To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request

CokeGreaterThanPepsi · December 2014

I think it is best if we don't have set criteria. I like the idea of people defining their own idea of contribution. Plus it should create great debate as we've already seen from the Callier discussion. It will all even out in the end.

Doogles · December 2014

Ultimately aren't we trying to find the true value of a recruiting class? Was this player worth our time? Was he Pac-12 caliber or lucky his shield didn't read 'Big Sky'? I'm not knocking guys for getting injured, unless it's someone like Nathan Rhodes that the entire country knew he was done.

It's a freak game, who gets hurt who doesn't is up to chance and not indicative if a guy was worth the time or not. A guy who plays competently when called upon is more valuable than a guy who generally sucked but was there forever. The past two staffs were such fuck ups, it's hard to say who slipped through the cracks. We can count Hudson as one for certain.

I'm ranking on could this motherfucker play or not. I'm not giving Callier a 2, because he proved he could play. Kasen gets a 4 because he proved he could play at a very high level and got fucked by unluckiness.

I'm trying to get the number down to the individuals talent, his competence as a d1 player, and then you can debate the fucktardedness or brilliance of how the staff used his individual pieces.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi · December 2014

For me this whole thing is finding out how well coaches develop players. But I think what you described above will work just fine in determining that also.

For example, the current trajectory for a player like Sidney Jones is probably a 4 or 5 from a contribution level. But that also includes his talent in it as well because he is just a really good player. So I think whether we are rating talent or contribution it will all work out in the end.