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
GT making players better!
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="Bruce Wayne" data-source="post: 132306" data-attributes="member: 231"><p>Ok so what are the possible logical reasons to account for a program consistently outperforming its recruiting predictions as derived from the sites? I have thought of 4 can more be added?</p><p></p><p><strong>1) Those sites are providing grossly inaccurate rankings for the players at the schools which overachieve. </strong>This possibility leads to several interesting hypotheses as to why, in which the most cynical would include "number of subscriptions from that team's fanbase."</p><p></p><p><strong>2) The player evaluations by the sites while not "grossly" inaccurate are created in such a way as to unfairly suppress the rankings of certain programs.</strong> Here is where one would point out that Factories oversign, and freely sign, the comatose and criminal who have majored in football and creating hype their entire lives. Here to would be the complaint that rankings are not taking into account the program (such as a unique offense) and player fit. </p><p></p><p><strong>3) The site evals are <em>fairly </em>accurate but there is far more parity among the recruits than the sites can account for given their determination to create a 1-2000 best to least list of recruits. </strong> When you must place them all in a hierarchy and assign point values to each recruit than recognition of real-world parity in talent will be sacrificed.</p><p></p><p><strong>4) The site evaluations are very accurate and credit simply goes to the individual football programs and coaching staffs. </strong></p><p></p><p>So option 4 may make the most people happy. It may please both those that praise the star system and fawn over 4 and 5 star recruits, as well as those who dismiss them. But I don't find it all that satisfying or complete an answer. Not when a program consistently "overachieves" its perceived/site evaluated talent level <em>despite </em>coaching turnover, or even entire regime changes.</p><p></p><p>Why is the opinion that Tech is achieving <em>closer </em>to its actual level of talent not a possibility? The coaches consistently say they think they have talented players . . . are they just being humble and generous? Why do the recruiting sites get to dictate that we think of Tech as primarily made up of "hard working," "gutsy," "never give up," (lesser-talented) "overachievers"?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce Wayne, post: 132306, member: 231"] Ok so what are the possible logical reasons to account for a program consistently outperforming its recruiting predictions as derived from the sites? I have thought of 4 can more be added? [B]1) Those sites are providing grossly inaccurate rankings for the players at the schools which overachieve. [/B]This possibility leads to several interesting hypotheses as to why, in which the most cynical would include "number of subscriptions from that team's fanbase." [B]2) The player evaluations by the sites while not "grossly" inaccurate are created in such a way as to unfairly suppress the rankings of certain programs.[/B] Here is where one would point out that Factories oversign, and freely sign, the comatose and criminal who have majored in football and creating hype their entire lives. Here to would be the complaint that rankings are not taking into account the program (such as a unique offense) and player fit. [B]3) The site evals are [I]fairly [/I]accurate but there is far more parity among the recruits than the sites can account for given their determination to create a 1-2000 best to least list of recruits. [/B] When you must place them all in a hierarchy and assign point values to each recruit than recognition of real-world parity in talent will be sacrificed. [B]4) The site evaluations are very accurate and credit simply goes to the individual football programs and coaching staffs. [/B] So option 4 may make the most people happy. It may please both those that praise the star system and fawn over 4 and 5 star recruits, as well as those who dismiss them. But I don't find it all that satisfying or complete an answer. Not when a program consistently "overachieves" its perceived/site evaluated talent level [I]despite [/I]coaching turnover, or even entire regime changes. Why is the opinion that Tech is achieving [I]closer [/I]to its actual level of talent not a possibility? The coaches consistently say they think they have talented players . . . are they just being humble and generous? Why do the recruiting sites get to dictate that we think of Tech as primarily made up of "hard working," "gutsy," "never give up," (lesser-talented) "overachievers"? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT making players better!
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