Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long.

Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2014 8:49 AM

Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


I know it doesn't mean much. I have noticed, however, those schools in the top ten tend to win a lot of games. FWIW

http://insider.espn.go.com/col...g/classrankings

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Albert Einstein

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2014 11:19 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


I didn't expect us to be in the top ten, even though we only have 9 commits on this site. It sure would be nice to win a lot of games again.
Reply | Quote
  • Porkdiet
  • Broyles/Matthews
  • 6485 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2014 11:21 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


True, but only ONE of all those teams mentioned wins the National Championship at the end of the year.cool
HogLaw91 wrote: I know it doesn't mean much. I have noticed, however, those schools in the top ten tend to win a lot of games. FWIW

http://insider.espn.go.com/col...g/classrankings

18

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2014 12:19 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


All of the recruiting rankings are based upon a total point system.  They are not average stars.  We are ranked 21 on 24/7, but only have 9 commits.  If it went on average star ranking of each school's commits we would be ranked 9th overall.  We're 15 on Scout in total rankings, but would be 8th in average stars.  Likewise 18th on Rivals, but 11th in average stars.

The highest class we've EVER had was an 18th ranked class on Scout using a total point system after signing day.  I'd say recruiting is looking good.  In fact, THE BEST WE'VE EVER DONE.
Throwback uniforms-make it happen, Long!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2014 3:12 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


These rankings don't mean anything at all. Bielema will develop the talent he has, whether it be 4 and 5 stars or 2 and 3 stars. He also will develop the whole team and not just QBs and wide receivers. It would be nice to have a top 10 ranked recruiting class, but what really matters is the season. What was said about this years Superbowl and mostly 2 star players on the field? Again, it isn't the talent, although it does help, its the coaching and I believe we are in good hands.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/20/2014 2:24 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


Stars don't predict how players are developed.  They predict how ready they are to play at the college level out of high school.  So how many 2 stars on the field during the Super Bowl (which I doubt they were mostly 2 stars) really isn't relevant to how well the rating system works.  I don't recall a lot of complaining about how Petrino was developing his roster circa 2010-2011.  I'll take those results over last season any day. 

I just don't get why we have to bash the former coach in order to validate the current one.
Keep a light on some patrols are still out!

Last edited 6/20/2014 2:24 AM by armyrazorbacker

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/20/2014 6:01 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


DEVELOPEMENT that's a big word with lower Star rated players. Development at what pace? Each individual is different. But some 4-5 Star players we have had didn't live up to expectations, on the other hand some 2-3 Star players exceeded that. Is that a case of good development by coaches at college level or less press coverage and hype brought on by their high school coaches for the 2-3 Star players who excel in college? Hmmm.

ONE OF THESE DAYS ALICE-POW!-RIGHT IN THE KISSER.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/20/2014 6:07 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


I guess that is what the summer camps are for. Total evaluation of the athlete not the star ranking per say.

ONE OF THESE DAYS ALICE-POW!-RIGHT IN THE KISSER.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/20/2014 7:53 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 



jimbeau77 wrote: DEVELOPEMENT that's a big word with lower Star rated players. Development at what pace? Each individual is different. But some 4-5 Star players we have had didn't live up to expectations, on the other hand some 2-3 Star players exceeded that. Is that a case of good development by coaches at college level or less press coverage and hype brought on by their high school coaches for the 2-3 Star players who excel in college? Hmmm.
It has been proven time and again that there is usually not a lot of difference between the 3* and the 5* players.  Normally, if all assessments are correct and true, the 5* is ready to play immediately and has NFL potential.  Yet 2* and 3* players make All America teams, get drafted in the 1st round, and end up as top producers in the NFL while some 4* and 5* end up as head scratchers.  If all of this and weather forecasting were exact sciences life would be much easier!
Keep a light on some patrols are still out! - RIP over50hog
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/20/2014 11:11 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 



Disagree, I believe Army actually showed statistics on here a few years ago. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it showed only about 20% of HS athletes were rated 4 or 5* and those same players made up about 70% of the drafted players. So those stars are a good judge of where we are at. Now I agree there are exceptions (JJ Watt 2*, Ingram 3*), and on the other end (Mustain, Winston 5*).

---------------------------------------------
--- HawgnDos wrote:


jimbeau77 wrote: DEVELOPEMENT that's a big word with lower Star rated players. Development at what pace? Each individual is different. But some 4-5 Star players we have had didn't live up to expectations, on the other hand some 2-3 Star players exceeded that. Is that a case of good development by coaches at college level or less press coverage and hype brought on by their high school coaches for the 2-3 Star players who excel in college? Hmmm.
It has been proven time and again that there is usually not a lot of difference between the 3* and the 5* players.  Normally, if all assessments are correct and true, the 5* is ready to play immediately and has NFL potential.  Yet 2* and 3* players make All America teams, get drafted in the 1st round, and end up as top producers in the NFL while some 4* and 5* end up as head scratchers.  If all of this and weather forecasting were exact sciences life would be much easier!

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2014 7:24 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


Here is a link to a similar story that I posted a couple of years ago.  I couldn't find the original article which broke down the numbers in terms of star ratings compared to draft positions.  This breaks it down by star ratings compared to all american selection percentage. 

Basically, 4 and 5 star recruits make up <14% of all recruits since 2008.  However, 4 and 5 star recruits have made up almost 50% of all american selections over the same time period.  Seems to me like overwhelming evidence that the star ratings are pretty telling.  Seems the only folks who disagree typically are trying to rationalize their team's lack of stars.  Evidence to the contrary is pretty hard to dismiss even though a lot on here will certainly try.
Keep a light on some patrols are still out!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/23/2014 11:50 AM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 



armyrazorbacker wrote: Here is a link to a similar story that I posted a couple of years ago.  I couldn't find the original article which broke down the numbers in terms of star ratings compared to draft positions.  This breaks it down by star ratings compared to all american selection percentage. 

Basically, 4 and 5 star recruits make up <14% of all recruits since 2008.  However, 4 and 5 star recruits have made up almost 50% of all american selections over the same time period.  Seems to me like overwhelming evidence that the star ratings are pretty telling.  Seems the only folks who disagree typically are trying to rationalize their team's lack of stars.  Evidence to the contrary is pretty hard to dismiss even though a lot on here will certainly try.
Another way to look at is, that there are 10,880 players on FBS rosters.  Using your 14% number that's 1523 four and five star recruits, of which about 45 or 3%, will make All-American.  One in 33.  Plenty of reason to obsess over stars, if you ignore the odds.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2014 12:33 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


There was an article a few years back that went back and reranked classes based on actual performance. That would seem like the better way to do it. If a coach is great at identifying raw talent that can be developed to prosper in their system then perhaps the stars to not matter as much. If the coach is able to select from the top players then the stars are a good guide to their success. I don't see Arkansas ever getting to the point where we select the players we want from the top 4 and 5 stars available. It would be nice to get as many 5 stars as we can and fill in with 4 stars but having a coach who can identify and develop seems like the more likely path to success for most schools. I believe that was CBB's reputation. We will see if the actual performance matches the reputation but for now I am looking forward to seeing how we play against the teams that earn us the toughest schedule in the nation designation.
----
You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.
-Robert Heinlein
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2014 1:08 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


Its not my 14% number. The article calculated the odds at 1 in 4 chance for a 5 star and 1 in 16 for a 4 star recruit. Either the author or you are wrong. Of course their was a lot more information than that in the article.
Keep a light on some patrols are still out!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/23/2014 1:52 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


Just an FYI.  CBB never had a top 25 ranked class at WI and look what was he was able to do.
StayPositive wrote: There was an article a few years back that went back and reranked classes based on actual performance. That would seem like the better way to do it. If a coach is great at identifying raw talent that can be developed to prosper in their system then perhaps the stars to not matter as much. If the coach is able to select from the top players then the stars are a good guide to their success. I don't see Arkansas ever getting to the point where we select the players we want from the top 4 and 5 stars available. It would be nice to get as many 5 stars as we can and fill in with 4 stars but having a coach who can identify and develop seems like the more likely path to success for most schools. I believe that was CBB's reputation. We will see if the actual performance matches the reputation but for now I am looking forward to seeing how we play against the teams that earn us the toughest schedule in the nation designation.
Throwback uniforms-make it happen, Long!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2014 2:16 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 


How much of what he was able to do was head to head with programs that also weren't pulling in top 25 classes? I'd venture that his record against the programs that were consistently outrecruiting Wisconsin wasn't as impressive.
Keep a light on some patrols are still out!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/23/2014 2:45 PM

Re: Well that top ten recruiting ranking didnt last long. 



armyrazorbacker wrote: Its not my 14% number. The article calculated the odds at 1 in 4 chance for a 5 star and 1 in 16 for a 4 star recruit. Either the author or you are wrong. Of course their was a lot more information than that in the article.
You're right, my math was wrong.  128 teams x 85 players = 10880 x 14% = 1523.2   A two deep All-American team would have about 50 players, half as four or five stars, so 25 / 1523.2 = 1.6 percent, or about one in 60.  noidea

Last edited 6/23/2014 3:48 PM by hawg66

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2014 3:12 PM

You Math Scholars drive me nuts 



hawg66 wrote:
armyrazorbacker wrote: Its not my 14% number. The article calculated the odds at 1 in 4 chance for a 5 star and 1 in 16 for a 4 star recruit. Either the author or you are wrong. Of course their was a lot more information than that in the article.
You're right, my math was wrong.  128 teams x 85 players + 10880 x 14% = 1523.2   A two deep All-American team would have about 50 players, half as four or five stars, so 25 / 1523.2 = 1.6 percent, or about one in 60.  noidea

It's like I told my algebra teacher back in the day, X + 1 don't equal a dang thing.  You can't add numbers and letters together.

As to the common (uncommon?) sense element, something tells me that a team with a bunch of 4 and 5 stars will beat a team with a bunch of 2 and 3s most of the time.  I'm certain we can point to exceptions but that's what they are, exceptions rather than the rule.

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/23/2014 3:22 PM

Re: You Math Scholars drive me nuts 


2006 - Wisconsin recruiting #7 in B1G per Rivals, 3-1 vs B1G  teams ranked higher in recruiting finished #2 in conference
2007 - Wisconsin recruiting # 7, 3-3 vs higher ranked  finished #4
2008 - Wisconsin recruiting #6, 3-2 vs hihger ranked finished #6
2009 - Wisconsin recruiting #8, 3-1 vis higher ranked finished #4
2010 - Wisconsin recruiting ranked #10, 5-1 vs higher ranked finished #1
2011 - Wisconsin #8, 4-2 vs higher ranked finished #1
2012 - Wisconsin #8, 1-4 vs higher rnaked finished #1

22-14 vs B1G teams with higher recruitng rankings.  Avg recruiting ranking 8th, average conference finish 3rd
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/23/2014 3:24 PM

Re: You Math Scholars drive me nuts 



MudvilleSwine wrote:
hawg66 wrote:
armyrazorbacker wrote: Its not my 14% number. The article calculated the odds at 1 in 4 chance for a 5 star and 1 in 16 for a 4 star recruit. Either the author or you are wrong. Of course their was a lot more information than that in the article.
You're right, my math was wrong.  128 teams x 85 players + 10880 x 14% = 1523.2   A two deep All-American team would have about 50 players, half as four or five stars, so 25 / 1523.2 = 1.6 percent, or about one in 60.  noidea

It's like I told my algebra teacher back in the day, X + 1 don't equal a dang thing.  You can't add numbers and letters together.

As to the common (uncommon?) sense element, something tells me that a team with a bunch of 4 and 5 stars will beat a team with a bunch of 2 and 3s most of the time.  I'm certain we can point to exceptions but that's what they are, exceptions rather than the rule.
Certainly teams have to have talent.  Arkansas gets enough talent to compete.  They don't have as much depth as some schools, and their success tends to be more cyclical.  I don't think that changes whoever the coach is.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >