Started By
Message
re: I'm hearing 5-star LB CJ Johnson will be a Black Bear
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:25 am to Tiger Authority
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:25 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
You had 8 signing day decisions that fell your way. Under the current guidelines, that wouldn't have even been a possibility.
We will sign more than 28 this year. We will sign and place 1 or 2 and grayshirt at least one other. Plus we will have one go to the MLB draft. Hootie always makes the numbers work. Hell he's on the rules committee
0
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:26 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
They had 8 signing day decisions
6 of whom were expected. I dont understand why that is hard for you to grasp. But whatever
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:28 am to mmjones87
This is a quote from the OSU scout board Re: Gunter Dog
quote:
Brewer seems to teach out WR's how to use their hands well. They get off of coverage very good and then thing Im most impressed with is how well they block down field. For years they have helped spring long runs because of blocking down field. THey also understand how to use their bodies well. THey sheild defenders and help out the QB.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:30 am to pankReb
GunterDog, Get us Snoop and seal the deal with Moncrief. Add in JW and maybe CJ and/or Cooper and lets call it a class
This post was edited on 1/20/11 at 12:31 am
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:31 am to mmjones87
quote:
6 of whom were expected. I dont understand why that is hard for you to grasp. But whatever
My only point here is that a team signing more players increases their odds of having a higher overall ranking. You can say you expected 6 signing day decisions but they were signing day decisions nonetheless and not certainties down the line. Regardless. even the 2 unexpected guys likely boosted the overall ranking because they simply pushed lowly 2 stars or lower ranked 3 stars out of the grouping of 25.
This post was edited on 1/20/11 at 12:33 am
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:34 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
Regardless. even the 2 unexpected guys likely boosted the overall ranking because they simply pushed lowly 2 stars or lower ranked 3 stars out of the way.
Massie did yes. Grandy was a 2 star so I seriously doubt that he helped
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:35 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
My only point here is that a team signing more players increases their odds of having a higher overall ranking. You can say you expected 6 signing day decisions but they were signing day decisions nonetheless and not certainties down the line. Regardless. even the 2 unexpected guys likely boosted the overall ranking because they simply pushed lowly 2 stars or lower ranked 3 stars out of the grouping of 25.
You're being illogical. Rankings don't matter UNTIL scholarships are actually signed. At that point they only count the top 25 recruits. That means even if you signed 80 kids they aren't pushing the lower kids out of the equation because you STILL signed the top 25.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:35 am to mmjones87
quote:
Massie did yes. Grandy was a 2 star so I seriously doubt that he helped
3 star on rivals. I don't know where that puts him compared to the other three stars you had committed and I don't plan on taking the time to look but my point remains and I'm done for the night.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:39 am to SugarHog
quote:
You're being illogical. Rankings don't matter UNTIL scholarships are actually signed. At that point they only count the top 25 recruits. That means even if you signed 80 kids they aren't pushing the lower kids out of the equation because you STILL signed the top 25.
Dude it's not about the top 25. It's about the chances of that 25 having a higher ranking IF you sign more and more players.
Again, let's say rivals only ranks according to the top 25 recruits. Would a team being able to sign only 25 kids or a team that was able to sign 100 kids have a better likelihood of having a better overall 25 players?
I realize that Nutt would pick the best 25, all things being equal, but he obviously didn't know who those 25 would be come signing day or many of those two stars would have never even signed.
Again, of the 37, which ones did/didn't make it on campus?
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:42 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
Again, of the 37, which ones did/didn't make it on campus?
7 never made it to campus.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:42 am to Tiger Authority
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:44 am to mmjones87
quote:
7 never made it to campus.
Which 7? Were they the 7 lowest ranked players on rivals for that season?
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:46 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
Which 7? Were they the 7 lowest ranked players on rivals for that season?
I dont know. I dont follow rivals. But every single one of them was a 3 star on scout
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:50 am to mmjones87
quote:
I dont know. I dont follow rivals. But every single one of them was a 3 star on scout
I was really just wondering about names. It would make it easier to prove my point that has been obviously lost on this board because I'm betting one of those players was included in that ranking.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:54 am to Tiger Authority
Making it to campus isn't a variable for a ranking made in February.
There is no point here for you to prove.......other than you're stupidity. but you can save yourself the time. We already have 4 pages of evidence.
There is no point here for you to prove.......other than you're stupidity. but you can save yourself the time. We already have 4 pages of evidence.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 12:57 am to pankReb
quote:
Making it to campus isn't a variable for a ranking made in February.
There is no point here for you to prove.......other than you're stupidity. but you can save yourself the time. We already have 4 pages of evidence.
I realize that. They do a separate enrolled ranking, or they used to. Not on rivals anymore so I don't know.
And again, you have yet to respond to the easiest example I can come up with for you. You fall back on a logic argument as if that answers something in my example
Maybe I'll make amazingly high numbers for you:
Rankings are for the top 20 players. Would a team have a greater probability of having a higher ranking if they signed only 20 players or if they signed 1,000 players?
It's really simple. But obviously the premise alone is too much for you.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 1:06 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
I realize that. They do a separate enrolled ranking, or they used to
And we aren't talking about that ranking. So whatever point you were trying to make has no relation to this discussion.
I'm going to try and explain this a little better for you...
We have the choice on who we want to sign....if...read IF we were forced to only sign 28 that year, we would have waited to send the papers to the lower ranked guys until we KNEW that the better recruits weren't going to sign with us. If the better recruits DIDN'T sign with us THEN we would have sent the papers to the lower rated recruits.
Like I said..IF we were held to 28, we would have never sent the papers to the lower ranked recruits because the better ones signed with us.
Probability has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
Those lower rated recruits would have never been signed because we wouldn't have been able to sign them. And those same top 20/25 would have still been counted in the rankings.
Posted on 1/20/11 at 1:11 am to pankReb
Look it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I do. But you said it's a testament to Nutt's recruiting. I simply stated that the more players he's able to sign, which is true for any coach, the more likely you will have a higher ranking because it's more likely some of those additional players could be included in the top 20 players.
That's been my only point the whole time. And again, Nutt didn't know all of those players were going to sign that day. He sent letters in hopes, and happened to get a very good return. Had they been committed earlier of course he wouldn't have signed so many, but the fact that he didn't know is why he ended up signing so many.
That's been my only point the whole time. And again, Nutt didn't know all of those players were going to sign that day. He sent letters in hopes, and happened to get a very good return. Had they been committed earlier of course he wouldn't have signed so many, but the fact that he didn't know is why he ended up signing so many.
This post was edited on 1/20/11 at 1:12 am
Posted on 1/20/11 at 1:15 am to pankReb
nm
This post was edited on 1/20/11 at 1:16 am
Posted on 1/20/11 at 1:15 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
Look it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I do. But you said it's a testament to Nutt's recruiting. I simply stated that the more players he's able to sign, which is true for any coach, the more likely you will have a higher ranking because it's more likely those top 20 players that are counted will benefit the ranking.
You might be reading what I'm saying....but you aren't UNDERSTANDING what I'm saying. There is a really big difference.
If held to the 28-rule, we wouldn't have sent out the paper work to EVERYONE automatically. We would have held off the ones to the lower rated players in hopes of getting the better ones.
once again.....Us = waiting to send papers to lower recruits until the big recruits sign.
This is my point and is what you're having such a hard time understanding. You're idea of probability in this would only apply if Nutt blindly sent out 100 papers to random numbers.
Page 6 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News