Started By
Message
Interesting numbers
Posted on 12/21/16 at 10:22 am
Posted on 12/21/16 at 10:22 am
37 of 44 Pro Bowlers were 3 stars or lower
2
Posted on 12/21/16 at 10:57 am to JAGsports
I think I read somewhere that 12 of the 44 were no stars
Posted on 12/21/16 at 11:02 am to JAGsports
Posted on 12/21/16 at 11:43 am to JesusQuintana
That is correct it's actually 43 of 78 were 3 stars of lower
Posted on 12/21/16 at 12:53 pm to JAGsports
but but but recruiting rankings are destiny. The rant tells us so errday
Posted on 12/21/16 at 1:01 pm to MIZ_COU
If you look at it from a probability standpoint it all makes sense.
There are 20-30 5 stars a year
200-300 4 stars
Over 500 3 stars.
There are 20-30 5 stars a year
200-300 4 stars
Over 500 3 stars.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 1:10 pm to wubilli
Probability is one thing.
But the concept of elasticity and growth is another.
A lot of 4 and 5 star guys are nearly, if not fully developed very early. You look at some of these guys and they're man-children but in some of them you just don't see much elasticity and room for growth.
It's a lot more common to see that fresh rubber band in a younger looking 3 star guy than the 18 year old 4 star who already looks 25.
But the concept of elasticity and growth is another.
A lot of 4 and 5 star guys are nearly, if not fully developed very early. You look at some of these guys and they're man-children but in some of them you just don't see much elasticity and room for growth.
It's a lot more common to see that fresh rubber band in a younger looking 3 star guy than the 18 year old 4 star who already looks 25.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 1:42 pm to wubilli
there is a sight a used to go to that did a probabilistic analysis of star rankings. It turns out they are about half as predictive as advertised.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News