2021 Recruiting Class & Transfers In

TheTechGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
922
bwelbo said:
You can go pound sand too. False.
Click to expand...
C2FB848F-191D-4C3F-8290-CBB413825A8B.jpeg

Lol
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
As a reminder, here is a list someone pulled that has the latest numbers of transfers, and in parenthesis how many are ranked. You can tell most have so few raked that it won’t be material. If anybody wants to do the work and figure out how that affects rankings, go for it. It took me a lot the last time I did it and I do t feel like doing it again. It was #18 nationally a few weeks ago, then it was #15. I highly doubt with how few ranked players other schools have that it has changed much. I’d bet still too 20. But if it bunches your parties, feel free to put in the work and report back.
Clemson has 0
Miami has 2 (2)
UNC has 1(1)
Pitt has 2 (2)
UVA has 2 (1)
FSU has 8 (5)
NCSU has 3 (2)
BC has 4 (1)
UL has 3 (1)
VT has 5 (1)
GT has 7(5)
Cuse has 1 (1)
Duke has 4 (1)
Wake has 0.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,897
Location
Augusta, Georgia
bwelbo said:
Because it was correct when I typed it. I listed each team and the number of transfers at that time. Stop being obstinate.
Click to expand...

But you were incorrect when you retyped it a few minutes ago. You're the one being obstinate by insisting you are still correct even though the facts no longer support your position. Just admit you were wrong and move on. You've been proven wrong on at least two of your assertions here tonight.

FWIW, I appreciate how you follow recruiting, and I appreciate your zeal for the program. I, like you, saw enough positives this year to give me hope that CGC has us on the right path. I saw marked improvement on the field, if not in the record. We don't have to be such blatant homers that we ignore facts, though.
 

TheTechGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
922
lv20gt said:
Here are the number of transfers each team is bringing in according to 247 and the number ranked .85 above (likely to have even a minimal impact on recruiting rankings)

Clemson has 0
Miami has 2 (2)
UNC has 1(1)
Pitt has 2 (2)
UVA has 2 (1)
FSU has 8 (5)
NCSU has 3 (2)
BC has 4 (1)
UL has 3 (1)
VT has 5 (1)
GT has 7(5)
Cuse has 1 (1)
Duke has 4 (1)
Wake has 0.
Click to expand...
You missed Chico for UVA, which 247 hasn’t updated. Also, your .85 methodology, while moving goal posts, also proves the point I noted from reps of recruiting sites. According to your method, guys like Mclellion, who started 2 years at Arkansas but was rated below .85, wouldn’t count for FSU. Obviously, Mclellion is a .85 or higher recruit. It’s one of many reasons why the sites don’t include transfers in recruiting rankings when evaluating recruiting classes. This is commonly noted by those reps on Twitter.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Augusta_Jacket said:
But you were incorrect when you retyped it a few minutes ago. You're the one being obstinate by insisting you are still correct even though the facts no longer support your position. Just admit you were wrong and move on. You've been proven wrong on at least two of your assertions here tonight.

FWIW, I appreciate how you follow recruiting, and I appreciate your zeal for the program. I, like you, saw enough positives this year to give me hope that CGC has us on the right path. I saw marked improvement on the field, if not in the record. We don't have to be such blatant homers that we ignore facts, though.
Click to expand...

I’m talking about when I did the analysis. The latest numbers are above. Based on how few transfers are ranked, I doubt it’s changed too much.
 

TheTechGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
922
bwelbo said:
That’s referring to when I did the analysis. Again, just above here here is the latest. Feel free to do some work to figure out if it’s changed. Stop being obstinate.
Click to expand...
Nothing in your post notes that it’s from “when [you] did the analysis.” You posted incorrect information. Just own it.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Augusta_Jacket said:
The only one being obstinate here is you.
Click to expand...

1) You’re complaining that the numbers have changed since I did my analysis.
2) Someone was kind enough to post an updated list. Most schools have very few ranked transfers.
3) Therefore, I highly doubt the rankings would have changed much.

Yet you want to nitpick that my old numbers are no longer correct yet you refuse to find out what the answer is yourself. IIWII.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
TheTechGuy said:
Nothing in your post notes that it’s from “when [you] did the analysis.” You posted incorrect information. Just own it.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. You know what in my post says it’s from when I did my analysis? MY OWN ****ING WORDS. Just own up - you want to complain about something but are unwilling to do any work to prove if it’s worthy of complaining about or not. So you just throw stones about how data from a few weeks ago has changed a little. LOL.
 

TheTechGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
922
bwelbo said:
1) You’re complaining that the numbers have changed since I did my analysis.
2) Simone was kind enough to post an updated list. Most schools have very few ranked transfers.
3) Therefore, I highly doubt the rankings would have changed much.

Yet you want to nitpick that my old numbers are no longer correct yet you refuse to find out what the answer is yourself. IIWII.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting the part about saying White led the nation in tackles. Also the part about KQ stating recruiting sites don’t use recruiting rankings of transfers to evaluate recruiting classes.

Also, you’re still not right about the ranking.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
TheTechGuy said:
You’re forgetting the part about saying White led the nation in tackles. Also the part about KQ stating recruiting sites don’t use recruiting rankings of transfers to evaluate recruiting classes.

Also, you’re still not right about the ranking.
Click to expand...

False.
False.

and

False.

Now I’m nitpicking you. I’m technically correct. Now how does it feel?
 

TheTechGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
922
bwelbo said:
Jesus Christ. You know what in my post says it’s from when I did my analysis? MY OWN ****ING WORDS. Just own up - you want to complain about something but are unwilling to do any work to prove if it’s worthy of complaining about or not. So you just throw stones about how data from a few weeks ago has changed a little. LOL.
Click to expand...
Your own words in that post don’t say that.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
TheTechGuy said:
Your own words in that post don’t say that.
Click to expand...

I think I have now said it 3 or 4 times - I can’t remember how many. So let’s say it one more time. Those numbers were from back when I went through every teams transfers and did the math.

Someone else listed an update a little above. Since very few teams have any ranked transfers, I doubt the math has changed much. But if it bothers you, you’re welcome to do the work. There, I’ve said it yet again for clarity.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,897
Location
Augusta, Georgia
bwelbo said:
1) You’re complaining that the numbers have changed since I did my analysis.
2) Someone was kind enough to post an updated list. Most schools have very few ranked transfers.
3) Therefore, I highly doubt the rankings would have changed much.

Yet you want to nitpick that my old numbers are no longer correct yet you refuse to find out what the answer is yourself. IIWII.
Click to expand...

1. I am not complaining. Just pointing out the assertion you made 30 minutes ago is false.
2. And your initial reaction to that was one word: "false"
3. Who knows, because you've obstinately refused to admit you posted false information.

I don't need to analyze the data to know we don't have the 15th best recruiting class in the nation.
 

TheTechGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
922
bwelbo said:
No, technically I’m correct. But I’m nitpicking just so you see what it feels like. For example, I never said that White lead the nation in tackles.
Click to expand...
Yup, you said tackles for loss, which is incorrect. Of course that was included within a post that was almost totally full of incorrect information. You then proceeded to be obstinate. Lmao.
 
Top