Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="qdawgg, post: 4026789, member: 52"] I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. And maybe I’m arguing about something different than what you’re saying and vice versa. I realize the star system/recruiting rankings are rife with issues at many levels. But I also realize that teams ranked in the top 25 in recruiting, on average, are more likely to be a top 25 team. Teams that are ranked lower, either nationally or within their own league, like SU. On average end the season near the bottom of their conference. Since I’ve been on this site and the previous site I’ve done 2 different in depth studies of this. So for me, my issue is always with people arguing we’re recruiting better than our yearly recruiting rankings, after winning 1 or 3 games. No, clearly we aren’t. Can we outperform some years despite our recruiting rankings? Absolutely and that largely, in my opinion, comes down to having a good coaching staff. But ending each year near the bottom of the ACC in our recruiting rankings, we more often than not have a record that resembles our recruiting. Whether we like it or not. Clemson is actually a great example of that this year. Highly ranked team in recruiting and having a very poor season. That doesn’t mean the ratings don’t work, this year hasn’t panned out but on average has Clemsons recruiting ranking matched up with their record. Absolutely. There are many flaws in the star rating but it’s always teams with poor records that find the biggest issues with them. Even with its flaws, it’s still a great predictor of especially the top ~25 and bottom ~25 teams. Where I would say the ratings can be a toss up and this isn’t a surprise. It’s much harder identifying which 2-3 star players may turn in to 5 star players after 2-4 yrs at college and which ones will underperform. It’s all the middling teams where a coaching staff that can identify talent and coach players up is very important. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?