Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
5 star guys versus 0 star guys
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 274561" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>OK, then your analysis was incoherent. In discussing the 4* and 5* talent, you established a ratio of 36 of 3000. In discussing the 3* and below, you just used raw numbers. As a result, your argument ends up being an emotional appeal rather than a rational one. </p><p></p><p>Furthermore, you add to this emotional appeal by referring to "50 players who made the Pro-Bowl were predicted to 'potentially' possess BCS caliber ability or who 'are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects.' The last quote seems to come from ESPN's discussion of 60-69 (2* I think), but the first quote misrepresents what ESPN says regarding 70-79 (3* I think) which puts the weight on being BCS caliber with the potential of being "quality starter or all conference" at the high end and non-BCS at the low end. In other words, you rhetorically lumped all 50 into the very low 3* and below.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, if we look at your 10 year numbers with my low estimate of 2000/year, then the 3* and below would be 17,000 guys. In other words, the 36 of 3000 4* and 5* on which you focused is 1.2% and the 50 of 17,000 is 0.3%. A 4*/5* player is more than 4 times more likely to be a pro-bowler than a 3* and below who played FBS football. </p><p></p><p>Again, I'm not saying that the ratings systems are perfect or that they hit on every guy. I'm saying that across the board, generally speaking, they're not bad.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 274561, member: 195"] OK, then your analysis was incoherent. In discussing the 4* and 5* talent, you established a ratio of 36 of 3000. In discussing the 3* and below, you just used raw numbers. As a result, your argument ends up being an emotional appeal rather than a rational one. Furthermore, you add to this emotional appeal by referring to "50 players who made the Pro-Bowl were predicted to 'potentially' possess BCS caliber ability or who 'are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects.' The last quote seems to come from ESPN's discussion of 60-69 (2* I think), but the first quote misrepresents what ESPN says regarding 70-79 (3* I think) which puts the weight on being BCS caliber with the potential of being "quality starter or all conference" at the high end and non-BCS at the low end. In other words, you rhetorically lumped all 50 into the very low 3* and below. Anyway, if we look at your 10 year numbers with my low estimate of 2000/year, then the 3* and below would be 17,000 guys. In other words, the 36 of 3000 4* and 5* on which you focused is 1.2% and the 50 of 17,000 is 0.3%. A 4*/5* player is more than 4 times more likely to be a pro-bowler than a 3* and below who played FBS football. Again, I'm not saying that the ratings systems are perfect or that they hit on every guy. I'm saying that across the board, generally speaking, they're not bad. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
5 star guys versus 0 star guys
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top