(01-04-2015 01:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. Reevaluate just means take a look at new film, as often recruits are evaluated based on their pre-senior hear film. Doesnt guarantee a change one way or another, just another look that may not have otherwise happened. Sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression.

But how do they determine if a school they commit to is above or below the recruit's ranking? Right there you have bias in terms of which recruits are re-evaluated.

Simple: someone they rate as a four star player has onky received offers from schools from non-power confercnce. Or a two star ha s as late of power conference offers. That is not "bias" anymore than its bias for a G5 school to be estatic about signing a for star recruit. It's just reality, and makes them reevaluate to we if the player has regressed or drastically improved.

(01-04-2015 01:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 11:01 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So the mighty SEC (Florida) beat the lowly AAC (ECU), 28-20. To many, it looked like ECU was the better team. ECU had a chance to tie with a minute left. They were on the Florida 5 yard line, but there was a pick in the end zone.

Only a fool believes the SEC is head and shoulders above everyone else.

They were not this year... I will give you that, but come on man.. Florida was 6-6 with a fired HC. Wouldn't call them SEC cream of the crop. ECU is a good team. You are making a conference call on this game?

Stop, you aren't going to make sense with him. I thought about responding but it is pointless. He will fabricate anything and use any singular event to make his overreaching and overgeneralized point.

You wont change his mind because he isn't engaged in conversation over it. Most folks are capable of seeing it was a silly comment made by him. Like I have said before, you can depend upon these UConn guys to deliver in that regard. They are very angry at being passed up.

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. Reevaluate just means take a look at new film, as often recruits are evaluated based on their pre-senior hear film. Doesnt guarantee a change one way or another, just another look that may not have otherwise happened. Sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression.

But how do they determine if a school they commit to is above or below the recruit's ranking? Right there you have bias in terms of which recruits are re-evaluated.

Simple: someone they rate as a four star player has onky received offers from schools from non-power confercnce. Or a two star ha s as late of power conference offers. That is not "bias" anymore than its bias for a G5 school to be estatic about signing a for star recruit. It's just reality, and makes them reevaluate to we if the player has regressed or drastically improved.

It means they rely quite a bit on the schools to do the true evaluating and they just follow up with the rankings in order to maintain the attention upon their rankings.

It is all just a money game and a viewership game. They want to appear credible but the amount of work involved in scouting all the prospects across the country is overwhelming. They have to rely on whom the college coaches are paying attention to. The rankings aren't all that great.

(01-04-2015 01:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 11:01 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So the mighty SEC (Florida) beat the lowly AAC (ECU), 28-20. To many, it looked like ECU was the better team. ECU had a chance to tie with a minute left. They were on the Florida 5 yard line, but there was a pick in the end zone.

Only a fool believes the SEC is head and shoulders above everyone else.

They were not this year... I will give you that, but come on man.. Florida was 6-6 with a fired HC. Wouldn't call them SEC cream of the crop. ECU is a good team. You are making a conference call on this game?

Florida's coaching situation is self-inflicted and it can't be used as an excuse.

A few years back, Cincinnati had its coach taken from them (not self-inflicted) just a few days before the Sugar Bowl with Florida. I don't remember any Florida fans giving Cincinnati any sympathy or factoring that into their SEC-Big East comparison.

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 11:01 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So the mighty SEC (Florida) beat the lowly AAC (ECU), 28-20. To many, it looked like ECU was the better team. ECU had a chance to tie with a minute left. They were on the Florida 5 yard line, but there was a pick in the end zone.

Only a fool believes the SEC is head and shoulders above everyone else.

They were not this year... I will give you that, but come on man.. Florida was 6-6 with a fired HC. Wouldn't call them SEC cream of the crop. ECU is a good team. You are making a conference call on this game?

Stop, you aren't going to make sense with him. I thought about responding but it is pointless. He will fabricate anything and use any singular event to make his overreaching and overgeneralized point.

You wont change his mind because he isn't engaged in conversation over it. Most folks are capable of seeing it was a silly comment made by him. Like I have said before, you can depend upon these UConn guys to deliver in that regard. They are very angry at being passed up.

Angry? Maybe. But not obsessed.

I just speak truth to power.

(01-04-2015 02:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 11:01 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So the mighty SEC (Florida) beat the lowly AAC (ECU), 28-20. To many, it looked like ECU was the better team. ECU had a chance to tie with a minute left. They were on the Florida 5 yard line, but there was a pick in the end zone.

Only a fool believes the SEC is head and shoulders above everyone else.

They were not this year... I will give you that, but come on man.. Florida was 6-6 with a fired HC. Wouldn't call them SEC cream of the crop. ECU is a good team. You are making a conference call on this game?

Stop, you aren't going to make sense with him. I thought about responding but it is pointless. He will fabricate anything and use any singular event to make his overreaching and overgeneralized point.

You wont change his mind because he isn't engaged in conversation over it. Most folks are capable of seeing it was a silly comment made by him. Like I have said before, you can depend upon these UConn guys to deliver in that regard. They are very angry at being passed up.

Angry? Maybe. But not obsessed.

I just speak truth to power.

Power? Sure...

(01-04-2015 01:41 PM)Hoosier Hysteria 1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:03 PM)Hoosier Hysteria 1 Wrote:  The SEC had a bad bowl season for their standards. I think the other conferences are closing the gap some on the SEC. I still think the SEC has forced conferences to recruit better athletes, hire better coaches and schedule tougher OOC opponents. I also think that the SEC West Division Schedule had taken a toll on many players. Alabama looked liked many players weren't 100%. With that said I think the SEC top to bottom is still the top football conference. I do think that the BIG, Big 12 and PAC are gaining ground on them.

I would even put the ACC in that list. Look at what Clemson did to Oklahoma. Look at what Georgia Tech accomplished. Georgia Tech? I still havn't wrapped my head around the thought of having to worry about that team with that offense being able to recruit top notch talent. That is a scary thought for the future. You can't prepare for that offense very well in practice. They even have some second tier programs looking good. Boston College was surprising, Louisville is always expected to be competitive.

Seriously though, with all four of their Deep South teams looking good or looking better, I think the ACC is keeping up.

There was more parity this year than I think we have seen for quite some time.

I agree. I would like to see Clemson be the beast it could be. It would help ACC if VT could get back to its previous glory. Duke and GT have been really solid this year. I just can't figure out why NC isn't a solid football school. They have good talent in North Carolina and its a great school with National appeal.

Hopefully for BIG, Michigan will gets better with Harbaugh. Penn State should get better with new coach and no sanctions. Nebraska just needs to fix defense, and for goodness sake can Wisky get a QB? I am also loosing faith in Iowa's Football Coach.

Clemson has had a history of flirting with greatness and I think they will eventually get there again. Virginia Tech seems great if you are thirty something to forty something. If you are a bit older than that you know that Beamer has been the glory years for Virginia Tech. If I had to compare them to another similar school with regards to football credibility it would be Kansas State, not Clemson. Under Snyder KState has been a force, but prior to Snyder it was considered to be the worst major college football program in the nation. Virginia Tech before Beamer had a few mediocre years under Bill Dooley and before that a long long history of losing. While recent history has shown that Kansas State might have a proclivity for returning to the former losing ways when Snyder is not at the helm, I do think Virginia Tech has made a turn for the better long term. How much better is debatable, but fielding a consistent winner there should be possible. But Clemson should be able to contend and I think they will.

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. Reevaluate just means take a look at new film, as often recruits are evaluated based on their pre-senior hear film. Doesnt guarantee a change one way or another, just another look that may not have otherwise happened. Sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression.

But how do they determine if a school they commit to is above or below the recruit's ranking? Right there you have bias in terms of which recruits are re-evaluated.

Simple: someone they rate as a four star player has onky received offers from schools from non-power confercnce. Or a two star ha s as late of power conference offers. That is not "bias" anymore than its bias for a G5 school to be estatic about signing a for star recruit. It's just reality, and makes them reevaluate to we if the player has regressed or drastically improved.

But if a 2-star player that committed to a MAC school drastically improves during their senior year, that player's ranking would therefore not increase (since they wouldn't be re-evaluated by the ranking system) if they still went to the MAC school, but would increase if they went to a P5 school. If they have a high rating and commit to a P5 school, and then regress during their senior year, they wouldn't get a lower ranking since they wouldn't be re-evaluated either. The very fact that they re-look at only those players who commit contrary to the rankings makes it a bias.

(01-04-2015 04:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. Reevaluate just means take a look at new film, as often recruits are evaluated based on their pre-senior hear film. Doesnt guarantee a change one way or another, just another look that may not have otherwise happened. Sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression.

But how do they determine if a school they commit to is above or below the recruit's ranking? Right there you have bias in terms of which recruits are re-evaluated.

Simple: someone they rate as a four star player has onky received offers from schools from non-power confercnce. Or a two star ha s as late of power conference offers. That is not "bias" anymore than its bias for a G5 school to be estatic about signing a for star recruit. It's just reality, and makes them reevaluate to we if the player has regressed or drastically improved.

But if a 2-star player that committed to a MAC school drastically improves during their senior year, that player's ranking would therefore not increase (since they wouldn't be re-evaluated by the ranking system) if they still went to the MAC school, but would increase if they went to a P5 school. If they have a high rating and commit to a P5 school, and then regress during their senior year, they wouldn't get a lower ranking since they wouldn't be re-evaluated either. The very fact that they re-look at only those players who commit contrary to the rankings makes it a bias.

I haven't followed ya'lls whole conversation. But sites like Rivals reevaluate during the summer and after the senior season. That way the can have fresh rankings mid-February.

(01-04-2015 04:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. Reevaluate just means take a look at new film, as often recruits are evaluated based on their pre-senior hear film. Doesnt guarantee a change one way or another, just another look that may not have otherwise happened. Sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression.

But how do they determine if a school they commit to is above or below the recruit's ranking? Right there you have bias in terms of which recruits are re-evaluated.

Simple: someone they rate as a four star player has onky received offers from schools from non-power confercnce. Or a two star ha s as late of power conference offers. That is not "bias" anymore than its bias for a G5 school to be estatic about signing a for star recruit. It's just reality, and makes them reevaluate to we if the player has regressed or drastically improved.

But if a 2-star player that committed to a MAC school drastically improves during their senior year, that player's ranking would therefore not increase (since they wouldn't be re-evaluated by the ranking system) if they still went to the MAC school, but would increase if they went to a P5 school. If they have a high rating and commit to a P5 school, and then regress during their senior year, they wouldn't get a lower ranking since they wouldn't be re-evaluated either. The very fact that they re-look at only those players who commit contrary to the rankings makes it a bias.

I did not say that. I said such an unorthodox ex move would trigger a reevaluation that may not have otherwise happened. I never said they would never be reevaluated. Likewise a four star recruit verballing to say south Carolina, whcih seems within the norm, woudo not trigger an automatic one. Not every player is reevaluated, amply because there are over 2,000 players who carry rankings on the major sites, and another 1,000 who may be listed but not ranked. Often times only those who have statistical anomalies or make it to various camps get updated evaluations. But some, even if they don't fit in that category, will get looks dat again if they verbal above or below their perceived ability. You can try to twist the words if you want, but the point I'm mowing is straight from the mouth of an evaluator the school someone chooses does not in and of itself affect their rank: but it may affect if they get a second evaluation.

Also one othe thing people forget are that star rankings are finite. There are only so many slots alloyed for five star players and four star ones. Meaning if you reevaluate a player and move him up from four star to five star, someone who was a five star has to be moved down to make room. Same with four star to three star. You don't see it as much with 3 star and 2'atar since the number of three stars aplotted is more liquid; but often rivals, for example, will only have 30 five star players in a season Nd only 250 four stars. No more no less. Move one up, so win goes down.

(01-04-2015 02:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. Reevaluate just means take a look at new film, as often recruits are evaluated based on their pre-senior hear film. Doesnt guarantee a change one way or another, just another look that may not have otherwise happened. Sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression.

But how do they determine if a school they commit to is above or below the recruit's ranking? Right there you have bias in terms of which recruits are re-evaluated.

Simple: someone they rate as a four star player has onky received offers from schools from non-power confercnce. Or a two star ha s as late of power conference offers. That is not "bias" anymore than its bias for a G5 school to be estatic about signing a for star recruit. It's just reality, and makes them reevaluate to we if the player has regressed or drastically improved.

It means they rely quite a bit on the schools to do the true evaluating and they just follow up with the rankings in order to maintain the attention upon their rankings.

It is all just a money game and a viewership game. They want to appear credible but the amount of work involved in scouting all the prospects across the country is overwhelming. They have to rely on whom the college coaches are paying attention to. The rankings aren't all that great.

Yea, that's basically what I was getting at.

You can compare and contrast Ohio State's rankings with, say, NIU's recruits, because the Ohio State recruits will be 6'5 280 lbs, run a 4.4, and can throw a car clear of the train tracks, while the MAC guy may be big or fast but not both. Trying to compare recruits from different G5 schools in most cases, you really can't tell differences in recruiting classes (okay, Boise gets some doozy recruits but in general...)

(01-04-2015 01:41 PM)Hoosier Hysteria 1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:03 PM)Hoosier Hysteria 1 Wrote:  The SEC had a bad bowl season for their standards. I think the other conferences are closing the gap some on the SEC. I still think the SEC has forced conferences to recruit better athletes, hire better coaches and schedule tougher OOC opponents. I also think that the SEC West Division Schedule had taken a toll on many players. Alabama looked liked many players weren't 100%. With that said I think the SEC top to bottom is still the top football conference. I do think that the BIG, Big 12 and PAC are gaining ground on them.

I would even put the ACC in that list. Look at what Clemson did to Oklahoma. Look at what Georgia Tech accomplished. Georgia Tech? I still havn't wrapped my head around the thought of having to worry about that team with that offense being able to recruit top notch talent. That is a scary thought for the future. You can't prepare for that offense very well in practice. They even have some second tier programs looking good. Boston College was surprising, Louisville is always expected to be competitive.

Seriously though, with all four of their Deep South teams looking good or looking better, I think the ACC is keeping up.

There was more parity this year than I think we have seen for quite some time.

I agree. I would like to see Clemson be the beast it could be. It would help ACC if VT could get back to its previous glory. Duke and GT have been really solid this year. I just can't figure out why NC isn't a solid football school. They have good talent in North Carolina and its a great school with National appeal.

Hopefully for BIG, Michigan will gets better with Harbaugh. Penn State should get better with new coach and no sanctions. Nebraska just needs to fix defense, and for goodness sake can Wisky get a QB? I am also loosing faith in Iowa's Football Coach.

Nebraska now has a highly respected Head Coach and that respect comes from other Head Coaches. Pelini was a curse, his own countenance was a drag for recruiting. In the new paradigm, a school like Nebraska with it's huge national following, top notch facilities and great gameday atmosphere simply needs a proper salesman for all of that. Pelini is about as terrible of a salesman as Nebraska could find.

Iowa is in similar situation. The problem is, when we hired Ferentz, he was perfect. He was young, fired up, was a great communicator to the kids and he got his extension because of his success and desirability from both Universities and NFL teams. Unfortunately though he has proven why NO college coach should get such a long extension. He has lost his edge and desire. He is just going through the motions. You can't fake excitement. You can't fake desire. You can't fake a hunger to win. He doesn't have it and he loses recruits far too easily.

They need to find another home for their AD so they can sign Ferentz as the AD. The AD may not like that but it could be worse, he could get fired for putting the University in this position. The President took his word on this one and now looks bad for it. Presidents hate when that happens....