Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="anomander, post: 1425624, member: 2766"]
Hey i'll be the first to admit there are mistakes at the individual level.  That's inevitable, but all I care about is team performance.  But even if your disregard teams 1 - 28 (group 1 +2) in the national recruiting rankings, the numbers still work with teams 29-47 having a convincing record vs teams 48-75, and so on.  That basically takes most of the 4 and 5 stars out of play, since most of those, except for a scattered few would be on the top 25 teams.

I mean look at that bottom group (teams 63-75 national ranking).  Boise St, Boston College, UCF, UConn, Duke, Iowa St, Kansas St, Memphis, SU, SMU, Temple, and Wake Forest.  Really only Kansas St, and Boise St played well above their recruiting ranking, and both of those programs have a well established identity, and really soft scheduling.  When it comes to outliers you literally can identify why each and everyone would be considered unique.  What I can't understand is just what people are trying to argue?  Is it that they make mistakes on an individual level?  Sure I admit that.  But when it comes to overall team ranking I don't see an argument?  Certain players are rated higher because they get an offer from an elite?  Ok, well maybe that player should be rated higher then.  But if we are trying to argue that programs like Uconn, Iowa St, SMU, and even Syracuse should have players rated higher tell me why?  I know nobody is going to try and make the argument that coaching held them back, which could be a very reasonable reason that teams perform under there ranking.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?