Predicting Future Success

[85Escape]

There’s also a direct correlation on the number of stars a player gets and where his offers are coming from suggesting that the name brands of winning teams influence the star rating. If this is true to then the correlation to wins also makes sense.

The stars are a really poor system that I’m fairly certain coaches don’t even care about. It’s much more of a fan marketing scheme than anything else.

Right. They give an initial guess at star ratings, then adjust them based on the offers so that they can look smarter and dupe people into paying for their 'predictions.'

They are no different than palm readers and fortune tellers. If you ask the people who regularly pay for those services they will swear that the "star readers" really do predict their future.

 

[jacketup]

This is a football thread, I promise. Just give me a minute to set up my question.

I'm not a fan of the one-and-done phenomenon in college basketball. I would rather watch a group of kids develop over four years than to live and die by the revolving door, and I can't believe it is more satisfying to coach one-and-done's than to build a team over a period of several seasons. Do you think Coach K enjoyed coaching Zion more than Johnny Dawkins or Christian Laettner? I don't.

So, here's my football question: Which is the greater predictor of a football team's success: the average number of stars each of the players had coming out of high school or the average number of years that the team has been together?

I lean toward the idea that a bunch of three- and four-star juniors and seniors will consistently beat a team of four- and five-star freshmen and sophomores - because younger players make more mistakes. And perhaps because Juniors and Seniors have spent more time in the weight room and studying game film.

IOW, "get old and stay old" wins over the long haul. Are there any studies on this? Your thoughts?

I'll see your post and raise you one. When I had more time to study college football, I'd base my preseason predictions largely on the number of returning offensive linemen a team had. The (lazy) media tends to base preseason predictions on how a team did last year and maybe the returning QB. My predictions were closer than the media's.

And yes, lack of experience has been a problem for Tech. We have some good young players that are more talented than the older guys but don't have the experience. Experience matters especially on the OL and on defense. Most players at most positions need to be in the program for 3 years before they hit their physical and mental stride.