(02-12-2018 10:01 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Do you have any idea that the two star and three star rankings have numbers attached to them? Most Belt three stars are closer to a two than a four. I am pretty sure nobody is saying there is a huge difference in a .794 and a .795 recruit lol but a huge one in a .794 and .894 the .795 is going to a Belt team the .894 three star could be headed to AL...I know you knew that right?

Also basic stats question, was the amount of three and two star- populations the same if not raw numbers are meaningless. It is basically saying because there are more three and two star guys in the NFL then rankings are meaningless...

Yes, they do have numerical ratings, but all 3-stars have higher numerical ratings than any 2-star. Maybe if you were looking at a dozen signees you might have a point but you are looking at 100+ that were eligible for all-conference awards.

And if you had read carefully you'd see I did compare the percentages of 3-star guys to percentage of 3-star guys signed. The three-star guys are underrepresented in the first-team all-conference group.

(02-12-2018 10:19 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 10:01 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Do you have any idea that the two star and three star rankings have numbers attached to them? Most Belt three stars are closer to a two than a four. I am pretty sure nobody is saying there is a huge difference in a .794 and a .795 recruit lol but a huge one in a .794 and .894 the .795 is going to a Belt team the .894 three star could be headed to AL...I know you knew that right?

Also basic stats question, was the amount of three and two star- populations the same if not raw numbers are meaningless. It is basically saying because there are more three and two star guys in the NFL then rankings are meaningless...

Yes, they do have numerical ratings, but all 3-stars have higher numerical ratings than any 2-star. Maybe if you were looking at a dozen signees you might have a point but you are looking at 100+ that were eligible for all-conference awards.

And if you had read carefully you'd see I did compare the percentages of 3-star guys to percentage of 3-star guys signed. The three-star guys are underrepresented in the first-team all-conference group.

I know but nobody has asserted a .794 two star is better than a .795 player is my point but .85+ yes there is and the amount and type of offers from coaches regardless of stars is easy to see. Just like a 90th ranked class is not going to separate you from a 95th ranked class.
It is rare for a Belt team to land a .85+ three star guy. I just cringe when I hear folks talk about three stars like it is a set grade. The three star ranking is way to wide a kid with nothing but FCS offers should not be the same star ranking as a kid with a ton of elite P5 offers. Why have a one star grade if they are not going to use it? .844 and below should probably be a two IMO. It would give a clearer picture of what you are getting in comparison to the top half of the FBS. I would imagine Belt level threes are probably closer to .794 than .85 much less .894
Also the All American selections support the rankings...as I stated the closer you get the less reliable the broader the more but reliable they are.

(02-12-2018 09:57 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  So I went back through the first-team all-Sun Belt selections 2014-2017 and counted the star ratings of each one.

Of the 96 selections, 14 had 3-star ratings (about 15%).
From 2014-2016 about 25% of the conferences signees listed on 247 were 3-star guys.

Unless the attrition of 3-star guys is pretty big across the entire conference and much bigger than attrition for the two star guys at best stars are useless to predict all-conference awards and at worst two-stars actually are more likely to get first-team all-conference honors.

I also thought the number of 3-star signees by the entire conference by year was interesting...
2014: 39
2015: 77
2016: 72
2017: 71
2018: 94

A) I appreciate the work you put in to get this information together. It undoubtedly took you a while.

B) I think to get an accurate picture, you would need to throw out any players recruited by App State and Georgia Southern from their time before they moved to FBS. I took a quick look at just the 2017 first-team all conference and saw three players that were recruited in that period and were given an automatic 70 by 247. Had App St been an FBS program when those players were recruited, they would have been evaluated and given a legitimate rating after signing day. Earlier all-conference teams would have even more of these situations.

(02-10-2018 01:47 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 03:19 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 12:36 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 10:06 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 09:58 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  No I get your point, but you're missing mine. Some schools just get more out of the players. App is one of them, Boise is another.

Overall recruiting ranking DO provide a guide of who will be good in the future, yet a handful of programs continue to over perform their historical rankings.

We all get that point, so much so that's it's part of all our arguments. We know there are schools that overachieve because they have great coaching staffs. We are arguing against the "the recruiting rankings don't matter at all" crowd.

I've not seen one post saying recruiting doesn't matter. I've made lot's of posts saying you can't base everything on stars. First and foremost you absolutely must find players that fit your system and culture. You recruit potential and develop it. I keep a database of App's recruits star ratings. Excluding the last two signing classes, an overwhelming majority of our highest rated 3 star signees washed out of the program by their redshirt sophomore year. Conversely, some of the most decorated players in App history we're not highly regarded by the recruiting"experts". Many at the very bottom end of the rating scale. Some like to cite studies and articles, but it's hard to dispute solid data. I know, I know.... App is an exception. Explain it away all you like. Results speak for themselves.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using CSNbbs mobile app

I'll give you this:
Your refusal to accept facts that contradict your predisposed way of thinking is consistent with your stance on evolution.

I do not refuse to accept facts, just BS. And you're good at slinging it.
Here are some facts for you.
There are fifty 24-7 analysts nationwide.
24-7 rated 3890 players in 2017.
Nationally 1,083,000 kids participated in high school football 2017.*
The senior class was roughly 250,000.
That is approximately 5,000 players per analyst, not including JUCO players.

*http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics

My stance on evolution is quite simple. Life could not arise by physics and chemistry without the intelligence on how to put it all together. IMO, believeing in intelligent design is nowhere remotely close to as big of a reach as thinking life's most complicated biological features developed over time by random selection.

Leaving aside evolution (although you are choosing not to believe 200 years of scientific observation, research and experimentation that have proven it is a fact),
I am curious what your explanation about what others have posted here that show a strong correlation between recruiting rankings and performance on the field, at both the P5 and G5 levels.

(02-12-2018 10:19 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Yes, they do have numerical ratings, but all 3-stars have higher numerical ratings than any 2-star. Maybe if you were looking at a dozen signees you might have a point but you are looking at 100+ that were eligible for all-conference awards.

And if you had read carefully you'd see I did compare the percentages of 3-star guys to percentage of 3-star guys signed. The three-star guys are underrepresented in the first-team all-conference group.

I get what you're saying, but that's not good enough. You have the top 25% of conference players in terms of 247 ranking only making up 15% of first-team all-conference performers, that just doesn't speak well to the rankings. That doesn't just show 3-star players aren't any more likely to get selected than non-3-star players, it shows the 2-star players and unrated guys are doing better with a large number of players. The difference between 25% and 15% isn't meaningful if you're talking about a couple dozen players in the conference, but with many hundreds it can't be ignored.

(02-12-2018 01:44 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 10:19 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Yes, they do have numerical ratings, but all 3-stars have higher numerical ratings than any 2-star. Maybe if you were looking at a dozen signees you might have a point but you are looking at 100+ that were eligible for all-conference awards.

And if you had read carefully you'd see I did compare the percentages of 3-star guys to percentage of 3-star guys signed. The three-star guys are underrepresented in the first-team all-conference group.

I get what you're saying, but that's not good enough. You have the top 25% of conference players in terms of 247 ranking only making up 15% of first-team all-conference performers, that just doesn't speak well to the rankings. That doesn't just show 3-star players aren't any more likely to get selected than non-3-star players, it shows the 2-star players and unrated guys are doing better with a large number of players. The difference between 25% and 15% isn't meaningful if you're talking about a couple dozen players in the conference, but with many hundreds it can't be ignored.

It can if the typical Belt three star is barely above a high two almost no difference in skill and likely offers. If you telling me a .794 guy getting an award over a .81 guy is not good reflection on ratings that is laughable now if all the three star guys you are including were .85+ then you may have a point on rankings. I am pretty sure low three stars and high two fall within and reasonable margin of error lol. Just like a 90th class is probably indistinguishable with 95th ranked class and could be just signing one more guy. On the national scale it is not even close how the rankings play out even at the G5 level with awards and stars and any other measure or awards. You keep saying two and three without any analysis of the numeric rating when there is a huge divide between a borderline three and and mid level three in amount and type of offers. The number beside the star is more important than the star rating for three stars. If you signed 25 three stars you could be 80th or top ten in the rankings.

If I counted right the Belt signed 94 three stars and only five had rating over .85 and did not see one recruit that signed that had the min two star ranking.

(02-12-2018 11:33 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 09:57 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  So I went back through the first-team all-Sun Belt selections 2014-2017 and counted the star ratings of each one.

Of the 96 selections, 14 had 3-star ratings (about 15%).
From 2014-2016 about 25% of the conferences signees listed on 247 were 3-star guys.

Unless the attrition of 3-star guys is pretty big across the entire conference and much bigger than attrition for the two star guys at best stars are useless to predict all-conference awards and at worst two-stars actually are more likely to get first-team all-conference honors.

I also thought the number of 3-star signees by the entire conference by year was interesting...
2014: 39
2015: 77
2016: 72
2017: 71
2018: 94

A) I appreciate the work you put in to get this information together. It undoubtedly took you a while.

B) I think to get an accurate picture, you would need to throw out any players recruited by App State and Georgia Southern from their time before they moved to FBS. I took a quick look at just the 2017 first-team all conference and saw three players that were recruited in that period and were given an automatic 70 by 247. Had App St been an FBS program when those players were recruited, they would have been evaluated and given a legitimate rating after signing day. Earlier all-conference teams would have even more of these situations.

South Alabama players recruited pre-2013 should also be thrown out if you want a true apples to apples comparison.

Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Depends nationally where they were more than conf but it would have helped.

(02-12-2018 02:13 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Depends nationally where they were more than conf but it would have helped.

Yeah I mean there's not much difference between say the 80th and 70th ranked classes. But a difference between 80th and 50th will show up on the field.

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

Sure. There is a lot of gray area. I would argue though that depth would have been better and likely changed the outcome, regardless of an injured Stringer. Which I think is the point. High rated classes would be deeper in talent and cover injury issues better.

(02-12-2018 09:45 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 12:28 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 07:46 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 12:43 PM)ApexRedWolf Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 12:28 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Georgia getting the #1 recruiting class really helps both of your schools. Neither of you are competing in any with Georgia and that allows some higher rated (by SBC standards) recruits to land at your schools. The same is true when Alabama and Auburn are good. We don't have to compete with them for players like we do when they're bad.

As bad as we dont want to admit it, that's the trend in Arkansas too. Thats why we were so sad to see Bielema go. Mediocrity was perfect. They werent good and we didnt have to fight so hard for in-state talent.

I think you have that backwards. When they are good they tend to look out of state more. I have loved the blow ups over there recently though.

We have not even touched the potential of instate and metro talent yet.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Nope not even close if GS or GSU did we would easily be in the 60's and not worrying about signing top Sun Belt classes we would be counting the P5's we out recruited.

The AAC has a turnover just like we do they just lose there coaches to the P5 and not other G5's yet they stay at the top of the G5 ratings every year.

Mainly mentioning how SC and FL heavy this class is. CSE has not made inroads into ATL three stars yet.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

He y'alls center?

Luckily there are no excuses needed six of the last seven years versus the stink.

(02-12-2018 11:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

He y'alls center?

Yes, he was the center of our defense.

(02-13-2018 09:03 AM)APPrising Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 11:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

He y'alls center?

Yes, he was the center of our defense.

It's particularly funny that a Southern fan brings that up. String was immensely popular among the fanbase for many things, one of the big ones being his open and public disdain for all things Statesboro and Georgia Southern.

He visited his sister there while he was in highschool and after seeing what a shithole the place is he declined all visits to GS.

(02-13-2018 09:18 AM)HighCountry Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 09:03 AM)APPrising Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 11:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

He y'alls center?

Yes, he was the center of our defense.

It's particularly funny that a Southern fan brings that up. String was immensely popular among the fanbase for many things, one of the big ones being his open and public disdain for all things Statesboro and Georgia Southern.

He visited his sister there while he was in highschool and after seeing what a shithole the place is he declined all visits to GS.

Not everyone is meant to live in the promised land.

(02-13-2018 09:18 AM)HighCountry Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 09:03 AM)APPrising Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 11:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

He y'alls center?

Yes, he was the center of our defense.

It's particularly funny that a Southern fan brings that up. String was immensely popular among the fanbase for many things, one of the big ones being his open and public disdain for all things Statesboro and Georgia Southern.

He visited his sister there while he was in highschool and after seeing what a shithole the place is he declined all visits to GS.

Meanwhile, we hire your strength and conditioning coach and he says in an interview that Georgia Southern’s facilities are leagues above the other schools he’s worked for including App. To each their own.

(02-12-2018 11:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:44 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:12 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Very doubtful APP loses to UMASS and ULM if they were #1 or #2 on 247 over the last few years.

Very doubtful they lose to either if Devon Stringer is healthy... App was banged up a multiple positions. All part of football, this isn't as black and white as many of the points in this trend seem to indicate.

He y'alls center?

I thought it was funny. +1