Yeah, I should have mentioned that the rankings and stars shown in the chart are all from Scout, since I actually believe if you want to follow TBS, the best way to do it is through Scout; especially if you are a fan of a team from the West Coast. Rivals and ESPN have no clue what is going on west of the Mississippi.
I think they are assigned by a committee of some sort. I think for the West Coast Biggins and Huffman are the two with the most say, but I am not sure on that.
I'm looking forward to the current players, as they rack up wins, to start shitting on Sark's head in the media while praising Peterman... and having doogs turn on the players who dare bash Sark.
I'm *not* looking forward to reading doogs post shit like 'I root for USC every week except for one... tee hee hee'
Petersen coming in and getting Baker to switch left me no doubt he will be able to recruit. Sark had 0 chance at Budda (although doogs will claim he planted the seeds for Petersen) and Petersen was able to wrangle him in with very limited time.
Petersen coming in and getting Baker to switch left me no doubt he will be able to recruit. Sark had 0 chance at Budda (although doogs will claim he planted the seeds for Petersen) and Petersen was able to wrangle him in with very limited time.
Not Sark's fault. Bellevue clearly isn't known for it's sizzle and edgy talent and the kids that come out of there have no eye for the possibilities of a program built on it. Skyline and Gig Harbor put out way edgier players so I doubt Petersen will have much success at those places.
Some moron over there is using Kyle Wittingham's mediocre ride through the Pac-12 as reason why Petersen will fail. Like always, when the facts came up (Wittingham stayed at the same program - Fucking Utah, and Petersen pulled in more 4-star players in his transition year than Wittingham did in his entire career at Utah) this gem came up:
"Say what you like about Sark but he is killing it at USC right now"
Yes, they're that dumb.
As for the Lemon Party Trio, I don't think the hiring of Petersen was a big deal for them, it was Petersen showing up and saying "OK, I'm not working with this frat party" - Tosh, Sirmon, Nansen, etc. That's when all the hoss94 bullshit and made-up stories started showing up - "my nephew is a surfer dude football player from SoCal and he said Pete and his staff were like Ward Cleavers"
People still think that if you have some magic coordinator on your staff you're going to pull in tons of 5-star talent even if you suck. They don't realize that good recruiting comes from FUCKING WINNING. If Pete goes 11-2 this year I will bet any fuck on that board my entire life savings that Pete will have a better recruiting class than Sark ever had. Yes, that boring old Petersen with his staff of Ward Cleavers. Just like fat, gay Chip Kelly was able to do, they will go into kid's houses and say "yeah, we're fucking winners, come to our school." They won't have to show up to kids houses woofing and wearing helmets, they won't have to make a fake jersey with the kids name on it, they won't embarrass the university by "proposing" to the kid over the phone. Peterman, Bonerpoppa, Chode, Pees, and the rest will just walk in, drop their 11-win dicks on the table and say, "impressive, isn't it? sign on the line if you want to play for a winner"
The biggest problem with the kind of reasoning that goes on, like over on doogman, is the insistence on using somebody else for comparison purposes, since there is no present history in the PAC on Peterman. The problems start right away. First of all Peterman is not somebody else. You are comparing somebody else to Peterman. See the problem? It's not Peterman. It's somebody else you are talking about. So you can either talk about Peterman or somebody else. But if you are talking about somebody else, it isn't Peterman. Everybody get this?
The biggest problem with the kind of reasoning that goes on, like over on doogman, is the insistence on using somebody else for comparison purposes, since there is no present history in the PAC on Peterman. The problems start right away. First of all Peterman is not somebody else. You are comparing somebody else to Peterman. See the problem? It's not Peterman. It's somebody else you are talking about. So you can either talk about Peterman or somebody else. But if you are talking about somebody else, it isn't Peterman. Everybody get this?
I think I've got it. Wait, no.... which one is Peterman again?
Honest question: are the TBS star ratings assigned via a consensus from all scout/rivals people? Or are they rated based on one person's opinion?
I am not saying the star rating system is terrible- I know that for the most part, teams with top-25 recruiting classes are the same teams that end up in the top-25 rankings. But, if a person (ecktard) is assigning stars and is also complaining about a coach, is it possible that his biased opinion could affect the players' rating?
In other words, if he goes into it with the attitude "peterman can't recruit at this level", could he give a player 3 stars instead of 4 because he subconsciously believes that peterman can't recruit 4-star guys? I honestly don't know...maybe he doesn't have that much control over it?
I'm pretty sure the regional "experts" assign stars. From what I remember from my TBS time, that's guys like. Biggins and Hoffman or Huffman, whatever. They always seemed to be less clueless than Fagman.
Also from what I remember, There usually aren't huge discrepancies between Rivals, Scout, and the four letter. I think sometimes what's missed are the guys who developed late because they aren't on anyone's radar their sophomore and junior years. It can be because they took up football late, they hit a growth spurt late, or they just got better/got a better coach or something.
I agree with Cunt here. If Peterman ends up being successful here, he will end up with some great classes in the future. We have a great program, great fans, money, new facilities, and a winning team would make us very competitive for blue chip type recruits.
I'll take Sentences You Only See on Hardcore Husky for 200 Alex.
Petersen coming in and getting Baker to switch left me no doubt he will be able to recruit. Sark had 0 chance at Budda (although doogs will claim he planted the seeds for Petersen) and Petersen was able to wrangle him in with very limited time.
Not Sark's fault. Bellevue clearly isn't known for it's sizzle and edgy talent and the kids that come out of there have no eye for the possibilities of a program built on it. Skyline and Gig Harbor put out way edgier players so I doubt Petersen will have much success at those places.
Gig Harbor? The team that hasn't beat B Prep in like a decade?
Comments
I think they are assigned by a committee of some sort. I think for the West Coast Biggins and Huffman are the two with the most say, but I am not sure on that.
"The Pac-12 was much more STACKED when Sark was at Washington, he would have easily done what Petersen did this season"
I'm *not* looking forward to reading doogs post shit like 'I root for USC every week except for one... tee hee hee'
Nothing else matters.... except 7v7 tourneys/beauty pageants.
Also from what I remember, There usually aren't huge discrepancies between Rivals, Scout, and the four letter. I think sometimes what's missed are the guys who developed late because they aren't on anyone's radar their sophomore and junior years. It can be because they took up football late, they hit a growth spurt late, or they just got better/got a better coach or something.
Good hips.