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
Recruiting Potential
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="RonJohn" data-source="post: 756661" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>That would depend also on how many you count. I think the recruiting services only count the top 20. That actually hurts a team like TCU who only had 19 recruits because they lose points for not signing an extra person. If they only had 19 spots available because they were loaded with top "talent" and had no more scholarship spots available, does only signing 19 hurt the overall "talent" on their team?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So the non-accurate measurements are actually valid because instead of measuring something that can be checked, such as future performance, they only measure a vague notion of "talent"? Is there any way to validate the "talent" measurement, or is it just something that can be argued about among fans? The recruiting sites are simply entertainment, nothing more.</p><p></p><p>You are saying about the same thing I was saying with respect to the tiers. However, I wouldn't even group them that close together. You can tell if a team is closer to Alabama or closer to North Texas. But you can do that without some points system that ranges from 700 to 3000 points. People can look at the height/weight and stats of the Alabama recruits and understand that they are better players than the North Texas players without some made up numbers to rank them.</p><p></p><p>I don't believe that the recruiting services and the rankings actually show where teams stand against each other in "talent". They are just entertainment trying to make money off of ads and subscriptions. There is no measurement that tells you how much talent a player has. There is no formula to tell you which player is better than another player. Even when they play in college, there is disagreement about who the better player is. Is there a formula or measurement to tell us with certainty who the best running back in the NCAA in a typical year? No. And that is with actual numbers in competition against teams who can be compared to each other using connected competitions. Sometimes there will be a running back in high school who stands out, such as Herschell or Marcus Dupree. Most years there is absolutely no way to know which running back is the best, or even to say that the number 1 ranked running back is definitely better than the number 15 ranked running back. The recruiting sites want people to believe their formulas and subscribe to their sites. But just putting a number on something doesn't make it an accurate measurement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 756661, member: 2426"] That would depend also on how many you count. I think the recruiting services only count the top 20. That actually hurts a team like TCU who only had 19 recruits because they lose points for not signing an extra person. If they only had 19 spots available because they were loaded with top "talent" and had no more scholarship spots available, does only signing 19 hurt the overall "talent" on their team? So the non-accurate measurements are actually valid because instead of measuring something that can be checked, such as future performance, they only measure a vague notion of "talent"? Is there any way to validate the "talent" measurement, or is it just something that can be argued about among fans? The recruiting sites are simply entertainment, nothing more. You are saying about the same thing I was saying with respect to the tiers. However, I wouldn't even group them that close together. You can tell if a team is closer to Alabama or closer to North Texas. But you can do that without some points system that ranges from 700 to 3000 points. People can look at the height/weight and stats of the Alabama recruits and understand that they are better players than the North Texas players without some made up numbers to rank them. I don't believe that the recruiting services and the rankings actually show where teams stand against each other in "talent". They are just entertainment trying to make money off of ads and subscriptions. There is no measurement that tells you how much talent a player has. There is no formula to tell you which player is better than another player. Even when they play in college, there is disagreement about who the better player is. Is there a formula or measurement to tell us with certainty who the best running back in the NCAA in a typical year? No. And that is with actual numbers in competition against teams who can be compared to each other using connected competitions. Sometimes there will be a running back in high school who stands out, such as Herschell or Marcus Dupree. Most years there is absolutely no way to know which running back is the best, or even to say that the number 1 ranked running back is definitely better than the number 15 ranked running back. The recruiting sites want people to believe their formulas and subscribe to their sites. But just putting a number on something doesn't make it an accurate measurement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Recruiting Potential
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