Class of 2016 Interesting read for those anti-star ppl

[TheCusian]

Just want to point out that this is in the context of analysis at a population level. The article does a good job of explaining that there are plenty of errors at the individual level, how any one player scores on an evaluation is about as meaningful as a lottery ticket. But in the context of hundreds if not thousands of evaluations, more often than not they effectively predict the outcome. This is the same principle underlying actuarial science and fundamental analysis. You apply a set criteria to each instance and effectively score each instance, those that rate higher have a historically higher rate of success.
I don't like it, I still believe that a number of other variables can best sheer ability. Even more I hate the idea that all of this is predetermined, that it's as simple as the bigger, stronger, faster team is going to win. But I get the statistical feamework on this one and after reading the article I had a "yeah...duh!" moment.

I've always looked at stars as a "how likely are they to become an impact player" ... 5-star high percentage, 2-star low percentage. Therefore you want as many high percentage guys as possible. You can win with 3-star guys if you hit on enough of them ... but the chances you're beating a team that is stacked with high percentage guys is unlikely. Throw in the best coaches typically are at the jobs where they go and it's even more of an uphill climb.

 

[rrlbees]

They all had pretty extensive offer lists. For example Quansah, picked up most of his offers after last years evaluation period.

Offer lists are often BS. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

 

[tep624]

They all had pretty extensive offer lists. For example Quansah, picked up most of his offers after last years evaluation period.

Take a look at their last 4 classes - you know ,the guys that led them to their 10 win season.

 

[anomander]

Take a look at their last 4 classes - you know ,the guys that led them to their 10 win season.

Well we have an outlier.

 

[CUSU]

Well we have an outlier.

I am a firm believer that there are no such thing as outliers if all the data is accurate, they should not be discounted from the data set. Yes, they do go against the trend that the article is trying to articulate, but should not be forgotten or discredited.

 

[anomander]

I am a firm believer that there are no such thing as outliers if all the data is accurate, they should not be discounted from the data set. Yes, they do go against the trend that the article is trying to articulate, but should not be forgotten or discredited.

I don't think it is discredited? It's not like they aren't factored in. To me it shows that it is possible to win with less talent, and in the case of Kansas St, Duke, and Boise it was elite coaching with ingrained identities, and very smart scheduling. I also think it shows how good of a HC Marrone was. Further they prove its not impossible to win with less, it's just a lot less likely.

 

[CUSU]

I don't think it is discredited? It's not like they aren't factored in. To me it shows that it is possible to win with less talent, and in the case of Kansas St, Duke, and Boise it was elite coaching with ingrained identities, and very smart scheduling. I also think it shows how good of a HC Marrone was. Further they prove its not impossible to win with less, it's just a lot less likely.

It also could also possibly show that maybe they don't have less talent?

 

[TheCusian]

I don't think it is discredited? It's not like they aren't factored in. To me it shows that it is possible to win with less talent, and in the case of Kansas St, Duke, and Boise it was elite coaching with ingrained identities, and very smart scheduling. I also think it shows how good of a HC Marrone was. Further they prove its not impossible to win with less, it's just a lot less likely.

How good of a HC Marrone was excluding recruiting - the data set proves he was pretty bad at it.

 

[TheCusian]

It also could also possibly show that maybe they don't have less talent?

Exactly my point from before - which comes first? When do your recruits get the magic bump? How good do you have to be? It's not a fatal flaw in the system - but it is one that drives a perception that undermines the ranking services somewhat.

 

[anomander]

It also could also possibly show that maybe they don't have less talent?

That's really pushing it though. When you have a handful of cases on 1 side, and everyone else on the other, I think it's pretty clear they are the exception. Plus if you dig deeper with those cases you can see why. Like I said: All very good coaches, very good systems, and very smart scheduling. If you are a math guy it's pretty hard to argue.

How good of a HC Marrone was excluding recruiting - the data set proves he was pretty bad at it.

I agree. His recruiting was pitiful. But I would have been totally fine being an outlier with pitiful recruiting, and wins on the field. You also would have seen an uptick in his recruiting. The new facilities weren't fully renovated until after the 2012 season, and we were finally going to bowl games again.

 

[PhatOrange]

Star ratings are meaningless. What is more meaningful is who else wants the kid to play for them.

That's really pushing it though. When you have a handful of cases on 1 side, and everyone else on the other, I think it's pretty clear they are the exception. Plus if you dig deeper with those cases you can see why. Like I said: All very good coaches, very good systems, and very smart scheduling. If you are a math guy it's pretty hard to argue..

the flip side are the schools with top recruiting stars that falter, like Florida. Then the argument is the coach. But maybe it's not. Maybe the argument is their talent was over rated by the sites because they are Florida.

 

[anomander]

Star ratings are meaningless. What is more meaningful is who else wants the kid to play for them. the flip side are the schools with top recruiting stars that falter, like Florida. Then the argument is the coach. But maybe it's not. Maybe the argument is their talent was over rated by the sites because they are Florida.

We have a whole bunch of data that says you are dead wrong.

Everyone chimes in saying how stars are meaningless, but nobody has any data to prove otherwise, other then 1 or 2 examples of the extreme.

 

[CanadianSU]

Yawn.

 

[rrlbees]

Star ratings are meaningless. What is more meaningful is who else wants the kid to play for them. the flip side are the schools with top recruiting stars that falter, like Florida. Then the argument is the coach. But maybe it's not. Maybe the argument is their talent was over rated by the sites because they are Florida.

Offers are often BS.

 

[Bambrewer]

I swore I wasn't going to post in this thread again but here I go. I don't need data I went to the camps I spoke to the directors I have talked to the other parents and kids with similar experiences. All the data proves is once again what people are saying over and over. 4 and 5 star kids are no doubt great players no one is saying They get those kids wrong. The problem is you create a business based on telling kids come to camp and we will evaluate you based on your talent and rank you. That's what they tell you. It's what the built their business on. The kids go to these camps and get pushed off for the hyped kid. The kid that his coach pushed him to the sites or he knows some one. The other 90 percent never get an evaluation. Then the kid gets an offer. Ok the top 5 coaches want him 4 stars or 5 stars. Ok Syracuse and these other places want him ok 3 stars or 2 stars. If you haven't looked at a kid don't rate him. If he goes to your camp give him a rating based on how he did. Once again if the top kids go to the schools who's coaches are why the sites decide how many stars to give they will always have high ranking star percentages. Those kids are great. Our problem is the 3 star and 2 star kids who are just given a number could be 5 star talent not 5 star offered.

 

[anomander]

I swore I wasn't going to post in this thread again but here I go. I don't need data I went to the camps I spoke to the directors I have talked to the other parents and kids with similar experiences. All the data proves is once again what people are saying over and over. 4 and 5 star kids are no doubt great players no one is saying They get those kids wrong. The problem is you create a business based on telling kids come to camp and we will evaluate you based on your talent and rank you. That's what they tell you. It's what the built their business on. The kids go to these camps and get pushed off for the hyped kid. The kid that his coach pushed him to the sites or he knows some one. The other 90 percent never get an evaluation. Then the kid gets an offer. Ok the top 5 coaches want him 4 stars or 5 stars. Ok Syracuse and these other places want him ok 3 stars or 2 stars. If you haven't looked at a kid don't rate him. If he goes to your camp give him a rating based on how he did. Once again if the top kids go to the schools who's coaches are why the sites decide how many stars to give they will always have high ranking star percentages. Those kids are great. Our problem is the 3 star and 2 star kids who are just given a number could be 5 star talent not 5 star offered.

I went to all those camps too, it doesn't change the fact that the data is very convincing. Can you explain why it seems so accurate?

Again you're hung up on how the rating came about. Who cares, it's irrelevant. All that matters is those final team rankings are a pretty solid indicator of win %, and that's indisputable.

 

[Bambrewer]

Accurate to what? That schools who decide who is a five and four star player get lots of them? Accurate that 5 star players are great? Accurate that teams with lots of talent win? I'm not sure what you want me to say. I have said the 5 star talents are 5 star players. I said the coaching staffs of these perennial too teams do a great job identifying and getting 5 star players. No just explain to me how that has anything to do with ranking players by stars. Explain to me how you create a business that says we will rate your talent for you come see us and when you show up we say here is your 3 star rating now if Coach Saban says you are great we will make you a 4 star if coach Meyer and Saban says your great we will make you a 5 star. If coach shafer says you are great we will make you a 2 star unless you have a few other schools then you can keep your 3. This is like being a weather man in syracuse and saying hey it's gonna snow this winter. What about Tuesday? Well ask Saban what Tuesday looks like I just know sooner or later it will snow

 

[anomander]

Forget Saban and 5 and 4 stars. Tell me why the 3star schools have winning records vs the 2star schools? Tell me why the 2star schools have winning records vs the 1star schools. There no mention of Saban, 5stars, or 4stars.

I really don't even think you ready the entire article.

 

[bcubs9497]

Tell me why "fans" seem to love to fling their own poo all over themselves and the program? Glom onto anything negative, and excoriate anyone who wants to accentuate the positive.

That's bull shot, and I say *+-#. It's time for me to make liberal use of the ignore function.

 

[anomander]

Tell me why "fans" seem to love to fling their own poo all over themselves and the program? Glom onto anything negative, and excoriate anyone who wants to accentuate the positive. That's bull shot, and I say *+-#. It's time for me to make liberal use of the ignore function.

Who said anything about Syracuse?

 

[Bambrewer]

I read the whole article hind site is a wonderful thing. I guess I have to say enjoy your article and this data. We will never agree on what the system is explained to be and what it is.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Tell me why "fans" seem to love to fling their own poo all over themselves and the program? Glom onto anything negative, and excoriate anyone who wants to accentuate the positive.

That's bull shot, and I say *+-#. It's time for me to make liberal use of the ignore function.

For all I know you already have me on ignore, but cubs, in all sincerity, if you're having a hard time with some of what is being posted now by people that do actually care about the program and the players and coaches, and that for the most part are reasonable people, please consider laying off the board as the season approaches and during the season for your own health, sanity and for your family's good. Once the season starts, and some hiccups happen, the moderators do a good job of keeping true idiots off the board, but you're going to see posts you really probably don't want to from people that aren't anywhere near as reasonable.

 

[Bambrewer]

For all I know you already have me on ignore, but cubs, in all sincerity, if you're having a hard time with some of what is being posted now by people that do actually care about the program and the players and coaches, and that for the most part are reasonable people, please consider laying off the board as the season approaches and during the season for your own health, sanity and for your family's good. Once the season starts, and some hiccups happen, the moderators do a good job of keeping true idiots off the board, but you're going to see posts you really probably don't want to from people that aren't anywhere near as reasonable.

We already discussed this this weekend lol

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I wonder sometimes too about how fans interpret the recruiting rankings. We probably take them as a lot more set in stone than they are. I remember bnoro I think being frustrated last year because one of our linemen commits, can't remember which, didn't lose his 3 star ranking, but did get dropped a bunch of places by his rankings within his state. Did he suddenly get worse? That's one way to interpret it, but another way would be that recruiting rankings are a snapshot of what is "known" at the time. For example, early on a guy proves he's good and a high level prospect and he is ranked tenth best on his state. Later on, a lot more players prove to be worthy of evaluation. Some of them are deemed to be ranked higher within the state than our original player. Did he get worse? No. The universe of evaluated players around him grew. We now "know" more. The way to interpret his ranking would be that he is the X best player in the state, among those players that have been evaluated. Not that he's definitively the X best player in the state.

 

[TheCusian]

For all I know you already have me on ignore, but cubs, in all sincerity, if you're having a hard time with some of what is being posted now by people that do actually care about the program and the players and coaches, and that for the most part are reasonable people, please consider laying off the board as the season approaches and during the season for your own health, sanity and for your family's good. Once the season starts, and some hiccups happen, the moderators do a good job of keeping true idiots off the board, but you're going to see posts you really probably don't want to from people that aren't anywhere near as reasonable.

I agree 1000x. I stay away until Wed if we lose. Too many yahoos use the site as a place to vent.