forums

Harrison-Hunte Update

So come to find out any update on JHH and we got 2 and half pages arguing over a guy that isnt here anymore. Was an above average DT and was going to be a career backup in the NFL at best( before the illness)
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
The truth is their own descriptions are flawed and inconsistent, not that you or D$ is wrong in what you’re picking out.

If there are 250-300 4* kids each cycle, then D$ is right that how a kid gets drafted is comparable to the going in pool. It isn’t as simple as saying top 150 kids in nfl draft means should have been top 150 coming out of Hs, because you have to account for kids who get removed from the pool for non-football reasons - injuries, conduct, played another sport, etc. If 20% of kids get removed from the pool for non-football reasons, then maybe it’s more like top 200 out of Hs translates to top 160 in nfl draft. But directionally, D$ is right in his analysis.

That said, the rating services are wrong to describe 3* kids as potential all conference level, at least unless you put too much weight on the word ‘potential.’ If there are 300 4* kids give or take each year, that’s 1200 over 4 years. Many all conference kids are all conference multiple seasons, moreover. So there arent 1200 all conference players over 4 years around the major conferences. 4* is more of an all conference level potential. 3* is more starter level potential, generalizing of course.
Click to expand...

The way they rank and rate players for 132+ college football teams over the course of X number of senior HS football players =/= they way they rank and rate players for 32 NFL football teams from Y number of college football teams. You can't simply take the raw numbers and port them over.

Three-star players are the Top .47 percent of a HS senior class. 4* are the Top .13 percent of a HS senior class.
(https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...ecruiting-stars-rankings-high-school-football)

If RJ McIntosh were the Top .13 percent of his class (the equivalent of a 4*) when you transition the figures to the NCAA to pro game, he'd have to be a first round pick. ****, I'd extend you out to a top two round player. Which, he was not. And we can fantasy book some fan fiction about he WOULD HAVE, but the fact is, he wasn't.
(http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football)

Not a first round pick.
Not an All-American.
Not a First Team All-Conference Player.

Those three boxes are essentially what a 4* player is.

I guess we can all agree to disagree...we're all gentlemen here...but we all have very different opinions on this topic and how we judge players.

On topic, Jared Harrison-Hunte...I think saying he's a bit developmental and you could maybe see some All-Conference play from him and become a late round pick maybe isn't an insult...but thats a 3* player.
 
Last edited:
DMoney said:
With Hunte, I think they are making the same mistake as with McIntosh. Basketball converts with thick bodies and adequate physicality have a long track record of success.

The top schools have picked up on that, which is why both guys had bigger offers than their rankings.

DL are hard to predict, so time will tell. But the upside is exciting.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but few people pay attention to basketball converts who don’t pan out and success gets over focused on, so not sure what the true probabilities are. (Wasnt jermaine barton a basketball convert also?) Lack of experience is a reason to reserve judgment / ranking hesitation. Also lack of competition (nyc). Untill a kid has been hit hard, often, by southern savage types, you just don’t know how he’ll react to that environment.

That said, the thick body point is notable. Hunte does look like he has a FB frame. LOS is a tough positiion to rank anyhow. Plenty of top OL and DTs end up not that good. And plenty of lower rated ones prove out. I think its less a flaw in the rankings than a reality that kids change a lot in those 4 years, and work ethic and drive are hard to quantify. Some other positions are easier to map to athletic traits, imo.
 
BoxingRobes said:
The way they rank and rate players for 132+ college football teams over the course of X number of senior HS football players =/= they way they rank and rate players for 32 NFL football teams from Y number of college football teams. You can't simply take the raw numbers and port them over.

Three-star players are the Top .47 percent of a HS senior class. 4* are the Top .13 percent of a HS senior class.
(https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...ecruiting-stars-rankings-high-school-football)

If RJ McIntosh were the Top .13 percent of his class (the equivalent of a 4*) when you transition the figures to the NCAA to pro game, he'd have to be a first round pick. ****, I'd extend you out to a top two round player. Which, he was not. And we can fantasy book some fan fiction about he WOULD HAVE, but the fact is, he wasn't.
(http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football)

Not a first round pick.
Not an All-American.
Not a First Team All-Conference Player.

Those three boxes are essentially what a 4* player is.

I guess we can all agree to disagree...we're all gentlemen here...but we all have very different opinions on this topic and how we judge players.

On topic, Jared Harrison-Hunte...I think saying he's a bit developmental and you could maybe see some All-Conference play from him and become a late round pick maybe isn't an insult...but thats a 3* player.
Click to expand...
I think you are just overcomplicting this and thinking about it wrong.

There are 32 first round picks in any given year. Back that up 4 years. A perfect ranking system that aspired to ranking based on pro potential would have rated the top 32 players coming out of HS to be the same group that became first round picks. Yes, it’s a bit more complex than that — some positions get overweighted in the nfl draft, amd nfl potential is not the only trait they consider in rankings. And some kids get hurt, or switch to baseball, or get arrested. But more or less, this is a like to like pool cmparison. The rankings aspire to identify the top kids in a year based on pro potential, and the main reference check on how they did is what those kids ended up doing down the road, in the nfl draft.
 
Ethnicsands said:
I think you are just overcomplicting this and thinking about it wrong.

There are 32 first round picks in any given year. Back that up 4 years. A perfect ranking system that aspired to ranking based on pro potential would have rated the top 32 players coming out of HS to be the same group that became first round picks. Yes, it’s a bit more complex than that — some positions get overweighted in the nfl draft, amd nfl potential is not the only trait they consider in rankings. And some kids get hurt, or switch to baseball, or get arrested. But more or less, this is a like to like pool cmparison. The rankings aspire to identify the top kids in a year based on pro potential, and the main reference check on how they did is what those kids ended up doing down the road, in the nfl draft.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

I tried keeping it simple...because I know/knew how faulty D$'s numbers were to this discussion and really didn't feel like trying to go full boar on equations. I still kept it generally simple and straight forward. The other bullet points that the sites use to qualify their rankings. I felt @righty was right when he said you're trying to turn an orange into an apple with the figures. We're talking about two completely different pools of players by numbers and spots.

Even if you crunch the numbers to JUST FBS level recruits (to narrow the focus) to the NFL, the proportion isn't in your favor here. For example, of draft eligible FBS players, the equivalent of a 4* pro player would be a first round pick.

You also said something in another post about putting too much weight on the word "potential"...unfortunately, that is the evaluation process regardless of the level of football. Are there a lot of potentially really good football players out there? Absolutely. 300 potential All-Conference players by Year 3, Year 4 or whatever whittles itself down really fast. Even if you make the pros, you go from "NFL player" to selling cars in 3.3 years on average. At every level of football its a big, wide net to catch a few fish.
 
Advertisement
Too much arguing here going on 12 hours here's something to lighten the mood
downloadfile-10.gif
giphy.gif
 
BoxingRobes said:
I couldn't disagree more.

I tried keeping it simple...because I know/knew how faulty D$'s numbers were to this discussion and really didn't feel like trying to go full boar on equations. I still kept it generally simple and straight forward. The other bullet points that the sites use to qualify their rankings. I felt @righty was right when he said you're trying to turn an orange into an apple with the figures. We're talking about two completely different pools of players by numbers and spots.

Even if you crunch the numbers to JUST FBS level recruits (to narrow the focus) to the NFL, the proportion isn't in your favor here. For example, of draft eligible FBS players, the equivalent of a 4* pro player would be a first round pick.

You also said something in another post about putting too much weight on the word "potential"...unfortunately, that is the evaluation process regardless of the level of football. Are there a lot of potentially really good football players out there? Absolutely. 300 potential All-Conference players by Year 3, Year 4 or whatever whittles itself down really fast. Even if you make the pros, you go from "NFL player" to selling cars in 3.3 years on average. At every level of football its a big, wide net to catch a few fish.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You and he are just talking by each other. You are pointing out, I think, that if you accept built in *inherent* uncertainty of future outcome at the HS rating level, then your equations change entirely because there necessarily is a positive probability that 3* kids will become first round picks. Ergo, you can’t claim a rating was wrong at the time just because it turned out to look wrong later. Just like you can’t dispute the 50/50 probability on a coin flip even though there is a 100% certainty that the probability will be wrong one direction or the other after one flip, or even 3, 5 or 7 flips.

D$ Is pointing out in response a far more common sense observation. At the end of the day, only so many kids get picked in the first round, and you’d have to be a fool to try to contend that many of them were not underrated coming out of Hs. They were. If you want to fit that into your math equation, you’re really emphasizing randomness and he’s highlighting systemic bias in the rankings. Here’s your proof: if rivals and espn each rated the top 25 kids, and all the rivals kids ended up as first rounders, while only half the espn kids did, then we’d all know that rivals did a better job of rating kids that year than espn did, no matter how many statisticians contend otherwise.
 
DMoney said:
It's their own criteria.

It's right at the beginning: a four star should be a Top 300 player. That makes sense considering they give out 300+ four stars. Nobody disputes that McIntosh was a Top 300 player in his class because they can't.

Just for perspective, Jamie Gordinier was ranked ahead of RJ McIntosh as a SDE. That's how bad they blew it.
Click to expand...

Entertaining exchange.

The issue is that in actuality the rating services have two criteria, one mathematical (which you're focused on) and the other a narrative description (which boxing robes is focused on). The problem arises because the two criteria are in conflict with each other.

Both are right depending on which of the two rating services criteria one favors.

D$ makes the correct observation that numerically there are 300 4 star recruits deemed to be the top young football prospects in the country (along with the 5 stars, which we'll ignore for purposes of this conversation). If the rating services are correct, then those 300 4 star recruits should perform in such a way that, generally speaking, they comprise the top 300 college players, and as the top 300 college players they then become one of the 256 NFL draft choices.

This is the mathematical implication of the star system, where the number of 4 star players (300) is at or above the number of NFL draft picks (256). If the rating services have graded each high school player correctly, and if the rating services limit the number of elite, 4 star players to 300, that then means that all NFL draft choices should come from the pool of 4 star kids. And similarly, if one 3 star kid gets drafted, it means one 4 star kid did not get drafted, and therefore the star ranking for those two players was wrong in hindsight and should have been reversed. This is D$'s argument, and as a matter of the rating services mathematics he is correct.

But the above mathematical "proof" is refuted by the rating services very own words. In the narrative description of the star rating system, 247 describes a 3 star recruit as follows:

"89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential."

Note the bolded part. What is this? A 3 star is described as having "significant pro potential", and yet as noted above, if the rating services nail all 300 4 star recruits as being exactly the very best 300 players in college, then all the 256 NFL draft picks would be filled from the ranks of the best 300 4 star kids, such that there'd be no remaining draft slots for any of the 3 star kids. And yet, 247's very own description of a 3 star recruits is that he has "significant pro potential". This is the rating services narrative description of a three star that Boxing Robes has focused on, and per this description he is correct. The fact that a 3 star kid was one of the NFL's 256 draft choices does not mean the kid was therefore underrated in hindsight. Because the possibility that 3 star kids will be among the 256 players drafted is stated right there in black and white in the description. And if the rating services acknowledge in their own narrative that a 3 star kid can end up as being one of 256 players drafted, that then equally means that the rating services acknowledge that the 256 NFL draft slots won't necessarily be filled out of the 300 4 star kids.

So the issue is that the rating services have two criteria in deciding between a 3 star and 4 star recruit, and the two criteria are inconsistent. That being noted, I probably favor Boxing Robes take on the issue. That's because in order to accept D$'s argument, it would have to mean that ratings are intended to represent the exactly correct ordering of all high school D1 recruits; i.e. that the 300 4 star recruits should in fact become the 300 best college players. D$'s mathematically based argument requires this assumption I believe.

But I don't think the rating services make that claim. I don't think the rating services are claiming to identify in perfect ranked order the 300 top college players. Rather, I think the ratings services know that this is an imperfect business at best. That it's not possible to make a perfect comparison of recruits because future physical growth is unknown, different parts of the country are involved and/or different levels of competition, etc all prevent the level of precision necessary for the 4 star 300 to in fact comprise the precisely correct 300 best college football players. No, I don't believe the rating services make this claim coming up with their rankings and ratings of recruits.

Rather, I think most people understand that the ratings are more of a stab as handicapping the probability that a given HS recruit will become an elite college player; i.e. a 5 star has a "near certain" probability of becoming an elite college football player, 4 star rank a is "highly probable", 3 star "possible", 2 star is "not likely but it happens", etc. This is how I think of the star ratings, and I'm pretty sure it's how they think of themselves. So again, I come down on Boxing Robes side of the discussion, which is based on the narrative descriptions of the various star rankings. And this means that RJ McIntosh was not necessarily underrated. Instead, he's a 3 star guy who performed near the top of his probability potential. And he meets the definition of a 247 3 star recruit. (1) "Will develop into a reliable starter for his team": check (2) " Among the best players in his region of the country": check (3) "Significant pro potential": check. He meets the three criteria for a 247 3 star.
 
Advertisement
PalyCane said:
Entertaining exchange.

The issue is that in actuality the rating services have two criteria, one mathematical (which you're focused on) and the other a narrative description (which boxing robes is focused on). The problem arises because the two criteria are in conflict with each other.

Both are right depending on which of the two rating services criteria one favors.

D$ makes the correct observation that numerically there are 300 4 star recruits deemed to be the top young football prospects in the country (along with the 5 stars, which we'll ignore for purposes of this conversation). If the rating services are correct, then those 300 4 star recruits should perform in such a way that, generally speaking, they comprise the top 300 college players, and as the top 300 college players they then become one of the 256 NFL draft choices.

This is the mathematical implication of the star system, where the number of 4 star players (300) is at or above the number of NFL draft picks (256). If the rating services have graded each high school player correctly, and if the rating services limit the number of elite, 4 star players to 300, that then means that all NFL draft choices should come from the pool of 4 star kids. And similarly, if one 3 star kid gets drafted, it means one 4 star kid did not get drafted, and therefore the star ranking for those two players was wrong in hindsight and should have been reversed. This is D$'s argument, and as a matter of the rating services mathematics he is correct.

But the above mathematical "proof" is refuted by the rating services very own words. In the narrative description of the star rating system, 247 describes a 3 star recruit as follows:

"89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential."

Note the bolded part. What is this? A 3 star is described as having "significant pro potential", and yet as noted above, if the rating services nail all 300 4 star recruits as being exactly the very best 300 players in college, then all the 256 NFL draft picks would be filled from the ranks of the best 300 4 star kids, such that there'd be no remaining draft slots for any of the 3 star kids. And yet, 247's very own description of a 3 star recruits is that he has "significant pro potential". This is the rating services narrative description of a three star that Boxing Robes has focused on, and per this description he is correct. The fact that a 3 star kid was one of the NFL's 256 draft choices does not mean the kid was therefore underrated in hindsight. Because the possibility that 3 star kids will be among the 256 players drafted is stated right there in black and white in the description. And if the rating services acknowledge in their own narrative that a 3 star kid can end up as being one of 256 players drafted, that then equally means that the rating services acknowledge that the 256 NFL draft slots won't necessarily be filled out of the 300 4 star kids.

So the issue is that the rating services have two criteria in deciding between a 3 star and 4 star recruit, and the two criteria are inconsistent. That being noted, I probably favor Boxing Robes take on the issue. That's because in order to accept D$'s argument, it would have to mean that ratings are intended to represent the exactly correct ordering of all high school D1 recruits; i.e. that the 300 4 star recruits should in fact become the 300 best college players. D$'s mathematically based argument requires this assumption I believe.

But I don't think the rating services make that claim. I don't think the rating services are claiming to identify in perfect ranked order the 300 top college players. Rather, I think the ratings services know that this is an imperfect business at best. That it's not possible to make a perfect comparison of recruits because future physical growth is unknown, different parts of the country are involved and/or different levels of competition, etc all prevent the level of precision necessary for the 4 star 300 to in fact comprise the precisely correct 300 best college football players. No, I don't believe the rating services make this claim coming up with their rankings and ratings of recruits.

Rather, I think most people understand that the ratings are more of a stab as handicapping the probability that a given HS recruit will become an elite college player; i.e. a 5 star has a "near certain" probability of becoming an elite college football player, 4 star rank a is "highly probable", 3 star "possible", 2 star is "not likely but it happens", etc. This is how I think of the star ratings, and I'm pretty sure it's how they think of themselves. So again, I come down on Boxing Robes side of the discussion, which is based on the narrative descriptions of the various star rankings. And this means that RJ McIntosh was not necessarily underrated. Instead, he's a 3 star guy who performed near the top of his probability potential. And he meets the definition of a 247 3 star recruit. (1) "Will develop into a reliable starter for his team": check (2) " Among the best players in his region of the country": check (3) "Significant pro potential": check. He meets the three criteria for a 247 3 star.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what he said ^^^
 
Paly, agreed. Think of it this way:

Say 5* kids are kids with a 50% probability of becoming 1st round nfl picks.

Say 4* kids are kids with a 5% probability of becoming 1st round picks.

Say 3* kids are kids with a 0.5% probability of becoming 1st round picks.

Articulated this way, the rating services could get their predictions _perfectly_ correct, but still some 3* kids will outperform some 5* kids. Whether that means they were misrated or not is the topic here, but the answer is surely unknowable. It might mean that. Or they developed, or whatever else factored into the ratings.
 
Ethnicsands said:
Paly, agreed. Think of it this way:

Say 5* kids are kids with a 50% probability of becoming 1st round nfl picks.

Say 4* kids are kids with a 5% probability of becoming 1st round picks.

Say 3* kids are kids with a 0.5% probability of becoming 1st round picks.

Articulated this way, the rating services could get their predictions _perfectly_ correct, but still some 3* kids will outperform some 5* kids. Whether that means they were misrated or not is the topic here, but the answer is surely unknowable. It might mean that. Or they developed, or whatever else factored into the ratings.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s accurate. I think I saw that 50% of 5*’s get drafted but not necessarily as 1st rounders!
 
Advertisement
BoxingRobes said:
The way they rank and rate players for 132+ college football teams over the course of X number of senior HS football players =/= they way they rank and rate players for 32 NFL football teams from Y number of college football teams. You can't simply take the raw numbers and port them over.

Three-star players are the Top .47 percent of a HS senior class. 4* are the Top .13 percent of a HS senior class.
(https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...ecruiting-stars-rankings-high-school-football)

If RJ McIntosh were the Top .13 percent of his class (the equivalent of a 4*) when you transition the figures to the NCAA to pro game, he'd have to be a first round pick. ****, I'd extend you out to a top two round player. Which, he was not. And we can fantasy book some fan fiction about he WOULD HAVE, but the fact is, he wasn't.
(http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football)

Not a first round pick.
Not an All-American.
Not a First Team All-Conference Player.

Those three boxes are essentially what a 4* player is.

I guess we can all agree to disagree...we're all gentlemen here...but we all have very different opinions on this topic and how we judge players.

On topic, Jared Harrison-Hunte...I think saying he's a bit developmental and you could maybe see some All-Conference play from him and become a late round pick maybe isn't an insult...but thats a 3* player.
Click to expand...

He played for Miami in the ACC.
 
PalyCane said:
Entertaining exchange.

The issue is that in actuality the rating services have two criteria, one mathematical (which you're focused on) and the other a narrative description (which boxing robes is focused on). The problem arises because the two criteria are in conflict with each other.

Both are right depending on which of the two rating services criteria one favors.

D$ makes the correct observation that numerically there are 300 4 star recruits deemed to be the top young football prospects in the country (along with the 5 stars, which we'll ignore for purposes of this conversation). If the rating services are correct, then those 300 4 star recruits should perform in such a way that, generally speaking, they comprise the top 300 college players, and as the top 300 college players they then become one of the 256 NFL draft choices.

This is the mathematical implication of the star system, where the number of 4 star players (300) is at or above the number of NFL draft picks (256). If the rating services have graded each high school player correctly, and if the rating services limit the number of elite, 4 star players to 300, that then means that all NFL draft choices should come from the pool of 4 star kids. And similarly, if one 3 star kid gets drafted, it means one 4 star kid did not get drafted, and therefore the star ranking for those two players was wrong in hindsight and should have been reversed. This is D$'s argument, and as a matter of the rating services mathematics he is correct.

But the above mathematical "proof" is refuted by the rating services very own words. In the narrative description of the star rating system, 247 describes a 3 star recruit as follows:

"89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential."

Note the bolded part. What is this? A 3 star is described as having "significant pro potential", and yet as noted above, if the rating services nail all 300 4 star recruits as being exactly the very best 300 players in college, then all the 256 NFL draft picks would be filled from the ranks of the best 300 4 star kids, such that there'd be no remaining draft slots for any of the 3 star kids. And yet, 247's very own description of a 3 star recruits is that he has "significant pro potential". This is the rating services narrative description of a three star that Boxing Robes has focused on, and per this description he is correct. The fact that a 3 star kid was one of the NFL's 256 draft choices does not mean the kid was therefore underrated in hindsight. Because the possibility that 3 star kids will be among the 256 players drafted is stated right there in black and white in the description. And if the rating services acknowledge in their own narrative that a 3 star kid can end up as being one of 256 players drafted, that then equally means that the rating services acknowledge that the 256 NFL draft slots won't necessarily be filled out of the 300 4 star kids.

So the issue is that the rating services have two criteria in deciding between a 3 star and 4 star recruit, and the two criteria are inconsistent. That being noted, I probably favor Boxing Robes take on the issue. That's because in order to accept D$'s argument, it would have to mean that ratings are intended to represent the exactly correct ordering of all high school D1 recruits; i.e. that the 300 4 star recruits should in fact become the 300 best college players. D$'s mathematically based argument requires this assumption I believe.

But I don't think the rating services make that claim. I don't think the rating services are claiming to identify in perfect ranked order the 300 top college players. Rather, I think the ratings services know that this is an imperfect business at best. That it's not possible to make a perfect comparison of recruits because future physical growth is unknown, different parts of the country are involved and/or different levels of competition, etc all prevent the level of precision necessary for the 4 star 300 to in fact comprise the precisely correct 300 best college football players. No, I don't believe the rating services make this claim coming up with their rankings and ratings of recruits.

Rather, I think most people understand that the ratings are more of a stab as handicapping the probability that a given HS recruit will become an elite college player; i.e. a 5 star has a "near certain" probability of becoming an elite college football player, 4 star rank a is "highly probable", 3 star "possible", 2 star is "not likely but it happens", etc. This is how I think of the star ratings, and I'm pretty sure it's how they think of themselves. So again, I come down on Boxing Robes side of the discussion, which is based on the narrative descriptions of the various star rankings. And this means that RJ McIntosh was not necessarily underrated. Instead, he's a 3 star guy who performed near the top of his probability potential. And he meets the definition of a 247 3 star recruit. (1) "Will develop into a reliable starter for his team": check (2) " Among the best players in his region of the country": check (3) "Significant pro potential": check. He meets the three criteria for a 247 3 star.
Click to expand...

I will boil it down to one example. Joe Jackson was one of over 300 players given a four star ranking. He did not make an All-American team, was never first team All-Conference, and is projected as a third round pick.

Under BoxingRobes’ interpretation, Rivals made a mistake in giving Joe Jackson four stars because he failed to meet his potential.

That is an absurd interpretation. Joe Jackson clearly performed like a four star player under any analysis. The easiest way to quantify this is because he was better than the majority of the players given four stars.

This is not only retroactive. Joe Jackson and RJ McIntosh were Top 300 players coming out of high school and received commensurate offers. They were among the Top 300 in terms of potential, which is how the rankings are supposed be calculated. The services just got it wrong. That is excusable, but it doesn’t make it less true.

To buy BoxingRobes argument, you would have to assume there were 300 players with more potential than RJ McIntosh out of high school. And that’s just not accurate.
 
warpigs58 said:
I don’t think that’s accurate. I think I saw that 50% of 5*’s get drafted but not necessarily as 1st rounders!
Click to expand...
The numbers were just hypothetical. You can adjust them to whateverr they should be. The point remains that the probability model contemplates some three stars outperforming some 5 stars.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
The numbers were just hypothetical. You can adjust them to whateverr they should be. The point remains that the probability model contemplates some three stars outperforming some 5 stars.
Click to expand...

My biggest problem with the narrative criteria is that it removes accountability. That’s probably why it’s so inconsistent, it’s a CYA for the recruiting services.

The only accountability comes from the fact that they give out 300-400 four star rankings and no more. That’s the reason the “Top 300 prospect” criteria is the only one that makes sense. Nobody expects them to go 300-300, but that’s how the rankings should be tested.
 
zanecane said:
This argument started at 8:59am. **** near 7pm and you guys are still going strong. Send My condolences to your families.
Click to expand...

Just under 24 hours and the debate rages on. Neither side looks like they will throw in the towel. Supplies are getting low and fatigue is beginning to show. At this point It’s a battle of mental toughness.

Harrison-Hunte has become an afterthought. I’d consider conceding him to Penn State just to make this end. But I believe we are in too deep. There is no turning back. At this point if we don’t get JHH we may have to shutdown the recruiting board completely. Too many posters have sacrificed too much to not bring this kid home.

I’ll continue to update you all throughout the day.

3 stars. 4 stars. 5 stars. At this point who cares. The REAL STARS are the CIS posters who continue this very important debate.
 
DMoney said:
My biggest problem with the narrative criteria is that it removes accountability. That’s probably why it’s so inconsistent, it’s a CYA for the recruiting services.

The only accountability comes from the fact that they give out 300-400 four star rankings and no more. That’s the reason the “Top 300 prospect” criteria is the only one that makes sense. Nobody expects them to go 300-300, but that’s how the rankings should be tested.
Click to expand...
I find myself agreeing on the narrative point but not the math. It is entirely possible that the ranking services suck, are dishonest, not accountable and yet a probability model is still logically better and reasonably easy to assess. That kind of has to be the case because uncertainty has to be accounted for.

If they reasonably *consistently* translate __% of 3*, 4* and 5* kids to nfl draft picks, then you’d have reason to think their rankings are performing as intended. On the other hand, if the % of 4* kids (or 5* kids) who turn into top 3 round picks, say, is very different from year to year, then you would have a signal that their rankings are not equally good from year to year. I have no idea what the reality is on this topic btw. How different are their class outcomes from 2013-2014-2015?

Ultimately, I think you are right in your criticisms of them, but that doesnt require someone to believe that any 3* kids turning into better players than any 4* kids necessarily means there was a misranking.

There are some obvious biases in many of the ranking services, and I have always viewed the most reliable data on general ability to be which other staffs are seriously recruiting a kid. It’s not perfect, but it’s revealing. You and I agree on that. On that metric, Hunte may well be genuinely underrated. I take with a grain of salt, however, all reports of who has offers that will translate to signable LOIs around this time. We all know kids UM brings in for visits but don’t get to be in the class, and yet some other fan base claims they had a UM offer. Heck, we just dropped a kid in Munoz who had been committed to us all season. No doubt Syracuse fans will claim they stole him. Alabama regularly pushes kids out of their class. The truth is more complex. DL are a premium and late Jan uncommitted DL are something most schools will sniff around.

Anyhow, this has all been a good discussion.
 
Paly said, "Many three-stars have significant pro potential." Also true many 4 and 5 stars turn out to have little or no pro potential, when all is said and done (we've had some of those, maybe more than our fair share).
 
Advertisement
Back
Top