We get so worked up on recruiting

[TheCusian]

There is a correlation between their ranking, who's offered them scholarships, their talent, and how that is reflected in the team's success. The team's ranking has a higher correlation. And yes many will incorrectly provide of examples of those who didn't.

This is obviously true - as was the point before it.

It's not black and white - it's a mix of recruits, coaching, and things like team and hard work, etc. We can agree to disagree about how important they all are - but to argue too much over 60% recruiting vs 70% is unprovable and probably a waste of time.

I want the best recruits possible playing for the best coaches with a big S on the helmet.

 

[IHeartSUFball]

this is football... everyone is a 3+ year guy

ok really should have said 4 legit years... Hope that works big man

 

[Sudano]

I have never seen a study that proves or disproves the ranking theory. I am not sure it can even be done given the independent variables. Any statement pro or con is based purely on anecdotal evidence. So, everybody is free to have their own opinion - which is nice.

Everyone is free to their own opinion even if there were dozens of studies. If recruiting rankings had no correlation to success teams like Kansas, New Mexico, and Tulane would be perennial powerhouses.

 

[Sudano]

This is obviously true - as was the point before it.

It's not black and white - it's a mix of recruits, coaching, and things like team and hard work, etc. We can agree to disagree about how important they all are - but to argue too much over 60% recruiting vs 70% is unprovable and probably a waste of time.

I want the best recruits possible playing for the best coaches with a big S on the helmet.

What is black and white about my post? Other posters are trying to make my post black and white.
I agree with you with - I want the best recruits possible playing for the best coaches with a big S on the helmet.
That's all I'm saying. There are many posters trying to say it doesn't matter who we get just coach em up, which in my opinion is a fallacy.

 

[qdawgg]

Everyone is free to their own opinion even if there were dozens of studies. If recruiting rankings had no correlation to success teams like Kansas, New Mexico, and Tulane would be perennial powerhouses.

Please link a few of these 12+ studies. I would love to read more on this topic. The information you have provided so far has been excellent.

I cited 4 schools to base my argument and you provided 3. I could also use Boise State, TCU, Texas Tech to offset the 3 schools you mentioned. Granted, as reading comprehension is not your strong suit, math is not mine.

Regardless, please post some of these studies so that myself and the rest of the board can be better educated.

 

[OrangePA]

[qe="BORZAK, post: 873368, member: 163"]If talent always wins, how do you explain the Patriots?[/quote]


Tom Brady?

The Best QB In Football?

 

[Sudano]

Please link a few of these 12+ studies. I would love to read more on this topic. The information you have provided so far has been excellent.

I cited 4 schools to base my argument and you provided 3. I could also use Boise State, TCU, Texas Tech to offset the 3 schools you mentioned. Granted, as reading comprehension is not your strong suit, math is not mine.

Regardless, please post some of these studies so that myself and the rest of the board can be better educated.

Didn't TCU finish 4-8 this year? Ah the childish reading comprehension put down. Luckily I don't have self esteem issues or you would have just hurt my feelings. Do you want more or less talent? Sheesh, I sound like the AT&T commercial guy. Stars are just a reflection of which college coaches have offered scholarships. Does it guarantee success? Absolutely not. But it does provide better insight into who has talent and who doesn't.
Years ago I actually did start a statistical analysis to compare the relevance between team recruiting rankings over a 5 yr period and their corresponding national rankings a few yrs later and initially found a strong positive correlation between the two. I didn't finish it because life took over. So in reality your 3 examples and my 3 examples would be considered outside the statistical relevance of those hundreds of data points.

 

[Opus]

I see a lot of people getting 'worked up' in this thread, so I guess the title of this thread is appropriate.

 

[Statesman1]

Sudano is right on.

[qe="BORZAK, post: 873368, member: 163"]If talent always wins, how do you explain the Patriots?

Tom Brady?

The Best QB In Football?[/quote]
Nah, Brady doesn't qualify as talent.

 

[Sudano]

I see a lot of people getting 'worked up' in this thread, so I guess the title of this thread is appropriate.

Not getting worked up. Just having a debate. He's probably a super nice guy I'd buy a beer for.

 

[Crusty]

Everyone is free to their own opinion even if there were dozens of studies. If recruiting rankings had no correlation to success teams like Kansas, New Mexico, and Tulane would be perennial powerhouses.

Your reference to Kansas, New Mexico and Tulane is pure hyperbole, which rarely advances a discussion.

 

[retro44]

what's this thread about?

 

[Statesman1]

Not getting worked up. Just having a debate. He's probably a super nice guy I'd buy a beer for.

Yeah Sudano, enough of this Orange on Orange crime! Get off him already :-b

 

[Statesman1]

Your reference to Kansas, New Mexico and Tulane is pure hyperbole, which rarely advances a discussion.

Not to the fans of Kansas, New Mexico, and Tulane. They suck!

 

[CuseOnly]

Your reference to Kansas, New Mexico and Tulane is pure hyperbole, which rarely advances a discussion.

What am hyperbole?

 

[Crusty]

Not to the fans of Kansas, New Mexico, and Tulane. They suck!

Now I know you are a teenager.

 

[SUfanNC]

what's this thread about?

Pm me when you find out

 

[Statesman1]

Now I know you are a teenager.

Oooooohhh. I thought that was you yelling at me to get off your porch Crusty!

 

[qdawgg]

Not getting worked up. Just having a debate. He's probably a super nice guy I'd buy a beer for.

Just one!

 

[bnoro]

What is black and white about my post? Other posters are trying to make my post black and white.
I agree with you with - I want the best recruits possible playing for the best coaches with a big S on the helmet.
That's all I'm saying. There are many posters trying to say it doesn't matter who we get just coach em up, which in my opinion is a fallacy.

I want the best recruits possible as well. But I don't judge said recruits on an evaluation done by someone that isn't a head coach of a college team. I know that Syracuse scouts its own talent and doesn't use skout, rivles, espn, and 247. This is why we land kids that we offered first and they get big offers down the road. Regardless of what you believe, this is all that matters.

 

[CusefanATL]

Where do these frosh play? Note - I consider frosh to be freshman, not newcomers to the program. Kelly should have played for us this year, for example.

QB - Hunt
RB - Morris/McFarlane
WR - Broyld, Cornelius, Estime (We talked a lot at how bad our WR have been, but they were better when these 3 were the main ones getting run)
TE - Parris
OL - No true frosh
DE - Unlikely
DT - Wayne Williams, possibly another frosh
LB - Losing Spruill, but Hodge likely replacing
DB - Likely opportunity, but will the new kids be ready?

This is where I think Cuse is entering a good place to be. Talent level has returned to average. So now, average freshman that would have played right away can now redshirt. Team will become stronger.

This class won't have a huge effect on next year's won-loss record and I don't know that I anticipate many playing as true frosh (I see maybe 1 WR, 2 of the LB's on specials, maybe 1 of the DB's), but they will make an impact on the program in 2 years as it returns to a consistent top 25 squad.

Hunt may be in the drivers seat - but he is not guaranteed that position.
A WR can easily jump all 3 of those guys.
Parris could be jumped

not saying a true frosh should play QB. but lets not confuse hunt with a top 50 qb in college football. let alone a good qb just yet.

 

[TheCusian]

Hunt may be in the drivers seat - but he is not guaranteed that position. A WR can easily jump all 3 of those guys. Parris could be jumped not saying a true frosh should play QB. but lets not confuse hunt with a top 50 qb in college football. let alone a good qb just yet.

It's as good as his. He is very well liked by his teammates, had a winning record as QB, and won his bowl game.

I bet they open up the competition just to push him - but he'd have to get outplayed so well that the guys rally around the new kid. Very unlikely.

 

[timkay99]

Hunt may be in the drivers seat - but he is not guaranteed that position.
A WR can easily jump all 3 of those guys.
Parris could be jumped

not saying a true frosh should play QB. but lets not confuse hunt with a top 50 qb in college football. let alone a good qb just yet.

The only QB with a chance at the job would be Long, who I believe is enrolling early. Better chance a redshirt frosh battles for the job then one of the true frosh.

What true frosh TE will jump Parris?

 

[bnoro]

The only QB with a chance at the job would be Long, who I believe is enrolling early. Better chance a redshirt frosh battles for the job then one of the true frosh.

What true frosh TE will jump Parris?

Custis could, Enoicy could if he came here.

 

[CusefanATL]

It's as good as his. He is very well liked by his teammates, had a winning record as QB, and won his bowl game.

I bet they open up the competition just to push him - but he'd have to get outplayed so well that the guys rally around the new kid. Very unlikely.

IF the qb position is as good as his with being as average as we were this year with a poor offense and horrible passing offense, there is no reason to root for syracuse. We are doomed for the foreseeable future. i hope there is some competition.