Started By
Message
re: Bama and 5* Recruits
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:11 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:11 am to RollTide1987
NM
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 9:12 am
0
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:11 am to NYCAuburn
People who were ineligible for the draft shouldn't count. The rest of 5 stars should. The stat is still good even if it isn't 100%, although it doesn't really mean anything other than a foot note.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:11 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
But the statement is if you are a five star and sign with bama you will get drafted in the first round. unless you are not top 15 5 star, unless you get kicked out of the program, unless you got arrested, unless you quit on the team, unless... unless..., unless...
Do you not see the fail in that? What happens to them once they sign is a direct result from being there. How do oyu know if they had not taken another road that same circumstance would have happened? you dont, which is why you cant exclude them
As far as I can tell, the "fail" was in the OP's understanding of the stat (a UGA fan, so I'm not going to ascribe nefarious motives to him here.) My discussion was almost entirely intellectual, focusing on what a legitimate stat would look like and the various parameters involved in developing said stat. I get the feeling that your objection is less on intellectual terms than in terms of whether a reasonable/logical presentation of a statistic reflects well on your rival.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:12 am to NYCAuburn
quote:Ask yourself the question, "what was the intention when looking at these statistics?" Answer: To see how well the schools "coach up" their 5* recruits to help them most advantageously enter the NFL draft.
Well again, you are discrediting the original premise of the stat, 5 star recruits that sign with the program. When you remove them, you again are skewing the stat. Its pretty simple, did 5 star recruit sign with program? yes or no Did 5 star recruit get drafted first round? yes or no Any variation beyond that it merely skewing the statistic to make the stat look more convincing then it really is ETA. And I dont even really care what it is for bama. but when you add more and more disclaimers it discredits the statement.
Now if you don't remove the recruits who were dismissed for unacceptable behavior, career-ending injury or any other situation not contributable to the coaching staff, how can you get an accurate assessment of the quality of the coaching staff?
NYC, you're not this dumb...this narrow-minded and hard headed, maybe, but not this dumb.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:12 am to Walkthedawg
Especially when not true. Frick espn
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:12 am to jatebe
quote:
I would think that the stats would be from ESPN recruiting.
You never know, I think even ESPN's people know their recruiting sucks
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:12 am to BlackCloud
quote:
Bama has won three of the past five Bcs Championship games. Four or five straight recruiting titles. Yet the still seek approval and acceptance from the rest of the college football world.
Passive aggressive bragging. It's like if I ask you "Which one of the three NCs that Bama has won since 2009 seems the most legit?".
You see that as seeking acceptance while I see it as......Bama has won three freaking NCs in the last five years!
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:13 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Well again, you are discrediting the original premise of the stat, 5 star recruits that sign with the program. When you remove them, you again are skewing the stat.
Its pretty simple, did 5 star recruit sign with program? yes or no Did 5 star recruit get drafted first round? yes or no Any variation beyond that it merely skewing the statistic to make the stat look more convincing then it really is
ETA. And I dont even really care what it is for bama. but when you add more and more disclaimers it discredits the statement.
The OP got the stat wrong. Period. Whether or not his fault is moot. The stat AS TWEETED YESTERDAY by ESPN chick was top fifteen recruits who were draft eligible.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:14 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
People who were ineligible for the draft shouldn't count.
If they became ineligible as a result of being inside your program, why? Because it ruins your argument.
Now if its ineligibility because they arent draft eligible yet or havent exhausted their NCAA eligibility, then they obviously shouldnt count, yet
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:15 am to NYCAuburn
quote:Cam Newton was taken #1 in the first round. Should Florida be able to count him since they signed him first? He is considered Auburn's player since he played there last. Dyer either left or got kicked off Auburn's team. Does Auburn claim as a player for their school in the draft?
unless you get kicked out of the program, unless you got arrested, unless you quit on the team, unless... unless..., unless...
The same with the players that left Bama's team. The don't count for Bama anymore.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:16 am to coachcrisp
quote:
Ask yourself the question, "what was the intention when looking at these statistics?"
To see the results of 5 stars exiting a program, and when you remove them from the statistic you are simply skewing the statistic.
quote:
NYC, you're not this dumb...this narrow-minded and hard headed, maybe, but not this dumb
Are you really serious. you are seriously blinded by this and then you make this statement.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:19 am to Oizers
quote:
According to my calculations and if trends continue, about half of these guys will end up "not counting" using your criteria for this statistic.
Fair enough.
As of now, I'd say that Yeldon and Collins probably have the best chances of being drafted in the first round.
The jury is still out on the true freshman that contributed this season (Howard, Robinson) and, obviously, the 2014 signees are not even on campus yet.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:19 am to jatebe
quote:
Cam Newton was taken #1 in the first round. Should Florida be able to count him since they signed him first? He is considered Auburn's player since he played there last. Dyer either left or got kicked off Auburn's team. Does Auburn claim as a player for their school in the draft?
Sure. they were 5 star players who signed with the program. Again, 5 star players that signed here, were drafted in the first round. its a pretty easy stat.
The thing about statistics is when you add more and more disclaimers, is you are creating your results, instead of actually getting information from the results
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:20 am to StopRobot
quote:
The OP got the stat wrong. Period.
Correct, the statement was top 15 players, not 5 stars. but are all the top 15 players included in that? they should be
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:22 am to NYCAuburn
Why don't we make a table with all three stats in the same place and everyone can look at whichever one makes them feel the best about themselves?
ETA: And I don't think they became ineligible as a result of being in our program. They became ineligible because of their decisions to break the law or rules and get kicked out of the program.
ETA: And I don't think they became ineligible as a result of being in our program. They became ineligible because of their decisions to break the law or rules and get kicked out of the program.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 9:25 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:24 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
Why don't we make a table with all three stats in the same place and everyone can look at whichever one makes them feel the best about themselves?
thats pretty much what happens when you continue to add disclaimers to a statistic. You are creating results that best fits the statement which you are trying to make
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:27 am to NYCAuburn
You are also creating the results by not omitting outliers and those data points which are not a part of whatever you are trying to represent.
In this case IMO the stat the "matters" would be 5 star players who did not do something unrelated to football which caused them to be kicked off the team.
You obviously think all 5 stars should be considered.
Neither one matters.
In this case IMO the stat the "matters" would be 5 star players who did not do something unrelated to football which caused them to be kicked off the team.
You obviously think all 5 stars should be considered.
Neither one matters.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:29 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
You are also creating the results by not omitting outliers
Outliers would include top and bottom of the spectrum, not just one aspect
quote:
5 star players who did not do something unrelated to football which caused them to be kicked off the team
Had they not gone to that particular school would the same thing have happened? You cant say yes or no, which is absolutely why they should be included
quote:
You obviously think all 5 stars should be considered.
When saying that stat, yes. Or going back to what the OP should have said "Top 15", I think they all should be included
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 9:31 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:30 am to Walkthedawg
quote:
every 5 star recruit has been a 1st round draft pick
not even close
Posted on 2/6/14 at 9:31 am to TigerTailsSoup
quote:
Between 2002 and 2010 Rivals 5 stars:
"» Of those 262, 116 were drafted (44.3 percent) and 42 went in the first round (16 percent); 38 percent of the five stars who were drafted were first-rounders"
I did a similar analysis with scout a few years back. I looked
at a five year period and out of all the five start, about 50% were drafted and 1 out of three were first rounders.
Any way you slice it, what Saban has done is pretty damned impressive. The sample size is good enough to prove that.
He's still an arse though (obligatory LSU butthurt response
)This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 9:36 am
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News