BozoBus
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Metarie |
| Biography: | Class of '70 |
| Interests: | Metaphysics |
| Occupation: | Stock Day Trader |
| Number of Posts: | 294 |
| Registered on: | 10/10/2007 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Melvin Jones drops to a 3 star on rivals
Posted by BozoBus on 8/25/12 at 4:16 am
quote:
The coaches recruit the 4 and 5 star players.
No, our coaches recruit the kids they assess can help our team win championships. They have no regard whatsoever for any recruiting service list. They could not care less what Rivals has to say about a recruit. They do not even waste their time to look. If our staff doesn't give a damn about those evaluations, why should we? Okay, we can enjoy them in whatever way we do, but if they had any genuine evaluation value, our coaches would use them. They don't. Off your knees, dude.
0
re: Melvin Jones drops to a 3 star on rivals
Posted by BozoBus on 8/25/12 at 3:58 am
Still on your knees, eh? Ok let's deconstruct today's prayer to the almighty recruiting services.
It amazes me how you are unable to comprehend -- or unwilling -- how looking at how players performed in their careers and then drafted, or not, compares to how the recruiting services rated them. They explicitly state they are trying to predict their NFL potential. Their 5* players are the kids they assess will be 1st round draft picks, the elite, the cream of the crop. Why on earth do you object to people checking to see how their predictions turned out? Were they right, or were they wrong? It has nothing to do with the normal use of the term 20/20 hindsight, it is the only way to check out their predictions. Why are you so hung up on criticizing people for grading the actual performance of the recruiting services? Is it just that you hate to read that only 4 of the 3000 draft eligible kids last year taken in the 1st round had been rated 5*? You just hate to read that the recruiting service are pathetic at predicting the 1st round of the NFL Draft?
It's the recruiting services that start the cherry picking! They follow kids for 3 years in high school evaluating them, cherry picking the ones they think are likely to be all-Americans, 1st round draft picks. The fact that the 1st round invariably turns out to be 75% 3* and 4* and 12.5% are 5* and 12.5% are 2* says the recruiting services are right on 1 of 8 5* assessments. 7 out of 8 5* will not be drafted in the 1st round. Their predictions are wrong 7 out of 8 times.
There is not 1 poster on this board who hates the recruiting service. Not one. It just seems that way to you because you idolize them. You defend them every time somebody posts factual info about them. Enjoy the recruiting services; they are fun, a guide, reference material, a source of info. As a predictor of elite players, their 5* evaluations are proven over their entire history to be poor. Rise from your knees, and pray no more.
quote:
I love the 20/20 hindsight that goes on because people hate the recruiting services.
It amazes me how you are unable to comprehend -- or unwilling -- how looking at how players performed in their careers and then drafted, or not, compares to how the recruiting services rated them. They explicitly state they are trying to predict their NFL potential. Their 5* players are the kids they assess will be 1st round draft picks, the elite, the cream of the crop. Why on earth do you object to people checking to see how their predictions turned out? Were they right, or were they wrong? It has nothing to do with the normal use of the term 20/20 hindsight, it is the only way to check out their predictions. Why are you so hung up on criticizing people for grading the actual performance of the recruiting services? Is it just that you hate to read that only 4 of the 3000 draft eligible kids last year taken in the 1st round had been rated 5*? You just hate to read that the recruiting service are pathetic at predicting the 1st round of the NFL Draft?
quote:
There are several hundred, if not thousand players rated 3* each year. Cheery picking a few out proves nothing. Some of these guys were raw athletes, without defined postions that became stars because of coaching and developement they got in college, others were just late bloomers. Happens with kids going from college to the pros all the time.
It's the recruiting services that start the cherry picking! They follow kids for 3 years in high school evaluating them, cherry picking the ones they think are likely to be all-Americans, 1st round draft picks. The fact that the 1st round invariably turns out to be 75% 3* and 4* and 12.5% are 5* and 12.5% are 2* says the recruiting services are right on 1 of 8 5* assessments. 7 out of 8 5* will not be drafted in the 1st round. Their predictions are wrong 7 out of 8 times.
There is not 1 poster on this board who hates the recruiting service. Not one. It just seems that way to you because you idolize them. You defend them every time somebody posts factual info about them. Enjoy the recruiting services; they are fun, a guide, reference material, a source of info. As a predictor of elite players, their 5* evaluations are proven over their entire history to be poor. Rise from your knees, and pray no more.
re: 2014 / 2015 / 2016 LSU Commits/Offered/ Prospects/Video
Posted by BozoBus on 8/20/12 at 4:23 pm
quote:
chinese58
Your tireless attention with updates to this thread has been stellar. Kudos...and thanks.
re: Rivals100 being released Monday?
Posted by BozoBus on 8/20/12 at 1:32 pm
quote:
quote: I guess Kiffin will be out of excuses soon.
What excuses?
Excuses for not going undefeated every year. They play in the weakest Division of the BCS conferences (none of their opponents are ranked) and a weak out-of-conference schedule. When you play 10-11 tune up games every year and have more 5* and 4* players than anyone in the country, you have no excuse for losing ANY games.
Excuses for what Trojans are truly the best at doing, underachieving -- if you exclude unearned/undeserved bragging.
re: LSU #3 behind USC and Michigan in 2013 Rivals.com Recruiting rankings
Posted by BozoBus on 8/15/12 at 6:29 pm
quote:
USC signed like 6 or so 5 stars a few years ago. All that talent and 1 NC.
The Championship Game of 2004 was vacated. USC has zero BCS Crystal Footballs in their trophy case. None. But your point is correct: the Trojans are by far the greatest underachievers in college football. So it does them no good to sign the most hyped players -- they always do. It takes more than talent to win championships.
re: Lane Kiffin will no longer vote in Coaches Poll
Posted by BozoBus on 8/15/12 at 3:27 pm
quote:
Rocket, just another day of owning Fighton4ever
This.
The "fixes" are especially amusing. The sexual tangents are a tad gratuitous, but the rest is spot on. Trojans repeat lies interminably because the technique has a proven record of persuading the weak minded. It drives them crazy when someone calls them out on their lies because in large part they are lying to themselves and cannot accept that they are terminally locked in denial. And then they accuse others of projecting. The irony is breathtaking.
While Rocket does not deign to answer questions from the lowest of humans, this clown is not above that. So it suits me to respond to Tangy's questions:
quote:
to each his own.
Let me ask some questions.
1. why do you feel the need to show up in every USC thread like a moth to a flame?
2. WHy is it you refuse to talk sports in such threads ad resort to attempted insults at anyone who posts positively about USC and Lane Kiffn that include homophobic rants?
3. why did you state that you were pissed off at the media and sports world that USC garnered the more attention in 2003 and for the following 5 years despite LSU winning two BCS NC's during that span?
4. Why did you wish bad doings on Joe McKnight after he committed to USC.
My point is you are obsessed with USC and it shows. YOur head is not clear, although it never was.
I will await your responses.
Enjoy.
1. The question is actually why do Trojans feel the need to come on an LSU site to start threads about the University of Serial Cheaters? That you receive negative reactions should come as no surprise to you; every fan base in America dislikes Trojans. A more unlikeable fan base does not exist. Also, it is well known that challenging Trojan lies annoys them to no end. They need others to believe their lies so they can be assured that they are not locked in denial, which of course, they are. Responding to Trojans is a duty of setting the record straight. It says you can lie to yourself, but it does not work here; go lie somewhere else. You know, like on a Trojan board where lies fly unchallenged.
2. It was a Trojan who brought up homophobia in this thread. Trojans do not come here to talk sports; they come here to assuage their feelings of inferiority. They always fail to receive that because no matter what Trojans say, they will never change the fact that they were not co-champions with LSU in 2003. Never. The BCS Championship will never be divisible and that is the only championship recognized by BCS schools -- including USC. Period. Trojans come to an LSU board because Tiger acquiescence to Trojan lies is the most important to them. The most assuaging.
3. The media darling has always been USC and always will be. You are surprised that more deserving teams who do not play 11 cream puffs every year are annoyed by this bias? As long as Trojans continue to falsely claim co-championship status with LSU for 2003, there will be no change in LSU's attitude toward that undeserved and untruthful brag. The creation of the BCS officially ended split championships. Get over it.
4. Perhaps Rocket's motives about Joe McKnight conflate his justified feelings about USC (shared almost universally) and his reaction to a Louisiana kid giving LSU the finger and his attitude toward LSU shared by his high school coach, JT Curtis. Maybe it relates to his questionable recruitment and subsequent SUV revelations that drove him prematurely to the pros. Just a guess.
quote:
My point is you are obsessed with USC and it shows. YOur head is not clear, although it never was.
Breathtaking. You come to an LSU board for the 5 thousandth time, receive the same response you always do, and accuse us of being obsessed. Try to achieve clarity in your head: "positive" news about USC is not positive to anyone but Trojans. If you spared us your news, we would never miss it, or you.
Of course, none of the above will penetrate your abject denial, or lessen your desperate need for Tiger affirmation. So, like all of your pointless spats here, there will be no change in anyone. Being a self-admitted clown, this frivolous exercise in futility is not above me. Whereas you are in complete denial.
quote:.
I will await your responses.
Enjoy
Well you have mine, at least. Did you enjoy the truth?
re: 2014 / 2015 / 2016 LSU Commits/Offered/ Prospects/Video
Posted by BozoBus on 8/7/12 at 5:11 pm
quote:
I replaced some of the pis
Thank you, we appreciate the fresher, warmer stuff.
re: Josh Boutte- To be a Five Star before season ends?
Posted by BozoBus on 8/7/12 at 4:58 pm
quote:
You guys do realize that the coaching staff recruits most of the 5 star and a great many 4 stars don't you?
ETA: The coaches do not recruit to the stars, more often i think its the other way around. Services give higher rankings based on who is recruiting someone.
They also recruit kids who are NOT 4 and 5 star-rated. So what's the point of saying they recruit 4 and 5 star kids? Our staff recruits kids who they assess have the talent and potential to help our team win championships. Period. When the services give a kid 5*'s they are predicting he will have a 1st round-worthy career -- being among the Top 30 kids in their class. Last year -- and they are historically consistent in their predictive performance of 1st round kids -- they were right on 4 of them. 4 of 32. Every time you post to defend these services and their record of failing to identify elite talent, you appear to be what you deny: a faith-based worshiper. Get off your knees and give it a rest, okay? Or at least stop insisting you are not a clueless star-gazer. Your defense of the indefensible says you are.
quote:
Trust the coaching staff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> star rank
re: If Miami's Sanctions Drop Soon...
Posted by BozoBus on 8/5/12 at 11:50 am
:cheers:
re: If Miami's Sanctions Drop Soon...
Posted by BozoBus on 8/5/12 at 12:59 am
quote:
Do you not think Shapiro paying for abortions is right up there? Don't get me wrong, the Sandusky cover up was probably the worst scandal in recent memory, regardless of whether or not it was sport-related. However, how many of the current and former players do you think were aware of what was happening? I agree with the vacated wins during the time period, the bowl ban and tv ban, and even a one year reduction in schollys, but what they got was basically a death sentence for the football program.
At Miami, the players knowingly accepted an extravagant lifestyle funded solely by a POS who started a ponzi scheme. Although the Sandusky case may seem significantly worse, morally, fact of the matter is that Miami had far more participants in the Shapiro scandal. Participants who were responsible for bringing in millions in revenue to the university. It almost mirrors what SMU was doing in the early 80s, except add clubs, hookers and blow to the mix.
You make a good case for Miami suffering draconian sanctions prolly in excess of Southern Cal. It seems the death penalty is off the table for everyone. Southern Cal was already on probation when the university failed to maintain institutional control (their compliance office was comparable to a junior college and their performance worse). The death penalty was clearly applicable (technically repeat offenders), but the NCAA chose not to exercise that option. Likewise, Penn State could have suffered that sentence, but the NCAA chose to double the Trojan penalties on Penn State. So, Miami prolly won't suffer the death penalty either. My factually unsupported guess is the Miami sanctions will be something in between Southern Cal's and Penn State's and closer to Penn State's.
As for the abortion aspect and the moral equivalence to the unconscionable actions of the Penn State brass for over a decade, that's a hard call. Legally, Miami is clearly the lesser rogue. Is killing the unborn more heinous than destroying the lives of innocents in that particularly revolting manner? Reasonable people in good faith can disagree. It will be interesting to see how the NCAA values it all in their announcement/decree.
Regarding the innocence of the Penn State community as a whole, doubts exist in me. My son attended Penn State for a 2-year Masters' program several years ago. He reports that there was an ice cream dish available on campus named after Sandusky and it was sexually explicit, depicting male genitalia. He didn't know why then, but we all know why now. Surely there was some understanding at-large that Sandusky's sexuality was not ordinary/normal. Who knew what? Again, guessing, players in the program prolly knew more about Sandusky than a newcomer whose social circle was other newcomers largely engaged in a rigorous course of study. Their penalties do not cause me to feel pangs of unfairness, especially since they were willing to sacrifice children to maintain their national image/attractiveness to recruits.
re: If Miami's Sanctions Drop Soon...
Posted by BozoBus on 8/4/12 at 5:45 pm
quote:
Yeah, still doesn't mean the NCAA didn't overstep their boundaries. Oh well..at least it wasn't us.
Had the pedophile been an English professor and the Chairman of the English Dept had been assisted by the university administration in covering it up, the NCAA would not have been involved. The pedophile was a football coach. Everyone above him in the AD and university administration participated in the cover up. The cover up allowed these heinous crimes to continue entirely to preserve Penn State's squeaky clean image to help Penn State recruit quality athletes. Also, the presidents were unanimous in the decision to make it an NCAA issue. By definition it was an NCAA matter; the university presidents define the NCAA's boundaries.
re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th
Posted by BozoBus on 8/1/12 at 9:02 am
quote:
See LSU, Alabama, UGA, Clemson and every other big program did not recruit Robert Nkemdiche because Rivals ranked him #1, more like the opposite.
Well, duh! Our staff does not value the services; they believe in their own ability to evaluate talent and are mindful of our program's unique needs in every class. My belief is the same as theirs.
quote:
Look at the 5 star players and see who is recruiting them. While you are blasting the services, you are also blasting the coaches.
My post does not blast the services, it reports the actual record they have accumulated over many years in support of the report by whodidthat of the most recent draft. Characterizing it as a "blasting" reflects your assessment of that record. True, the opinion is expressed that that record is pathetic, but being wrong 7 out of 8 times does not make me inclined to defend the services and it makes me wonder why anyone would.
quote:
If Rivals was wrong from ranking Russell Shepard a 5 star, then wasn't LSU's coaching staff also wronng in recruiting him? If rivals was wrong about 5* Burton Scott in 2008, then so was Nick Saban for signing.
To begin with no one knows what RS's senior season will yield in terms of his draft order. Your premature declaration of the service's failure is interesting though. CLM's objective regarding recruiting is entirely different from the services. CLM is not predicting the 1st round of the draft, his objective is to acquire the talent/players needed to win championships. He does not need 25 1st rounders to achieve his goal. RS helped our team win the SEC Championship last year. CLM was right to recruit him both for that on-field accomplishment and for the off-field contributions he has made to the team -- like recruiting other quality players. If we win the BCS next year, CLM would have been wildly right -- whether RS is drafted in the 1st round or not. Your conflating two entirely different standards of success/"being right" (as you put it) ignores the reality of their entirely different circumstances. Your question suggests to me that we perceive 2 different realities. Naturally, my bias tells me my reality is fact-based and yours is just a choice. It is the same difference we saw when you chose to believe in the existence of a concocted pool (the 250 prospects)and ignore the real pool from which the 1st round is always drafted (the ~3,000 players). Both are choices that define your perceived reality.
As for Saban, it is my pleasure to point out his "wrongness" in any way applicable. A search through my posts will uncover several, however, the criticisms are legitimate and do not require me to sustain a mental construct of a non-existent reality. Saban's objectives are also completely different from those of the services.
quote:
Sorry cheif, no one that is defending the rankings is "worshiping" them,
It's a figure of speech, Chief, implying faith in their accuracy. But you have defended nothing! The fact remains that 7 of 8 5*'s will not have 1st round-worthy careers. 4 of 32. Or are you saying that perennial performance requires no defense? That record justifies confidence in their evaluations? That is the crux of this discussion. If you want to defend that record, be my guest, but you have not done so yet. The historical record demonstrates the services' 5* evaluations produce precious few 1st round draft picks. 4 of 32.
quote:
we just understand how to view them.
You haven't made this case either -- for yourself, anyway -- especially if you disagree with my original conclusion:
quote:
They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).
Granting them reliability in this context is an act of faith, a choice unjustified by their past performances.
re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th
Posted by BozoBus on 8/1/12 at 8:56 am
You quote me:
Conveniently omitting the elaboration referred to in the quote, you comment:
Your condescension has already been forgiven. If you knew half as much about statistics as this quote would have me believe, you'd know that statistics can be used to make almost any case for any agenda. And how one looks at them is a matter of choice.
Case in point:
The pools you choose to use no longer exist in a sense and wholly arbitrary. The evaluations are made of prospects. Once they sign that LOI and begin their careers, they stop being prospects, they become players They are in a class of ~3,000 players and that is the pool they are actually in, the pool from which the pros will draft them, not a Rivals concoction. By chance the probability of any 1 from that 3,000 player pool becoming 1st rounders is 32 in ~3,000. The historical record -- the one you suggest is uninformative -- establishes the likelihood that 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 players will have been 5* prospects and 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 will have been 2*. On average -- with little variance -- the likelihood for both is the same, 4 of ~3,000.
The 250-prospect mental construct you use in your calculations plays no role in the 1st round drafting process because it does not exist. The only pool that exists is the players' ~3,000 pool. There have been players drafted in the 1st round who were not even in the Rivals database -- no ranking at all. So the numbers derived from your using a Top 250 recruiting service opinion is completely a choice you made that has nothing whatsoever to do with the real drafting of the 1st round. You choose to look at it that way, but that view has nothing to do with the reality of drafting the 1st round. The probabilities derived from an irrelevant mental construct imposed on the real world has no actual significance -- except what you arbitrarily choose to give it. That choice does not obligate anyone else to follow suit, though those who choose to view it as you do will follow that path of interpreting reality. My chemically accessed gods advise me that reality is an interpretation and perception underlies both. My perception drives me to identify the pool from which the 1st round is drafted as the ~3,000 players, not a four year old opinion of once-prospects and that incidentally 4 of the 32 of ~3,000 will have been gauged 5* and 4 of the 32 will have been 2*. The likelihood is the same -- regardless of any prior irrelevant evaluations that have no connection with the pool from which the 1st round is actually drafted. The fact that there were once ~2,750 2* prospects has nothing to do with the likelihood that the number of 2*'s and 5*'s in that 32 will be the same; they both have a 4 in ~3,000 likelihood of being in that 32..
This entire discussion is centered on 1st round picks and how well the services predict them by their 5* evaluations. The # is 4 of 32 (hopefully, it has meaning for you now). Neither the number nor its use is wrong; it's just pathetic and so you don't want to accept/use it. My belief is that our staff has the competence to compile a much better list. So when CLM's staff offers a kid the services do not rank highly, my tendency is to have faith in the staff. It does not embarrass me to admit to worshiping at the alter of the Almighty Tiger Program. It enjoys my faith and confidence. Star Gazers seem to worship at a different alter, which they have a right to do, but it strikes me as disingenuous when they deny it.
They watch the same film, but they certainly do not see the same things. If they did, they'd all have the same rankings. All phases of the staff's evaluation process employ eyes that see differently than the services, more discerning, more sensitive to subtlety, more aware of concerns unconsidered by the services, concerns specific to our program. That's my belief. When posters complain of the staff's decision to offer a kid, it is apparent to me that they have a different belief, serve at a different alter.
quote:
Once a non-Top 250 kid has signed a LOI and starts his career, he is just as likely to be drafted in the 1st round as any 5-star from the total pool of LOI signers (elaborated on below). And this is true every year; the year cited is not anomalous.
Conveniently omitting the elaboration referred to in the quote, you comment:
quote:
This is completely wrong. Take a basic statistics course. There are only 30-35 5 star players and using your number over 250 non ranked players. if 4 from each pool make it that means and there are 35 5*'s, each 5 star has a 11.4% chance of being a first rounder. If 4 of the pool of 250 make it, they have a 1.6% chance of making.
Your condescension has already been forgiven. If you knew half as much about statistics as this quote would have me believe, you'd know that statistics can be used to make almost any case for any agenda. And how one looks at them is a matter of choice.
Case in point:
The pools you choose to use no longer exist in a sense and wholly arbitrary. The evaluations are made of prospects. Once they sign that LOI and begin their careers, they stop being prospects, they become players They are in a class of ~3,000 players and that is the pool they are actually in, the pool from which the pros will draft them, not a Rivals concoction. By chance the probability of any 1 from that 3,000 player pool becoming 1st rounders is 32 in ~3,000. The historical record -- the one you suggest is uninformative -- establishes the likelihood that 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 players will have been 5* prospects and 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 will have been 2*. On average -- with little variance -- the likelihood for both is the same, 4 of ~3,000.
The 250-prospect mental construct you use in your calculations plays no role in the 1st round drafting process because it does not exist. The only pool that exists is the players' ~3,000 pool. There have been players drafted in the 1st round who were not even in the Rivals database -- no ranking at all. So the numbers derived from your using a Top 250 recruiting service opinion is completely a choice you made that has nothing whatsoever to do with the real drafting of the 1st round. You choose to look at it that way, but that view has nothing to do with the reality of drafting the 1st round. The probabilities derived from an irrelevant mental construct imposed on the real world has no actual significance -- except what you arbitrarily choose to give it. That choice does not obligate anyone else to follow suit, though those who choose to view it as you do will follow that path of interpreting reality. My chemically accessed gods advise me that reality is an interpretation and perception underlies both. My perception drives me to identify the pool from which the 1st round is drafted as the ~3,000 players, not a four year old opinion of once-prospects and that incidentally 4 of the 32 of ~3,000 will have been gauged 5* and 4 of the 32 will have been 2*. The likelihood is the same -- regardless of any prior irrelevant evaluations that have no connection with the pool from which the 1st round is actually drafted. The fact that there were once ~2,750 2* prospects has nothing to do with the likelihood that the number of 2*'s and 5*'s in that 32 will be the same; they both have a 4 in ~3,000 likelihood of being in that 32..
quote:
Basing it on the # of first round picks is simply wrong.
This entire discussion is centered on 1st round picks and how well the services predict them by their 5* evaluations. The # is 4 of 32 (hopefully, it has meaning for you now). Neither the number nor its use is wrong; it's just pathetic and so you don't want to accept/use it. My belief is that our staff has the competence to compile a much better list. So when CLM's staff offers a kid the services do not rank highly, my tendency is to have faith in the staff. It does not embarrass me to admit to worshiping at the alter of the Almighty Tiger Program. It enjoys my faith and confidence. Star Gazers seem to worship at a different alter, which they have a right to do, but it strikes me as disingenuous when they deny it.
quote:
The coach staff recruits mostly higher ranked players. They do not wait for Rivals or 247 to publish their rankings and then go off of that. both have basically the same film to watch and can all see the same things.
They watch the same film, but they certainly do not see the same things. If they did, they'd all have the same rankings. All phases of the staff's evaluation process employ eyes that see differently than the services, more discerning, more sensitive to subtlety, more aware of concerns unconsidered by the services, concerns specific to our program. That's my belief. When posters complain of the staff's decision to offer a kid, it is apparent to me that they have a different belief, serve at a different alter.
re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th
Posted by BozoBus on 8/1/12 at 8:48 am
quote:
If don't understand why 20/20 hindsight is not a viable way to look at these things, then I don't know what to tell you.
That's apparent. Evaluating the 5* evaluations after they have panned out, or not, is the best way to assess how accurate those evaluations/predictions of 1st round-worthy talent were. How can you possibly not agree with that 100%?
quote:
Why don't you start a site that ranks the classes of 2007 and 2008 now, that would be very informative
It would tell you which of the services were more, or less, accurate than the others. If you don't care how predictive the sites have been, then that would not be a site you would frequent; you wouldn't want their historical record to dampen your faith in them.
quote:
This is the heart of your problem right here. You don't like the recruiting services so you disparage them and then assume anyone that doesn't share your view "worships" them. Its nonsesnse.
Granted, the term "worship" may have been a tad hyperbolic, but in the context of the post, it was mean to suggest another word used in the post,"faith." My problem? Hahaha. You fail to note (or choose to ignore) my concluding remarks which stated my sentiments on the services:
quote:
They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).
What part of that connotes a dislike? The last part is simply a statement of historical fact, based on retrospective analyses that you open your response by suggesting are not informative. The value of those hindsight analyses is to provide a factual basis for how much confidence, or faith, one can have in those predictive services. They have been consistent over the years. You ignore their historical performance at your own risk. About 1 in 8 of their elites (5*) will end up having 1st round-worthy collegiate careers, actual elites. For me, being wrong 7 out of 8 times does not instill a lot of confidence. You have the right to put a lot of faith in those outcomes and if you don't want to call that "worshiping," fine. Pick your own word to describe that choice.
quote:
he vast majority of us understand what the rankings are and that they are by no means guarentees of anything.
If you think their past performance is irrelevant or uninformative, as you suggest, then you don't understand what they are. Your earlier statement on guarantees was:
quote:
Its not meant as a 100% guaranteed prediction of future success.
My objection remains that "not a 100% guarantee" implies it is still a high probability. The actual value is 12.5% and though my major was not statistics, that's not an objectively high probability and nowhere near 100%.
You quoted this from my post:
quote:
4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.
and commented:
quote:
I don't mean this to sound condesending, so i apolgize in advance, without context, this is completely meaningless and just shows you don't understand how to look at it or statistics.
Your apology is accepted . Your objection is not clear to me. It seems like you are saying "4 of 32
is pathetic" has no context an is therefore meaningless (to you). If that's the case, let me clarify.
The quote is lifted from this paragraph (the context you seem to say doesn't exist):
quote:
You have a better way to evaluate the correctness of 5-star evaluations than the 32 elite players taken in the 1st round of the NFL draft? Hindsight is the best way to assess evaluations. Why you'd disparage that approach is mystifying. The recruiting services are not to be worshiped; 4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.
And you quoted whodidthat and my post repeated this quote:
quote:
quote from whodidthat: This years draft only had 4 players go in the first round that were ranked as 5 star recruits. 4 others were had 2 star rankings and several other 3 stars players were 1st round picks as well
Our exchange begins with you responding to whodidthat's post, which deals with how the recruiting services fared with respect to the 1st round of last year's draft, how their ratings panned out as a matter of fact using the 1st round as the metric. That is what we are discussing.
"4 of 32" refers to the number of 5* prospects who were and have been historically selected in the first round of the NFL draft, deemed elite, stars, having enjoyed 1st round-worthy collegiate careers. In effect the 30 or so 5* prospects is a predictor of the 1st round (we both realize that the number of 5*'s varies from site to site and from within a site fron year to year, but you chose 30 and that's reasonable, even if 50 occurs on one). The 4 of 32 correct predictions of the 1st round made 3, 4, or 5 years earlier is not impressive to me, it strikes me as pathetic -- explicitly stated as an opinion. Star gazers are inclined to view current 5* prospects as "can't miss" 1st rounders. Having that belief -- when only 1 of 8 will achieve that status -- is described figuratively in my post as "worshiping." It was not meant to apply to you specifically, or that a church exists on Highland Rd. called Our Lady of Five Stars, or Sacred Heart of the Divine Prospect.
(continued)
re: Over 350 recruits ranked (2014)
Posted by BozoBus on 7/31/12 at 5:51 am
quote:
My class favorite has got to be Budda Baker! #1 in the name department
HA! Another package deal -- with Budda and his twin, Studda, who is said to have an impressive set of wheels, a fastback (we would be trading him for Ford, should he be pulled by the draft). They have good motors and don't take a backseat to anyone. Oddly, they don't do a lot at home but are great on the road. Maybe we can steer them in our direction. Certainly they have given this post a lot of mileage.
:beatdeadhorse:-power
re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th
Posted by BozoBus on 7/31/12 at 3:29 am
quote:
quote from whodidthat: 2009 Rivals had 33 players ranked as 5 stars. 15 or more of them could be considered wrongfully ranked as 5 star players/recruits.
quote:
You mean with perfect 20/20 hindsight?
You have a better way to evaluate the correctness of 5-star evaluations than the 32 elite players taken in the 1st round of the NFL draft? Hindsight is the best way to assess evaluations. Why you'd disparage that approach is mystifying. The recruiting services are not to be worshiped; 4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.
quote:
quote from whodidthat: This years draft only had 4 players go in the first round that were ranked as 5 star recruits. 4 others were had 2 star rankings and several other 3 stars players were 1st round picks as well
quote:
Interesting that you mention the draft. Go back and look at how many first round picks don't pan out.
Maybe 4 of 32 don't pan out. But even so, your point here is to support the idea that player evaluations are not reliable, which is whodidthat's point! What side of this discussion are you on??
quote:
There are usually only about 30 or so 5 stars in each class vs hundreds of 4,3 and 2 stars, so naturally more of the lower ranked guys will be drafted.
This oft-repeated argument is bogus. Is the 12.5% success rate better than chance? Sure. Is it good? It means only 1 in 8 5-star prospects will have 1st round-worthy collegiate careers. They cull out 250 or so kids and "evaluate" these in a ranked order. As many kids who missed the 250-player cut will be drafted in the 1st round as those declared 5-star elite players. Once a non-Top 250 kid has signed a LOI and starts his career, he is just as likely to be drafted in the 1st round as any 5-star from the total pool of LOI signers (elaborated on below). And this is true every year; the year cited is not anomalous.
What this means is that worshiping at the alter of the recruiting services is like any other worship: an act of faith. Of course, it is our right to believe in anything we choose, however idiotic or fact-based. Some full-faith folk believe in anthropogenic global warming :lol:, some in chemically accessed gods (myself included) :bow:, some believe in our coaching staff (ditto)
:geauxtigers:.
quote:
Its not meant as a 100% guaranteed prediction of future success.
Not 100%? 12.5% is generally the case, the chance a 5-star prospect will have a 1st round career, be elite. 1 in 8 is not good odds in anything IMO.
quote:
Any 1 5* has a better shot at becoming a star...
Using 1st round careers as the standard for being a "star," that shot is 1 in 8. 7 of 8 will be non-5*'s. You can stick with your 1 in 8 odds, or trust talent evaluators who have a record of success (e.g., our staff).
quote:
...than any 1 3 star.
From the pool of LOI signers (as opposed to kids evaluated and labeled), their odds are the same: 4 of the ~3,000 LOI signers will be drafted in the first round as former 5-stars, and 4 of the ~3,000 will have been 2-stars. In other words, whether a player was a 5* or a 2*, his odds are 4 in ~3000 that he will be drafted in the 1st round. It all depends on how you choose to look at it. The 1st Amendment guarantees each of us that choice. My beliefs trend toward deferring to our coaching staff.
quote:
A lot will determine if a player develops into a star including his work ethic, coaching, injuries etc.
Exactly. But this further devalues the overall import of recruiting services. They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).
re: 2014 ATH Devin Voorheis (Woodville, Miss.). - commits to LSU
Posted by BozoBus on 7/29/12 at 1:37 pm
quote:
".. I'm waiting for someone to say, "he didn't build that...someone else did it for him" ....
quote:
. you, sir , are an ignorant azz**** ...
Name-calling is ignorant. That guy you are defaming is defending YOUR AZZ. What are YOU doing for the rest of us -- other than insisting the people paying 90% of the bills pay 98% of the bills?
You should follow your own advice:
quote:
take your misinformed , inaccurate tripe to the politics board
Or are you tired of having a new one ripped every time you venture there?
:spank:
::::::: :doublebird:
re: Any update on adam taylor?
Posted by BozoBus on 7/22/12 at 2:03 pm
quote:
Some think we are burning this kid. Not every kid that wants to go to LSU can.
Right, just the ones who are offered and fulfill the conditions of that offer, if conditional. If LSU reneges on it's word, it would be a blight on our record of integrity.
quote:
Same with every program. I dont think we see ware, ford and blue all jet next year. Still leaves us with the two guys we all thought would be stars, hill and hilliard, Magee and one of the 3 others. We would still have a loaded backfield.
LSU isn't every program. It isn't a matter of the disposition of our backfield, it's a matter of honor. Do we keep our word, or let ends justify means? Grayshirts in this class seem like the only way out of this number crunch that salvages our reputation and good name.
When appropriate, the staff owes its alum and fan base a public explanation regarding this young man and an accounting to guarantee we did the right thing in this matter. It does not matter if our sports teams represent the university with excellence if the university itself fails to maintain the highest ethical standards and moral values. When expediency trumps principle, we have lost what truly matters.
re: Defensive Tackle... pressing need?
Posted by BozoBus on 7/20/12 at 9:36 pm
While it isn't likely he signs with us, we will be 1 of 3 OV's for Montravious Adams during the season (along with Oregon and USC). Lawson and Gilmore may be all we sign this year by way of DT's. It will be interesting to see how Lawson plays his 1st full year as a DT; he could explode.
re: Les Could Have a Very Nice Homecoming
Posted by BozoBus on 7/19/12 at 11:12 pm
quote:
Skinner isn't committing anytime soon He wants to see how we use TEs in our offense
Do you think by the time he can see how we use our TE's this class won't be over-filled?
Popular
34
