Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 10:22:36 GMT -8
Sorry, I can not dismiss a valid national evaluation service as easily as you and James evidently do. And my ex-wife would say thick in the head, as opposed to a Rocky hater. In fact, I don't think I hate anyone, not even my ex. Sorry for having fallen into using the "hater" term. It's stupid and lazy, frankly. Better term for your opinion of Rocky would be unobjective. Oh and, like you, I don't hate my ex either, although a couple friends say I have good reason to. As a Rivals subscriber for half a dozen years, this is the point about their rating of our 2012 class. Although Rivals had always gotten around to rating our recruits within a couple months of their verbaling if not before they even committed, for 2012 we had about eight solid recruits who went unranked for several months. I remember Arthur Flores being one of them. All of a sudden about two weeks before LOI day, Rivals just rated them all a 5.4, or one-tenth of a point below the lowest 3-star rating. It's never been confirmed but I always thought the young guy who preceded Augustin Gonzalez who now handles the UCLA Rivals site just arbitrarily assigned a 5.4 rating to all of them on his way out the door. When I saw that, I figured Rivals would re-rate those kids. However, it never happened and not only does that besmirch the quality of our 2012 class, it's a stain on the reputation of Rivals. Rivals never half-assed its site like that before and since Augustin took over, they haven't since. However, you need to stop citing that #92 ranking as evidence that Rocky did a lousy recruiting job that year. So doing proves to me your lack of objectivity. Do me and yourself a favor and check out Arthur Flores. See who else offered him. Check his rating on ESPN and Scout. Then tell me if that kid should have received a 5.4 rating from Rivals. I pride myself on trying to be objective about everything concerning SDSU sports, including Rocky. IMO, Flores should have been rated 5.6. And to repeat, he's not the only lame, arbitrary rating Rivals gave out to SDSU recruits in 2012. Edit: I just checked and Rivals rated Flores a five point THREE. If you aren't lazy, check Flores' Scout rating and his ESPN rating and then tell me if you think Rivals didn't have their head shoved way up their posterior in giving the kid that rating. Just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by coolethan on Jul 22, 2012 11:17:52 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the publishers of each team's Rivals page has no input in determining the star rankings giving by Rivals. If they did every team would be chock full of 4 & 5 star recruits.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 22, 2012 11:22:05 GMT -8
Sorry, I can not dismiss a valid national evaluation service as easily as you and James evidently do. And my ex-wife would say thick in the head, as opposed to a Rocky hater. In fact, I don't think I hate anyone, not even my ex. Sorry for having fallen into using the "hater" term. It's stupid and lazy, frankly. Better term for your opinion of Rocky would be unobjective. Oh and, like you, I don't hate my ex either, although a couple friends say I have good reason to. As a Rivals subscriber for half a dozen years, this is the point about their rating of our 2012 class. Although Rivals had always gotten around to rating our recruits within a couple months of their verbaling if not before they even committed, for 2012 we had about eight solid recruits who went unranked for several months. I remember Arthur Flores being one of them. All of a sudden about two weeks before LOI day, Rivals just rated them all a 5.4, or one-tenth of a point below the lowest 3-star rating. It's never been confirmed but I always thought the young guy who preceded Augustin Gonzalez who now handles the UCLA Rivals site just arbitrarily assigned a 5.4 rating to all of them on his way out the door. When I saw that, I figured Rivals would re-rate those kids. However, it never happened and not only does that besmirch the quality of our 2012 class, it's a stain on the reputation of Rivals. Rivals never half-assed its site like that before and since Augustin took over, they haven't since. However, you need to stop citing that #92 ranking as evidence that Rocky did a lousy recruiting job that year. So doing proves to me your lack of objectivity. Do me and yourself a favor and check out Arthur Flores. See who else offered him. Check his rating on ESPN and Scout. Then tell me if that kid should have received a 5.4 rating from Rivals. I pride myself on trying to be objective about everything concerning SDSU sports, including Rocky. IMO, Flores should have been rated 5.6. And to repeat, he's not the only lame, arbitrary rating Rivals gave out to SDSU recruits in 2012. Edit: I just checked and Rivals rated Flores a five point THREE. If you aren't lazy, check Flores' Scout rating and his ESPN rating and then tell me if you think Rivals didn't have their head shoved way up their posterior in giving the kid that rating. Just ridiculous. Appreciate the comments and on this guy I agree with you. I feel Flores is going to be very good. See, I wasn't too lazy. And I do feel on balance that you are quite objective.
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Jul 22, 2012 11:26:23 GMT -8
Geezus H. Kuhryste! How many times do you have to be told that Rivals' 2012 ratings were dog crap? I'll answer my own question. An infinite number of times. Also, Mike Locklsley's recruits were the UNM version of Tom Craft. Rule #1 was this. Make your top priority the signing of the best football players. Rule #2 was there are no other rules, so if the kid is dumber than dirt, try to sneak him into school and enroll him in Basket Weaving 101, Archery, Ping-pong and Philosophy of Thumb Twiddling and then hope like hell he can pass them and retain his eligibility. I've been patient (Chuck) long enough. You must be either thick in the head or the world's biggest Rocky hater. Sorry, I can not dismiss a valid national evaluation service as easily as you and James evidently do. And my ex-wife would say thick in the head, as opposed to a Rocky hater. In fact, I don't think I hate anyone, not even my ex. And yet you continue to dismiss backwhenaztec's post on scouts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah.. As I mentioned before a trend to find stats to bolster your weak ass arguments.. How about these apples
Scout 2010 77tied because had 27 commits 2011 93rd country
2012 72 with lesser commits and full year.
U see a trend
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 22, 2012 11:31:54 GMT -8
Sorry, I can not dismiss a valid national evaluation service as easily as you and James evidently do. And my ex-wife would say thick in the head, as opposed to a Rocky hater. In fact, I don't think I hate anyone, not even my ex. And yet you continue to dismiss backwhenaztec's post on scouts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah.. As I mentioned before a trend to find stats to bolster your weak ass arguments.. How about these apples
Scout 2010 77tied because had 27 commits 2011 93rd country
2012 72 with lesser commits and full year.
U see a trend Hadn't seen it before, but honestly I'm just not smart enough do determine what that is saying. And in any case, I guess we all make decisions on what evidence we each feel has weight.
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Jul 22, 2012 11:36:43 GMT -8
And yet you continue to dismiss backwhenaztec's post on scouts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah.. As I mentioned before a trend to find stats to bolster your weak ass arguments.. How about these apples
Scout 2010 77tied because had 27 commits 2011 93rd country
2012 72 with lesser commits and full year.
U see a trend Hadn't seen it before, but honestly I'm just not smart enough do determine what that is saying. And in any case, I guess we all make decisions on what evidence we each feel has weight. So in your opion.. Rivals = accurate data Scouts = bad data? btw his post was in response to your post on the previous page...
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 22, 2012 11:39:28 GMT -8
Hadn't seen it before, but honestly I'm just not smart enough do determine what that is saying. And in any case, I guess we all make decisions on what evidence we each feel has weight. So in your opion.. Rivals = accurate data Scouts = bad data? btw his post was in response to your post on the previous page... Just to be clear, I've never said anything like that. It happens that I most frequently choose Rivals to look at. Who's right? Rivals or Scout? Can't say. Some have strong opinions in different directions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 11:48:27 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the publishers of each team's Rivals page has no input in determining the star rankings giving by Rivals. If they did every team would be chock full of 4 & 5 star recruits. Probably true. All right then. Some Rivals guy's 12-year-old logged onto Dad's computer and made a few off the wall keystrokes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 12:13:31 GMT -8
So in your opion.. Rivals = accurate data Scouts = bad data? btw his post was in response to your post on the previous page... Just to be clear, I've never said anything like that. It happens that I most frequently choose Rivals to look at. Who's right? Rivals or Scout? Can't say. Some have strong opinions in different directions. Since both the quality and quantity of raters differs according to area of the country and since two heads are at least theoretically better than one, the best way to compare recruiting classes is the way Phil Steele does it. Steele subscribes to eight different services, from which he extrapolates and collates information and then rank orders classes by conference. Presumably because JUCO transfers seem to always be a bit overrated and because a much higher percentage of them never qualify for admission, he throws those out in so doing. Here are Steele's MWC freshman class rankngs for 2012 based on that appraoch: 1. Boise 2. SDSU 3. Nevada 4. UNM 5. Wyoming 6. Hawaii 7. Fresno 8. AFA 9. UNLV 10 CSU Here is Steele's ranking order of 2011 MWC classes: 1. TCU 2. Boise 3. CSU 4. SDSU 5. UNLV 6. UNM 7. AFA 8. Wyoming The 2010 classes: 1. BYU 2. Utah 3. TCU 4. UNM 5. SDSU 6. CSU 7. Wyoming 8. AFA 9. UNLV Average ranking for schools playing in the MWC all three years: SDSU: 3.67 UNM: 4.67 CSU: 6.33 Wyoming: 6.67 AFA: 7.67 UNLV: 7.67 Obviously, BYU, Utah, TCU and Boise have out-recruited us. However, at least according to the experts, we have out-recruited everybody else the last three years. And as I mentioned before, UNM's classes are a bit illusory since Locksley signed a bunch of kids no longer with their program. Are we going to need to do better to compete effective in the BE? Of course. However, just moving to the BE should facilitate that. Therefore if our classes don't start getting better, I'll start complaining. However, right now, we're doing satisfactorily.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 22, 2012 12:18:55 GMT -8
Just to be clear, I've never said anything like that. It happens that I most frequently choose Rivals to look at. Who's right? Rivals or Scout? Can't say. Some have strong opinions in different directions. Since both the quality and quantity of raters differs according to area of the country and since two heads are at least theoretically better than one, the best way to compare recruiting classes is the way Phil Steele does it. Steele subscribes to eight different services, from which he extrapolates and collates information and then rank orders classes by conference. Presumably because JUCO transfers seem to always be a bit overrated and because a much higher percentage of them never qualify for admission, he throws those out in so doing. Here are Steele's MWC freshman class rankngs for 2012 based on that appraoch: 1. Boise 2. SDSU 3. Nevada 4. UNM 5. Wyoming 6. Hawaii 7. Fresno 8. AFA 9. UNLV 10 CSU Here is Steele's ranking order of 2011 MWC classes: 1. TCU 2. Boise 3. CSU 4. SDSU 5. UNLV 6. UNM 7. AFA 8. Wyoming The 2010 classes: 1. BYU 2. Utah 3. TCU 4. UNM 5. SDSU 6. CSU 7. Wyoming 8. AFA 9. UNLV Average ranking for schools playing in the MWC all three years: SDSU: 3.67 UNM: 4.67 CSU: 6.33 Wyoming: 6.67 AFA: 7.67 UNLV: 7.67 Obviously, BYU, Utah, TCU and Boise have out-recruited us. However, at least according to the experts, we have out-recruited everybody else the last three years. And as I mentioned before, UNM's classes are a bit illusory since Locksley signed a bunch of kids no longer with their program. Are we going to need to do better to compete effective in the BE? Of course. However, just moving to the BE should facilitate that. Therefore if our classes don't start getting better, I'll start complaining. However, right now, we're doing satisfactorily. I will admit that I had overblown expectations about the BE move giving us a very noticeable leap in recruiting and so far that hasn't happened in my opinion---no matter what evaluation is employed. However, I also thought that having the stage with superman Faulk that things would change at SDSU exponentially, but alas...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 12:25:42 GMT -8
I will admit that I had overblown expectations about the BE move giving us a very noticeable leap in recruiting and so far that hasn't happened in my opinion---no matter what evaluation is employed. However, I also thought that having the stage with superman Faulk that things would change at SDSU exponentially, but alas... Because of the number of quality players needed, sustained football success is never a sprint, it's a marathon. And as Houston Nutt has said on Rivals Radio, although you can afford to have a bad class once in awhile, two consecutive bad classes are a killer. So we still won't be over the Chuckster's negative influence on our depth for another year.
|
|
|
Post by ernieaztec on Jul 22, 2012 12:42:00 GMT -8
if the difference is two and three star ok but if its 2 and four star thats crazy!!
|
|
|
Post by fatmanaztec on Jul 23, 2012 8:22:06 GMT -8
SGF...thank you for the breakdown from Phil Steele as this, per your very clear explanation, is the probably the one and only way to truly 'analyze' recruiting classes as it takes out the upper fluff and keeps the bottom end of the spectrum so that the median score is something that crosses multipe sources versus one or two "convenient selections' to make/prove a point.
|
|