This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
For the record, I'm not debating this at all. I'm only questioning how much of them doing well, if any, is because they get the best players. It's obvious that teams like Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, Notre Dame with hundereds of millions of dollars and the best coaches "do well".
Agree for the most part, but a big part of Coaching also includes Evaluating high school talent. Saban doesn't look at rankings or stars for example....he does his own research and rankings. Just so happens his highly ranked players usually end up highly ranked by everyone else too.
If we try hard enough we can lump everything into "coaching" really. When I say coaching, I mean getting your point across and teaching the talent you acquire what you expect of them. Then there's evaluation. Being able to watch all these kids and figure out which ones fit your scheme/needs the best. Then there's recruiting...getting them to pick you over someone else. Then there's the natural abilities of the athletes. This factor (which these rankings try and represent more than anything else) mean little if the kid doesn't fit the things prior to it. My
If we try hard enough we can lump everything into "coaching" really. When I say coaching, I mean getting your point across and teaching the talent you acquire what you expect of them. Then there's evaluation. Being able to watch all these kids and figure out which ones fit your scheme/needs the best. Then there's recruiting...getting them to pick you over someone else. Then there's the natural abilities of the athletes. This factor (which these rankings try and represent more than anything else) mean little if the kid doesn't fit the things prior to it. My
Agree...but disagree with Luginbill when he says 'these rankings are based on their abilities in high school. That's what these rankings represent at best.' Saban's rankings have the kids future built into it...as best you can anyway....which he gathers from personal interaction with the kid and talking to his parents and coaches and teachers. I know other coaches do that as well...as Dooley was showing his eval form on ESPN yesterday (which he copied from Saban)....the front was all physical tools, the back was character based. ETA: I guess he's right that the rankings we see are that way...its the rankings we don't see that aren't.If we try hard enough we can lump everything into "coaching" really. When I say coaching, I mean getting your point across and teaching the talent you acquire what you expect of them. Then there's evaluation. Being able to watch all these kids and figure out which ones fit your scheme/needs the best. Then there's recruiting...getting them to pick you over someone else. Then there's the natural abilities of the athletes. This factor (which these rankings try and represent more than anything else) mean little if the kid doesn't fit the things prior to it. My
Chan Gailey brought GT some Jimmy's and Joe's. His conversative coaching style kept us at 7-5 every year. Paul Johnson can't recruit worth crap but he's a pretty good coach. The results are pretty similar around 7 wins every season. We spiked up to 9-10 wins and BCS berth when we had both talent and good coach. You have to have both, IMO.
If you give an average coach Nick Saban's recruits over the past 5 years, he wins ten games a year. If the best coach of all-time takes over a team full of 2 and 3 stars, he can obviously make improvment, but the team isn't doing anything until they get recruits.I think it's 60-40 with recruiting being slightly more important than coaching.Even very average coaches (Mack Brown) can win championships when they have great players and everything comes together. But the best of coaches have no shot at winning national championships with average players.
How do you figure?Georgia Tech's recruiting rankings when Gailey was there
Because recruiting rankings are stupid. They hand out "stars" based on who offers you and who you commit too. Calvin Johnson was only a 4 star player, for example. Gailey could spot talent.Gailey got Morgan Burnett, Demaryius Thomas, Jonathan Dwyer, Derrick Morgan, Michael Johnson, Andrew Gardner, Vance Walker, Daryl Richard, Phillip Wheeler, Tashard Choice, Durant Brooks (who kicked the ball a mile in college), Calvin Johnson, Dawan Landry, PJ Daniels, Daryl Smith, Tony Hargrove, Keyaron Fox, and Tony Hollings off the top of my head.
Right. I'm talking about the dog and pony show that all these sites like espn, rivals, scout, 247 throw out there. They have little to nothing to do with the more important things like character, work ethic etc. It's all about their physical ability. Obviously we have to wait and see what they become when physical ability is neutralized at the next level...as we do when they make the jump from college to the pros.Agree...but disagree with Luginbill when he says 'these rankings are based on their abilities in high school. That's what these rankings represent at best.' Saban's rankings have the kids future built into it...as best you can anyway....which he gathers from personal interaction with the kid and talking to his parents and coaches and teachers. I know other coaches do that as well...as Dooley was showing his eval form on ESPN yesterday (which he copied from Saban)....the front was all physical tools, the back was character based. ETA: I guess he's right that the rankings we see are that way...its the rankings we don't see that aren't.If we try hard enough we can lump everything into "coaching" really. When I say coaching, I mean getting your point across and teaching the talent you acquire what you expect of them. Then there's evaluation. Being able to watch all these kids and figure out which ones fit your scheme/needs the best. Then there's recruiting...getting them to pick you over someone else. Then there's the natural abilities of the athletes. This factor (which these rankings try and represent more than anything else) mean little if the kid doesn't fit the things prior to it. My
to any data supporting these assertions. I can give you many examples of how coaching impacts results.
Recruiting rankings are not stupid. That is ridiculous. They are no different than the rankings NFL teams give to first round talent.Are they exact? Of course not. But they aren't stupid.
I can't PROVE the 60-40 with a link. Don't be absurd. That's why I said "I think". It's an opinion. Did I ever say coaching didn't impact results? Of course it does.
Technically, Tashard Choice transferred in on a medical hardship.
He's also an NFL scrub. Not sure what point he was making with Choice. Or with some of the other scrubs listed. I can pull of a more impressive list from 50 schools in America of their recruits over the past ten years, which again makes the point that Georgia Techs recruiting was completely average.
And we wonder why some of these kids have problems leading a normal life.
Texas is definitely a good example for your case. Their are examples that prove the opposite as well. OSU just have Luke Fickell the equivilent of Saban's recruits and he won 6 games not in the SEC. A different coach won 12 the next year by coaching better, not because the freshman he brought in were already 6 games better. I think the floor for these recruits is lower than you think. Auburn was hardly hurting for recruits lately and their team on the field last year was a disaster.I don't understand how you can think your 2nd comment considering plenty of coaches already have taken teams of 2 and 3 stars and done a lot. Chris Peterson and Brian Kelly have done it in the past 5 years. Several of those 2 and 3 star kids they did it with are now in the NFL because they made them so much better. Obviously, they still didn't win a national title, but their are 100 reasons why the odds are stacked against teams like that winning a national title and the level of recruits is not even in the top 5. Let Boise start #1, play 8 games at home, give them 100K fans, allow them a loss (or 2 in the case of LSU a few yeras ago), and see if they eventually win a title with Peterson coaching those same kids. I bet they would.
Oddly enough, the Alex Collins saga may have helped. Supposedly had been getting SEC offers for the last two years, but was getting caught in the musical chairs. UMass had never made contact until a week ago.Maybe only a 3-star RB, but realize how big a pickup this is for a fledgling FBS program.
We're getting all excited here at Kentucky because we ended up with the 28th-best class (Rivals) after only having Stoops on the job for six weeks.Of course, we're 14th in the SEC.Well, when half the teams in front of them are in the same conference it does clear the field on the way to the BCS a bit...
Dude, recruiting rankings are stupid. Do you think rivals or scout hires a bunch of football scouts? Do you think they can honestly grades thousands upon thousands of kids and assign them an accurate ranking? They get their rankings based on who offers them scholarships. So if Ohio St and Michigan offer a kid he's going to be ranked higher than if Indiana and Purdue offer the kid.Gailey recruited poorly compared to what? Alabama signing 35 kids a year, paying 20 of them, and running off 15 a year to make room for the next set of recruits? Of course he did. No one has argued otherwise. But historically looking at Ga Tech he recruited very well, took a lot of 2 and 3 star kids and made them NFL players. He had a very good eye for talent. Paul Johnson does not. You need to be able to get talent and to coach well to win. You can't have one without the other and win very much. That's the point.
Okay, go for it. List 50 schools that outrecruited Ga Tech during the Chan Gailey era. List your facts for proving they outrecruited him too. I'll hang up and listen.
I was talking about the assertions....where you didn't say "I think", but apparently you were just stating your opinion as fact in the other instances??I can't PROVE the 60-40 with a link. Don't be absurd. That's why I said "I think". It's an opinion. Did I ever say coaching didn't impact results? Of course it does.
But recruiting impacts results just as much as coaching does, and in my opinion, it's a bit more important.
Brian Kelly at Notre Dame? Here are the past four Notre Dame classes. 2009: 212010: 142011: 102012: 20He coached up four top 20 classes to the NC game. Excellent example, although many argued Notre Dame didn't belong in the game (that's neither here nor there as it relates to this discussion). I also don't think Chris Peterson adds much to this discussion either, as Boise St never plays anybody. I think we all agree that if Boise St played in the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 10, their record wouldn't be close to what it was playing in their pitiful conference.Look, 2 and 3 stars make it to the NFL every year. I've never denied that. Finding 2 stars that succeeded and then using that to justify bad recruiting is something I did for years when Bama recruited bad. At times the 3 star team would come together and we've have a nice season. But overall, you aren't doing anything as a program until you start getting the 4 and 5 stars.Is Nick Saban a better coach now than he was when he first came to Bama? Possibly. But I think his improvement has only been minimal. Then what has changed? He won 7 games his first year and the team wasn't that great. But Alabama has become a juggernaut due to his recruiting and his ability to put his scheme in place. It takes both.There is a reason these guys spend so much time recruiting. Because it's the most important part of building a winner.
If I'm going to say recruiting rankings are important and you're going to say they aren't, the discussion is kind of over.Rivals obviously can't personally scout every player. But they do a good job. They don't just go after guys that get lots of offers, though at times they are forced to do that.
What are the facts I need to list? Players drafted in the NFL?Okay, go for it. List 50 schools that outrecruited Ga Tech during the Chan Gailey era. List your facts for proving they outrecruited him too. I'll hang up and listen.
Exactly.There have been a few articles/sites that have broken this down now and I'm not sure why there are still some that argue against it. Elite talent alone will not win you a BCS title (or get you there). Coaching and schedule also are big factors. But, only teams that have recruited a four year recruiting rank above an elite level (I think it's a four year average rank of 18 or above) have actually won and all but one that have recruited above that level that have gotten there.On the flip side, you can screw it up. UCLA is one of 16 teams that recruited at an "elite level" for the 2009-11 seasons. They never sniffed a BCS bowl other than a fluky Pac-12 championship appearance in 2011. Coaching means something, too, obviously. But, the major conference teams that win and win a lot have one thing in common - they all have elite talent.
The more I think about it....the point brought up by others here that Recruiting Services mold their rankings to a degree around what coaches think is definitely true, and actually should bring some of the character, work ethic, etc questions into the equation. I've seen Shannon Terry discuss how a coach feels about a player being able to 'fit in'....so he's getting info on their character....probably from a coach.The best thing these services offer in addition to the organization of films, specs, etc is information taken directly from people who know these kids....which they discuss openly. And if they are using coaches thoughts about kids to help with rankings....they are using the character side.Right. I'm talking about the dog and pony show that all these sites like espn, rivals, scout, 247 throw out there. They have little to nothing to do with the more important things like character, work ethic etc. It's all about their physical ability. Obviously we have to wait and see what they become when physical ability is neutralized at the next level...as we do when they make the jump from college to the pros.Agree...but disagree with Luginbill when he says 'these rankings are based on their abilities in high school. That's what these rankings represent at best.' Saban's rankings have the kids future built into it...as best you can anyway....which he gathers from personal interaction with the kid and talking to his parents and coaches and teachers. I know other coaches do that as well...as Dooley was showing his eval form on ESPN yesterday (which he copied from Saban)....the front was all physical tools, the back was character based. ETA: I guess he's right that the rankings we see are that way...its the rankings we don't see that aren't.If we try hard enough we can lump everything into "coaching" really. When I say coaching, I mean getting your point across and teaching the talent you acquire what you expect of them. Then there's evaluation. Being able to watch all these kids and figure out which ones fit your scheme/needs the best. Then there's recruiting...getting them to pick you over someone else. Then there's the natural abilities of the athletes. This factor (which these rankings try and represent more than anything else) mean little if the kid doesn't fit the things prior to it. My
Umm, yes. Guys like Scott Kennedy, Greg Biggins, Brandon Huffman, Jamie Newberg and all of the Rivals, 247 and Scout guys have, as their only job...scouting college football. That is their job. College football scouts/recruiting analysts. They hold camps and combines and all attend games in their regions. They then get together and argue for kids to be ranked in certain spots based on their evaluations. They make evaluations and they are fallible and will be wrong. But, on the whole, over time, they get it right. It's been illustrated in articles, such as the one I posted above and sites, such as cfbmatrix.com. And, maybe we simply look at the rankings differently. You may (emphasis on may because I haven't asked you and have no idea) look at a guy like Robert Nkemideche and say in four years that if Ole Miss sucks and he is not an all-american, then obviously recruiting ranks are crap. Whereas I look at them as percentage chance. Nkemediche is ranked #1, but that doesn't mean he's a lock to be an all-american. He, like other 5 star players, probably only has a 1 in 5 shot of being an all-american. The four stars might have a 1 in 8 or 10 shot. The 3 stars, 1 in 15 and then the 2 stars a 1 in 25 or something (or worse). But, a 2 star becoming a superstar and a 5 star becoming a bust doesn't mean they are wrong. There are no guarantees.
Even if that's true, who cares? Whatever the formula is for how they are ranking them (as a whole), it is generally working and they are being proven right. I personally like that I can see why Scout's team rankings are what they are (unlike ESPN, which is based on some super secret formula), but that's neither here nor there.'gump said:The more I think about it....the point brought up by others here that Recruiting Services mold their rankings to a degree around what coaches think is definitely true, and actually should bring some of the character, work ethic, etc questions into the equation. I've seen Shannon Terry discuss how a coach feels about a player being able to 'fit in'....so he's getting info on their character....probably from a coach.The best thing these services offer in addition to the organization of films, specs, etc is information taken directly from people who know these kids....which they discuss openly. And if they are using coaches thoughts about kids to help with rankings....they are using the character side.Right. I'm talking about the dog and pony show that all these sites like espn, rivals, scout, 247 throw out there. They have little to nothing to do with the more important things like character, work ethic etc. It's all about their physical ability. Obviously we have to wait and see what they become when physical ability is neutralized at the next level...as we do when they make the jump from college to the pros.Agree...but disagree with Luginbill when he says 'these rankings are based on their abilities in high school. That's what these rankings represent at best.' Saban's rankings have the kids future built into it...as best you can anyway....which he gathers from personal interaction with the kid and talking to his parents and coaches and teachers. I know other coaches do that as well...as Dooley was showing his eval form on ESPN yesterday (which he copied from Saban)....the front was all physical tools, the back was character based. ETA: I guess he's right that the rankings we see are that way...its the rankings we don't see that aren't.If we try hard enough we can lump everything into "coaching" really. When I say coaching, I mean getting your point across and teaching the talent you acquire what you expect of them. Then there's evaluation. Being able to watch all these kids and figure out which ones fit your scheme/needs the best. Then there's recruiting...getting them to pick you over someone else. Then there's the natural abilities of the athletes. This factor (which these rankings try and represent more than anything else) mean little if the kid doesn't fit the things prior to it. My
The only argument that can be used (I used to see Bama fans use it all the time) is to say "Well this one time there was this 2 star that turned into an All-American. SEE!!!! Recruiting rankings suck!!!"What they forget is that the same things happen in the NFL. 6th rounders become Hall of Famers occasionally. But by and large, the best players are first rounders.'GDogg said:
The only reason they are "important" is because the people making millions off of convincing a bunch of over zealous fans they are say so. If there wasn't money to be made, the concept would fade away to nothingness and I doubt the results would change on the field too much.'shader said:
I hope you didn't hurt yourself making that leap GB'gump said:
The actual services publishing the rankings aren't important at all and the results will be what they are whether Rivals, Scout, 247 or anyone else pulled the plug on publication. The rankings are just the scouting services' best shot at quantifying the talent that the schools have actually brought in. Nothing more or less. The amounts of talent that are brought in, however, are the most important aspect of college football and have a huge impact on wins and losses and playing in conference championship and BCS bowl games. Recruiting his huge. You aren't arguing against this, are you?
My only point in all this is that these rankings are mere opinion. It's virtually impossible to say X class turned out to be #1 because of their ability. There are dozens of factors that go into success. The athlete's ability is only one of them. This topic is, IMO, one of the biggest examples of people mistaking causation for correlation. Take any player you choose and try to analyze what makes them successful at the college level. What percentage is God given ability? What percentage is their smarts? What percentage is their coaching? What percentage is the scheme they're in?This is the ultimate team sport, but that's not how the rankings are approached. They're fun to follow. They're something to talk about, but that's about where their usefulness ends. These guys will be part of a bigger picture and their success will depend greatly on a lot of factors out of their control. If there was a way to quantify their personal contributions, maybe we'd have something, but there's not.
Right, and I don't think anyone is arguing differently. But the opinions are based on physical attributes, performances at camps and combines, and performance on their high school football teams, combined with an eye to whether they have room to develop. It's an art, not a science.Whether you want to call it correlation or causation, the results are the same. For the most part, the teams that win the most are the teams with the best talent. Did you read this article? I agree with much of that article and it does a good job explaining the relation of the rankings (or talent brought in) and success on the field.
You're kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
We know they are opinions. But the scouting services are good at they job. By and large, the rankings are a good judge of how much talent is being brought in.
I read the article a while back actually, but it's just part of the system justifying why the system is right. It's a marketing article. Which goes back to my initial point. We see year after year how rankings change based on who's interested among other arbitrary factors. I don't even think it's an art. I'm not saying that these guys don't try hard at what they do. They're just trying to predict the future based on immeasurable factors. It will always and forever be the chicken/egg argument for most. Is XXXX really the RB they predicted or is he a product of his environment? Would he be as "good" behind a crappy offensive line? Obviously, the more talented/athletic the recruit, the more margin for error. There's no question about that. Perhaps these classes should be ranked in terms of "hardest to lose with"??
This is what I said in my initial posts of this thread. It's a good judge of high school talent. That's about it. It can't be tied to how they will do in college, yet these rankings are made out to be more than "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y".
I think it does a terrible job, personally. It didn't convince me of anything other than good teams get highly rated recruits. We know that.I agree that we're really having a correlation <> causaution discussion here, but the answer does matter because if having a highly rated recruiting class doesn't CAUSE wins, then what's the point of all this? If the highly ranked players just get more wins and awards because they link up with the big programs with the best coaches, who cares what your class is ranked? Yes, they're still correllated, but they mean something entirely different in that case.
