Comparing Recruiting Across The Years

[Mean Green 93-98]

10 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

Exception and not the rule, but you know this.

This fan base says similar stuff every year in order to cope with the results. Buy you know this too. 

To cope with what results?  I'm simply stating the facts.

It's an exception, but why?  Because coaches and recruiting analysts are generally looking at the same data, and both rate a recruit more highly who has better measurables, stats, highlight tape, camp performance, etc.  But there are exceptions where a coach think he sees something a recruiting analyst doesn't see, or vice versa.  Which tells you that neither is basing his own rating directly on the other's.  So exception or otherwise, it stands as proof. 

How could there even be an exception if, as alleged, the quantity and quality of recruits' offers are "the primary basis of a recruits rating and nothing else comes close"?

 

14 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

I never stated as apparently you have assumed that a player's ranking is based on a linear correlation based on some combination of offers and teams offering.   That would be impossible as the ratings are done at different times and by different people.   

There are I assume hundreds of people who are responsible for the ranking of recruits for the services.   Each of those people are going to interpret the player data a different way.   I am sure they try to get some kind of consistency, but there is always going to be a substantial judgment element.   This will occur no matter what data is driving the ranking.

Timing again is a big element, more offers may occur or actual performance may significantly change.  Also as an recruiting analyst evaluates more and more recruits, their standards have to change.   

It appears to me that once a player's star level has been established that changes occur much more often based on who he signs with than for example his play in his senior season.      

I

"Player data," eh?  Now you've conceded your point.  There are clearly other factors at play besides scholarship offers.

Okay, let me give you another example.  Judd Erickson was the #22 pro style QB in last year's class.  But he never received a single FBS offer.  He ended up walking on at Colorado State.

The #23 (lower ranked) pro style QB, Jake Allen, had 11 FBS offers.  Several of those were P5 offers, and he ended up signing to play on an athletic scholarship for Florida.

On what basis was Erickson ever the #22 QB if he never received a single scholarship offer?

Edited December 24, 2017 by Mean Green 93-98

[Ben Gooding]

On 12/24/2017 at 2:52 PM, Mean Green 93-98 said:

To cope with what results?  I'm simply stating the facts.

It's an exception, but why?  Because coaches and recruiting analysts are generally looking at the same data, and both rate a recruit more highly who has better measurables, stats, highlight tape, camp performance, etc.  But there are exceptions where a coach think he sees something a recruiting analyst doesn't see, or vice versa.  Which tells you that neither is basing his own rating directly on the other's.  So exception or otherwise, it stands as proof. 

How could there even be an exception if, as alleged, the quantity and quality of recruits' offers are "the primary basis of a recruits rating and nothing else comes close"?

 

"Player data," eh?  Now you've conceded your point.  There are clearly other factors at play besides scholarship offers.

Okay, let me give you another example.  Judd Erickson was the #22 pro style QB in last year's class.  But he never received a single FBS offer.  He ended up walking on at Colorado State.

The #23 (lower ranked) pro style QB, Jake Allen, had 11 FBS offers.  Several of those were P5 offers, and he ended up signing to play on an athletic scholarship for Florida.

On what basis was Erickson ever the #22 QB if he never received a single scholarship offer?

You're in defense of something tgis staff is doing about something to do with recruiting. Offers matter. More of them, more likely dude will be productive. Stars are similar, but at our level of play offers are more accurate and easier to track. The exception I think I referred to was when you pointed out a 3 star having like 20 more offers than a 4 star kid. That's an anomaly. Nevertheless, if we at UNT focus on offers and winning recruiting battles the rest will fall into place. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

21 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

You're in defense of something tgis staff is doing about something to do with recruiting. Offers matter. More of them, more likely dude will be productive. Stars are similar, but at our level of play offers are more accurate and easier to track. The exception I think I referred to was when you pointed out a 3 star having like 20 more offers than a 4 star kid. That's an anomaly. Nevertheless, if we at UNT focus on offers and winning recruiting battles the rest will fall into place. 

I said nothing about what this staff is doing in recruiting.  I simply refuted a commonly-repeated myth around here that the recruiting sites only consider offers when rating recruits.

Your last sentence is thoroughly ridiculous, but really wasn't what our discussion was about so I'll leave it alone.

[GrandGreen]

22 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I said nothing about what this staff is doing in recruiting.  I simply refuted a commonly-repeated myth around here that the recruiting sites only consider offers when rating recruits.

Your last sentence is thoroughly ridiculous, but really wasn't what our discussion was about so I'll leave it alone.

Again, who has stated that recruiting sites only consider offers?   I stated it is the biggest factor and I will definitely stick with that assessment.  Show me one example of anyone stating that only offers are considered in ranking recruits.   

It is much easier, I guess to make you point; when you limit your argument to one factor, even though anyone knows there is more involved than that. 

I know this will only result in more of your inane arguments.   

By the way, your use of thoroughly ridiculous to describe anything that you don't agree with is thoroughly ridiculous.     

[Mean Green 93-98]

43 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Again, who has stated that recruiting sites only consider offers?   I stated it is the biggest factor and I will definitely stick with that assessment.  Show me one example of anyone stating that only offers are considered in ranking recruits.    

This is what you said, and this is to what I initially responded:

On 12/23/2017 at 11:49 AM, GrandGreen said:

The truth is, that the player rankings are based on the number and quality of offers a recruit has.  

Apparently you forgot what you said?  Do we really have to go through this again?

[BillySee58]

1 hour ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

This is what you said, and this is to what I initially responded:

Apparently you forgot what you said?  Do we really have to go through this again?

He said based on. Not that it's the only factor. And I'd say that's generally accurate.

Every year there are guys who the sites rate highly early on but they don't get the offers to substantiate the rating so they drop them. This happened to Willy Ivery, as 247 had him at an 87, a near 4-star rating in which players typically have 10 or so P5 offers. He didn't get the offers and they dropped him to a 79, despite playing zero games in between that time frame and not showing any regression.

You do see them leave guys without great offer lists as 3-stars, typically low-end 3-stars. We have had our fair share of 3-stars with no other offers or only maybe one other FBS offer. But those are low-end 3-stars, which is a huge difference from high-end 3-stars and many on this board don't fully grasp the chasm between the two as we typically just get excited when we see 3-stars.

Point being, these recruiting site guys are not going to deviate very far from what college coaches think, particularly with mid 3-star players and up. These are the P5 guys being recruited by schools whose fan bases provide the sites with sub money. Anything below that, with recruits being recruited by schools without fan bases providing the sites sub money are much more inconsistent. Which is back to the reason I prefer offer lists for evaluating the recruits we pursue and sign.

[GrandGreen]

2 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

This is what you said, and this is to what I initially responded:

Apparently you forgot what you said?  Do we really have to go through this again?

Why not go through it again and again and than again.   If you read all my comments in this thread it should be clear to anyone that I know that there are secondary factors that go into rating assignment.   That is a logical assumption, however your black and white analysis apparently doesn't allow for that.   

If you want to get super technical and parse every word.   "Based" does not indicate that is the only source used.  

Do you believe that a movie that is credited to be based on a true story is totally derived from actual events?   No, everyone knows that although the movie may be structured around the truth,  there have been a lot of additions to facilitate and enhance the movie that never happened.   

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by GrandGreen

[TreeFiddy]

13 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

He said based on. Not that it's the only factor. And I'd say that's generally accurate.

Every year there are guys who the sites rate highly early on but they don't get the offers to substantiate the rating so they drop them. This happened to Willy Ivery, as 247 had him at an 87, a near 4-star rating in which players typically have 10 or so P5 offers. He didn't get the offers and they dropped him to a 79, despite playing zero games in between that time frame and not showing any regression.

You do see them leave guys without great offer lists as 3-stars, typically low-end 3-stars. We have had our fair share of 3-stars with no other offers or only maybe one other FBS offer. But those are low-end 3-stars, which is a huge difference from high-end 3-stars and many on this board don't fully grasp the chasm between the two as we typically just get excited when we see 3-stars.

Point being, these recruiting site guys are not going to deviate very far from what college coaches think, particularly with mid 3-star players and up. These are the P5 guys being recruited by schools whose fan bases provide the sites with sub money. Anything below that, with recruits being recruited by schools without fan bases providing the sites sub money are much more inconsistent. Which is back to the reason I prefer offer lists for evaluating the recruits we pursue and sign.

It sounds like the best way to guarantee our recruiting improves is to start up a 247 message board and start generating paid subscriptions.  Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[UNTLifer]

This entire thread explains why I choose to rate our classes after they graduate. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

21 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Why not go through it again and again and than again.   If you read all my comments in this thread it should be clear to anyone that I know that there are secondary factors that go into rating assignment.   That is a logical assumption, however your black and white analysis apparently doesn't allow for that.   

If you want to get super technical and parse every word.   "Based" does not indicate that is the only source used.  

Do you believe that a movie that is credited to be based on a true story is totally derived from actual events?   No, everyone knows that although the movie may be structured around the truth,  there have been a lot of additions to facilitate and enhance the movie that never happened.   

 

Sigh . . . you also said nothing else even comes close.  But I'm glad to see that you're coming around now, and that's good enough.  Moving on.

[UNTLifer]

A majority of the A's and B's from 2011 through 2016 haven't panned out.

[BillySee58]

25 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

A majority of the A's and B's from 2011 through 2016 haven't panned out.

A majority of our all-conference players have been As and Bs. 

Lemon in 2013-2014 (A), Y'Barbo in 2013 (B+), Bellazin in 2013 (A), Orr in 2013 (B+), Trice in 2013 (A+), Akunne in 2014 (B), Wilson in 2017 (B), and newcomer of the year Guyton in 2017 (A out of JUCO/A+ out of high school).

Fine made it in 2017 was a C, Chancellor made it in 2013 and was a C, and McClain made it in 2016 and was a C+.

Majority of guys who made it convinced college coaches they could do it at this level coming out. 

[GTWT]

Question - It's been suggested that if a highly ranked player (*** or better) slips to a G5 team, there's a reason - academics, legal, personality et al.  True?

[aztecskin]

I've always liked this system because it is not really a system it is just looking at the facts. We are seeing what guys who have skin in the game have staked their jobs on. That is more telling. That gives us better insight than what one Rivals scout rated a guy.

The recruiting sites are not a perfect measure, for the reasons @BillySee58 mentioned -- they do not reveal their system of ratings, it is nonstandard and fluctuates by evaluator,  and do too much fan-service to the paying customers.

If the Rivals guy that rated Ivery is wrong, what incentive does he have to be right? If Seth Littrell is wrong on Mason Fine, what happens? He gets fired.

The story on Fine's recruitment hinted at this -- Might have been Stoops that said something to the effect of "If I take him and I'm wrong I get fired" . This tells you why schools are less likely to take the undersized guys and why they still could succeed. But overall the better rated, bigger, stronger, recruits that are desired by the national champs are going to get lots of offers and do better overall.

This way of evaluating classes distills a number of factors down in an easy to read number** . After all, it doesn't matter how many guys they wanted if they did not get them. It also does not matter how many talents they identified first if it they ultimately signed elsewhere. What matters is how many talented guys are in Green on game day.

---

Also, getting a QB is a priority, and this staff hit a home run on that. That is the first step in turning a program around. They absolutely need to hit on front 7 guys on defense and front 5 guys on offense. I liked the previous OL haul, although at this level finding game-changers is extremely difficult. Having a CUSA version of Louisville -- great skill guys with a line that is awful -- is not the worst place to be but this game is still built around the fronts -- see the CFP -- and that's where NT will need to win battles in the future. ***

** Although I would like to see the B+ percentage standardized to account for the differing number of scholarships in a season. We could simply state it as a percentage of 85 to get an idea of the number of B+ rated guy on the roster at a given time. After all having 3 B+ players (3/6) is a better class than 1 (1/2) but they could have the same percentage in theory. 

*** UTSA hit big on Marcus Davenport and developed him into an NFL prospect. He nearly won UTSA that game by destroying our line and hitting Mason Fine. Finding diamonds is possible but it is not likely. Every team wants to hit on diamonds but it cannot be your main recruiting strategy at the OL / DL level.

[Ben Gooding]

On 1/7/2018 at 12:48 PM, GTWT said:

Question - It's been suggested that if a highly ranked player (*** or better) slips to a G5 team, there's a reason - academics, legal, personality et al.  True?

Not at all true. 

[BillySee58]

Wanted to post an updated sheet. The percentage is clearly up, but more importantly the sheer number of offers from these commits is considerably higher than I’ve ever seen it.