a tiny bit of thought can appear very threatening to someone who has closed his or her mind. The ego loves to attack that which it doesn't understand.
If it can't be happy and fulfilled, then it will do its damnedest to not let anyone else alone either.
You might as well be shouting "Look at me, Look at me! don't you see how miserable I am?" To us on the outside looking in, it looks very comical.
As to those who call other members "douches":
I, and many others, understand very well why you think this way: Concepts which requires a tiny bit of thought can appear very threatening to someone who has closed his or her mind. The ego loves to attack that which it doesn't understand.
If it can't be happy and fulfilled, then it will do its damnedest to not let anyone else alone either.
You might as well be shouting "Look at me, Look at me! don't you see how miserable I am?" To us on the outside looking in, it looks very comical.