forums

Updated 6/10/23 - Guess Which Team On 247/Sports Has Four 5 Star Commits with a 94.04 Average ?

Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
So in essence there should be no need to look at stars or complain about rosters, right? Just follow the offers. So when we hear talent discrepancy, where is that based on?
Click to expand...


There are a couple of interesting bits tucked away in your questions, so let's briefly discuss.

First, I'd love to see Rivals/247/on3 be more TRANSPARENT with their ratings of players. In the same way that some reasonably bright statistician invented something like a "quarterback rating", it would be nice to see the services develop an actual index with less mystery. Some of the elements that you could use include:

---Measurables (height, weight, speed, etc., and index it to prototypes, thus shorter QBs would have to offset their lesser measurables with more production)
---Stats in games (this is harder for OLs, for instance, but it's a work in progress)
---Performance in camps, 7-on-7, etc.
---Intangibles (while some could attack this as "vague", at least it would be an identified component, and transparent, and people could debate this)
---Offer lists

I'll get to that last item in a moment, but if you mashed up the above criteria (and the calculation could be different for QBs as opposed to OLs), you'd have something that is defined and subject to SOME objective criteria, such as measurable and stats. Every year, we see recruits who are "only" rated by services once they get a big offer, and at least this system would allow everyone to be considered, even if a kid is not given a good "Intangibles" score until he becomes better known.

Second, when it comes to offer lists, I have mentioned that IF MONITORED PROPERLY, then offer lists and "ratings" are closely linked. Because the coaches are 24-7-365 professionals doing these jobs for 6 and 7 figure salaries, it is not shocking to give their analysis more weight than a few low-paid internet writers who are hustling to do podcasts and promotions to make a buck. It's only natural that these Rivals/247/on3 writers buckle to the pressure of their subscribers when they start screaming for a Gaytor Bumpz.

Then, if a kid gets a bunch of great offers, and then the services rate him highly, and then Miami signs him, then you can at least understand WHY the kid is considered to be so talented. Then it's up to us to develop him.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
There are a couple of interesting bits tucked away in your questions, so let's briefly discuss.

First, I'd love to see Rivals/247/on3 be more TRANSPARENT with their ratings of players. In the same way that some reasonably bright statistician invented something like a "quarterback rating", it would be nice to see the services develop an actual index with less mystery. Some of the elements that you could use include:

---Measurables (height, weight, speed, etc., and index it to prototypes, thus shorter QBs would have to offset their lesser measurables with more production)
---Stats in games (this is harder for OLs, for instance, but it's a work in progress)
---Performance in camps, 7-on-7, etc.
---Intangibles (while some could attack this as "vague", at least it would be an identified component, and transparent, and people could debate this)
---Offer lists

I'll get to that last item in a moment, but if you mashed up the above criteria (and the calculation could be different for QBs as opposed to OLs), you'd have something that is defined and subject to SOME objective criteria, such as measurable and stats. Every year, we see recruits who are "only" rated by services once they get a big offer, and at least this system would allow everyone to be considered, even if a kid is not given a good "Intangibles" score until he becomes better known.

Second, when it comes to offer lists, I have mentioned that IF MONITORED PROPERLY, then offer lists and "ratings" are closely linked. Because the coaches are 24-7-365 professionals doing these jobs for 6 and 7 figure salaries, it is not shocking to give their analysis more weight than a few low-paid internet writers who are hustling to do podcasts and promotions to make a buck. It's only natural that these Rivals/247/on3 writers buckle to the pressure of their subscribers when they start screaming for a Gaytor Bumpz.

Then, if a kid gets a bunch of great offers, and then the services rate him highly, and then Miami signs him, then you can at least understand WHY the kid is considered to be so talented. Then it's up to us to develop him.
Click to expand...

I was actually being facetious. lol
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
U’re expecting me to agree w/ a point that I pointed out yrs ago. Lol. I’m one of the ones that pointed out how star ratings work there. Lol.

But to simply discount their work or like it doesn’t provide a very tangible gage of talent level is asinine to me. If it didn’t, then as I’ve said, there would be no reason for this fan base to be up in arms w/ all these librarian generated blue chips are committing to school X or Y.

But F that; u say go by the offers right? So whose offers should we be paying attention when we, ourselves, sign a kid? Would u like me to revisit all the classes we had to verify if those said schools offer those players? Would that satisfy the notion of talent or not?
Click to expand...

The problem is you are confusing "the best readily packaged and digestible information available to the public" with "valid." Schools spend millions of dollars on evaluating and recruiting, poaching support talent to try to find an edge, and still miss a ton of kids, and miss on a ton of kids. I don't see why everyone thinks that this proprietary knowledge would happen to be available because some niche websites hire a few guys who have no professional coaching or scouting experience to say it is.

I've explained exactly why I "discount their work." I've even shown how its partially fraudulent. Which you keep ignoring. You want to keep doing business with someone who has stolen from you, more than once! And we haven't even gotten into the fact that kids that do all the camps, engage on social media, and have coaches who pump them get rated higher than the kids who don't.

Whose offers should we be paying attention to when we ourselves sign a kid? That's up to each of us. Based on Mario's career, I think he's well above average in that regard especially with Zo etc aboard, easy to have faith in Miami evals right now). That's buttressed by what I am hearing so far on the 2023 class, but we will see how they pan out. It's too soon. But yes, Mario is credible IMO, especially when its a kid that might not be rated so high that we identified EARLY. Are you locking up a kid you like in April or chasing in Dec? Big difference, no? Coaches are always going to find some guys on their own. But overall, if you look at that class, we beat out a ton of other top coaches that have won a lot of games for most of these kids.

Our 5 and 4 stars were very, very heavily recruited. And not all 4-stars are. The Alabama site does a post-LOI day autopsy, and they said the team that hurt them the most on the trail this year (though they recruit so well they had an epic #1 class anyway) was Miami. Saban is about as good as there has ever been. I like seeing that. Nick wanted a bunch of our kids. You respect the coaches with track records. It's not complicated. When the best in the business, the winningest coaches like a guy, that's a pretty good indication. Same with some coaches who are known for doing more with the lower rated guys. Wake and Utah are good examples. I'd happily cherry-pick a couple of kids from them each year. PITT on the DL...

Look at the kids we got who were 3-stars or even low 3-stars when we were on them early and hard. The sites have no idea.

Spencer was a kid that Venables was on early, and we flipped from Oklahoma. Also had offers from LSU, TENN, PSU, ARK, L'VILLE, PITT, etc.

Emory Williams was a nobody that we discovered, that this board was losing their mind over, who ended up getting pursued heavily by UF, FSU and AUB down the stretch. The sites had no idea because he didn't do camps or twitter. FYI ended up an ESPN 4-star and shined at the Elite 11, right?

Bobby Washington was a 3-star that people were saying was a throw in to get Robby! Offers from OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AUB, LVILLE, MISS, USCe, UTAH and yeah got his 4th star absurdly late.

Kinsler was flipped from UF, and had FSU, TENN and other big offers.

You know how hard Oregon, AUB and FSU went after Frankie down the stretch? Also had PSU offer. But yeah, not a top 1000 prospect lol.

Carver had offers from FSU, AUB, LSU, MSU... 32nd best TE prospect? LOL. Had D1 offers in 3 sports.

Tripp had offers from historically strong OL programs like MICH, MSU, PSU (that's 3 of the top 4 OL programs in the B1G) and BC, as well as TENN, TAMU, USCe, UK, MD...

Pulliam had offers from CLEM, LVILLE, MISS ST, AUB, UK, and diamond finders like WAKE and TULANE (who are suddenly interesting).


If there is any adversity, any projection needed, any discovery necessary, these guys generally miss. We all, including me, look at and reference the site ratings, because its entertainment for us. But you think the best programs and talent evaluators give a **** about the internet lists? LOL. That's how you lose your job. That's how Larry Coker ran UM into the ground.
 
Last edited:
Cryptical Envelopment said:
The problem is you are confusing "the best readily packaged and digestible information available to the public" with "valid." Schools spend millions of dollars on evaluating and recruiting, poaching support talent to try to find an edge, and still miss a ton of kids, and miss on a ton of kids. I don't see why everyone thinks that this proprietary knowledge would happen to be available because some niche websites hire a few guys who have no professional coaching or scouting experience to say it is.

I've explained exactly why I "discount their work." I've even shown how its partially fraudulent. Which you keep ignoring. You want to keep doing business with someone who has stolen from you, more than once! And we haven't even gotten into the fact that kids that do all the camps, engage on social media, and have coaches who pump them get rated higher than the kids who don't.

Whose offers should we be paying attention to when we ourselves sign a kid? That's up to each of us. Based on Mario's career, I think he's well above average in that regard. That's buttressed by what I am hearing so far on the 2023 class, but we will see how they pan out. It's too soon. But yes, Mario is credible IMO, especially when its a kid that might not be rated so high that we identified EARLY. Are you locking up a kid you like in April or chasing in Dec? Big difference, no? Coaches are always going to find some guys on their own. But overall, if you look at that class, we beat out a ton of other top coaches that have won a lot of games for most of these kids.

Our 5 and 4 stars were very, very heavily recruited. And not all 4-stars are. The Alabama site does a post-LOI day autopsy, and they said the team that hurt them the most on the trail this year (though they recruit so well they had an epic #1 class anyway) was Miami. Saban is about as good as there has ever been. I like seeing that. Nick wanted a bunch of our kids. You respect the coaches with track records. It's not complicated. When the best in the business, the winningest coaches like a guy, that's a pretty good indication. Same with some coaches who are known for doing more with the lower rated guys. Wake and Utah are good examples. I'd happily cherry-pick a couple of kids from them each year. PITT on the DL...

Look at the kids we got who were 3-stars or even low 3-stars when we were on them early and hard. The sites have no idea.

Spencer was a kid that Venables was on early, and we flipped from Oklahoma. Also had offers from LSU, TENN, PSU, ARK, L'VILLE, PITT, etc.

Emory Williams was a nobody that we discovered, that this board was losing their mind over, who ended up getting pursued heavily by UF, FSU and AUB down the stretch. The sites had no idea because he didn't do camps or twitter. FYI ended up an ESPN 4-star and shined at the Elite 11, right?

Bobby Washington was a 3-star that people were saying was a throw in to get Robby! Offers from OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AUB, LVILLE, MISS, USCe, UTAH and yeah got his 4th star absurdly late.

Kinsler was flipped from UF, and had FSU, TENN and other big offers.

You know how hard Oregon, AUB and FSU went after Frankie down the stretch? Also had PSU offer. But yeah, not a top 1000 prospect lol.

Carver had offers from FSU, AUB, LSU, MSU... 32nd best TE prospect? LOL. Had D1 offers in 3 sports.

Tripp had offers from historically strong OL programs like MICH, MSU, PSU and BC, as well as TENN, TAMU, USCe, UK, MD...

If there is any adversity, any projection needed, any discovery necessary, these guys generally miss. We all, including me, look at and reference the site ratings, because its entertainment for us. But you think the best programs and talent evaluators give a **** about the internet lists? LOL. That's how you lose your job. That's how Larry Coker ran UM into the ground.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry; but, when someone says something is “an in exact science” I’m pretty sure that the opposite of valid.

U’re going down a rabbit hole creating conjecture or arguments that are not and have not been my point. The fact is EVERYONE needs a baseline, agreed? So what do these websites provide? A baseline. U can’t say this site is full of librarians who don’t scout for a living, when

1. U have no idea the man power that goes into these sites & the entire walks of life they come from, including former scouts.

2. The proof has been proven on many instances.

The problem & fallacy of this argument is on one hand u can’t say “but, but, but, but, Bama r bagging all the 5 star kids”, but then on the other hand say “Just b/c 247 says we have had blue chips, don’t mean that’s necessarily accurate.”

U can’t have it both ways, so pick a side. U can’t say trust the process & evaluation of 3 star kids when we have a roster full of them, & then complain about a website that has UGA, OSU, and Bama consistently in the top 3 and they are consistently winning.

247, Rivals, On3, ESPN all have their metrics; is it 100% accurate? No; but even PROFESSIONAL scouts at combines, studying hrs of film don’t always get it right; so y r u not talking about all the 1st & 2nd round bust that these paid professionals are drafting, and how all of these 6th round & UDFAs make impacts? Let me give u a clue; b/c even though there’s a ton of 1st & 2nd round bust in the NFL’s history, that still pales in comparison to the likelihood a 5th round - UDFA will make an impact.

So despite how many blue chip players have failed, the fact is these websites guidelines show the greater likelihood u have of these “librarian filled blue chippers” the math is in ur favor.

Not sure why u’re trying to dispute & disprove such a point. Even if I were to go by offers, that’s not fool proof either, & it gives no better indication than the star rating system b/c OFFERS R CONSIDERED! Lol
 
Rellyrell said:
I’m sorry; but, when someone says something is “an in exact science” I’m pretty sure that the opposite of valid.

U’re going down a rabbit hole creating conjecture or arguments that are not and have not been my point. The fact is EVERYONE needs a baseline, agreed? So what do these websites provide? A baseline. U can’t say this site is full of librarians who don’t scout for a living, when

1. U have no idea the man power that goes into these sites & the entire walks of life they come from, including former scouts.

2. The proof has been proven on many instances.

The problem & fallacy of this argument is on one hand u can’t say “but, but, but, but, Bama r bagging all the 5 star kids”, but then on the other hand say “Just b/c 247 says we have had blue chips, don’t mean that’s necessarily accurate.”

U can’t have it both ways, so pick a side. U can’t say trust the process & evaluation of 3 star kids when we have a roster full of them, & then complain about a website that has UGA, OSU, and Bama consistently in the top 3 and they are consistently winning.

247, Rivals, On3, ESPN all have their metrics; is it 100% accurate? No; but even PROFESSIONAL scouts at combines, studying hrs of film don’t always get it right; so y r u not talking about all the 1st & 2nd round bust that these paid professionals are drafting, and how all of these 6th round & UDFAs make impacts? Let me give u a clue; b/c even though there’s a ton of 1st & 2nd round bust in the NFL’s history, that still pales in comparison to the likelihood a 5th round - UDFA will make an impact.

So despite how many blue chip players have failed, the fact is these websites guidelines show the greater likelihood u have of these “librarian filled blue chippers” the math is in ur favor.

Not sure why u’re trying to dispute & disprove such a point. Even if I were to go by offers, that’s not fool proof either, & it gives no better indication than the star rating system b/c OFFERS R CONSIDERED! Lol
Click to expand...

Lord have mercy did you even read or process what I wrote? Sure doesn't seem so. You are moving the goalposts. And you keep ignoring, over and over, the fraudulent aspect of it. Which tells me everything. I've said all I will say. Any further response would be me just repeating what I've already written which is lost time. Re-read my previous posts if you want more, lol.

Like I said, if you find the website ratings valid, then enjoy! I'm happy for you. Mazel Tov! :)
 
Advertisement
Cryptical Envelopment said:
Lord have mercy did you even read or process what I wrote? Sure doesn't seem so. You are moving the goalposts. And you keep ignoring, over and over, the fraudulent aspect of it. Which tells me everything. I've said all I will say. Any further response would be me just repeating what I've already written which is lost time. Re-read my previous posts if you want more, lol.

Like I said, if you find the website ratings valid, then enjoy! I'm happy for you. Mazel Tov! :)
Click to expand...

I read ur exposé, friend.

U’re not comprehending what I’m stating. I clearly know what u’re getting at, and I have not ignored any thing u said, as opposed to putting the onus on u.

I’m very familiar w/ how the rating systems work w/ these sites; I said it’s not an exact science. There’s no goal post to be moved, as u stated these sites should stick to writing articles about recruits vs. giving scouting reports and rating systems. Those were ur original words. U disqualified their abilities b/c their sites r filled w/ librarians w/ no scouting background. Again, those r ur words. Those words are not true, no matter how u’ve tried to eloquently prove them to be.

You then said, u prefer to look at offers vs. a site’s rating system & provided an example. OK, great; that still doesn’t prove anything. Blue Chips have been around well b4 a public forum was created. Back in the day, they had rating systems of the top players in America via USA Today. The same chit that went into rating players then are the foundation that rates them now.

My point was & have always been when u have a product that’s proven to be “more right” than wrong, that’s usually a good indication their formula is working. It provides a baseline or guideline, that’s all. I gave u the example of professional scouts who do the same chit at the NFL combine or when GMs make draft decisions. At the end of the day, it’s all subjective; however what’s the likelihood that a 247 ranked 5 star player make an impact on a team than a 247 3 star player based upon this current history?

I’m not saying u should rely “strictly” on this site or just one set of eyes. Evaluation goes much further than some internet site. There could be a 5 star player who don’t fit into ur scheme or system, where a 3 star player fits absolutely in to ur scheme. Furthermore, I know the rating systems can be subjective to bias information, & no, I’m not talking who subscribes. I’m referring to how a player is built, what school they attend, what offers they receive, their stats, 7 on 7 teams, camps attended, etc. Allll of that plays a role; however, to try to discount their work & label it as librarians trying to pose as scouts is being extremely disingenuous, & if imma be frank, either consciously or subconsciously providing a justification to the talent vs. coaching argument.

I don’t see all blue chips as equal, but I do know this fan base for yrs have pointed its finger at the programs who sits atop said sites as to the reason we can’t beat other teams. So again, I don’t need a long response, I just need to know should we all ignore these sites since they’re subjective & just put trust in the process w/ a disregard to how their listed, or nah?
 
Last edited:
Rellyrell said:
I read ur exposé, friend.

U’re not comprehending what I’m stating. I clearly know what u’re getting at, and I have not ignored any thing u said, as opposed to putting the onus on u.

I’m very familiar w/ how the rating systems work w/ these sites; I said it’s not an exact science. There’s no goal post to be moved, as u stated these sites should stick to writing articles about recruits vs. giving scouting reports and rating systems. Those were ur original words. U disqualified their abilities b/c their sites r filled w/ librarians w/ no scouting background. Again, those r ur words. Those words are not true, no matter how u’ve tried to eloquently prove them to be.

You then said, u prefer to look at offers vs. a site’s rating system & provided an example. OK, great; that still doesn’t prove anything. Blue Chips have been around well b4 a public forum was created. Back in the day, they had rating systems of the top players in America via USA Today. The same chit that went into rating players then are the foundation that rates them now.

My point was & have always been when u have a product that’s proven to be “more right” than wrong, that’s usually a good indication their formula is working. It provides a baseline or guideline, that’s all. I gave u the example of professional scouts who do the same chit at the NFL combine or when GMs make draft decisions. At the end of the day, it’s all subjective; however what’s the likelihood that a 247 ranked 5 star player make an impact on a team than a 247 3 star player based upon this current history?

I’m not saying u should rely “strictly” on this site or just one set of eyes. Evaluation goes much further than some internet site. There could be a 5 star player who don’t fit into ur scheme or system, where a 3 star player fits absolutely in to ur scheme. Furthermore, I know the rating systems can be subjective to bias information, & no, I’m not talking who subscribes. I’m referring to how a player is built, what school they attend, what offers they receive, their stats, 7 on 7 teams, camps attended, etc. Allll of that plays a role; however, to try to discount their work & label it as librarians trying to pose as scouts is being extremely disingenuous, & if imma be frank, either consciously or subconsciously providing a justification to the talent vs. coaching argument.

I don’t see all blue chips as equal, but I do know this fan base for yrs have pointed its finger at the programs who sits atop said sites as to the reason we can’t beat other teams. So again, I don’t need a long response, I just need to know should we all ignore these sites since they’re subjective & just put trust in the process w/ a disregard to how their listed, or nah?
Click to expand...


Wow. Ok, buddy.

Told you man, not repeating myself or taking the bait anymore no matter how much you move the goalposts. I've clearly outlined why I think (know, because they've even admitted it themselves) the sites are fraudulent and corrupt and staffed by amateurs and to what extent and why. Asked and answered. Read my posts above again, or don't, it's cool, the earth will keep spinning.

Again, if you think differently than I do, enjoy. IT'S OK. As I've said (over and over), it's amateur entertainment. I hope you are entertained. If you feel you can get something even more from it, yay! No offense, I'm happy to share my opinion, which I have (again, over and over being forced to repeat myself as you ignore the key points), but I am not interested in investing more bandwidth in changing your mind.

I just don't care enough. I'm moving on, you can get the last word in if ya want it. Peace, my guy.
 
247/Sports ****ery has ended with the decommit of Chauncey Bowens.

IMG_6894.jpeg
IMG_6897.jpeg
 
Advertisement
Peruche said:
247/Sports ****ery has ended with the decommit of Chauncey Bowens.

View attachment 241639View attachment 241640
Click to expand...
Looks like they fixed their rounding issue on the team rankings pages; they had Miami's 2023 class with three 5 Stars on the Team Rankings page despite only having two when you clicked through and it looks like they updated that too:

www.canesinsight.com

Portal - Spring Transfer Portal

Jesus Christ, enough of the constantly-moving goalposts. Mario Cristobal is not, and never has been, a WR coach. And you are confusing "narrative", which is a dirty-recruiting technique, with actual facts and stats and reality. You asked for examples, you were given a fantastic example, and...
www.canesinsight.com www.canesinsight.com
 
Advertisement
Canes2082 said:
Lagway baseball contract will be more than anything their NIL can afford
Click to expand...
Well they offered Rashada $13.85 million ... so they can probably "offer" Lagway a lot more ... with that little clause "we retain the right to rescind this offer without prior notice at any time".
 
Bagway might be picked higher than Yohandy. He's not playing college football.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top