I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Who will be this year's Dominique Hampton, low 3 star with high 4 star talent?
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Who will be this year's Dominique Hampton, low 3 star with high 4 star talent?
It's gonna be someone we haven't offered yet. Maybe Elder? I dont know about 4 star, but he certainly seems under recruited.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Pete is full of shit on recruiting rankings. He had to be at Boise state and when you form an attitude that hard and publicly mock the obvious truth, it's hard to turn that shit around even when it is clear that you are wrong. You won't have to crane your neck in our society to see examples of this everywhere.
If every college coach could have their first choice there would only be like 100 players selected total.
There's a difference between there being a strong correlation between rankings and performance and a PERFECT correlation and Pete is as guilty as anyone at trying to poison our society with the notion than a non-perfect correlation is basically the same thing as no correlation.
When "my friend" was banging Carol Shaeffer and her 38DDD boobs after school in 9th grade, it seemed a compelling argument that this was the optimal choice and boob size was the only TRUE important criteria upon which conquests could or should be measured.
Until small-boobed (but way hotter) Bridget Perry gave a wink, then everyone was fucking falling all over themselves to learn the words to Bon Jovi songs and buy her pizza pockets.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Pete is full of shit on recruiting rankings. He had to be at Boise state and when you form an attitude that hard and publicly mock the obvious truth, it's hard to turn that shit around even when it is clear that you are wrong. You won't have to crane your neck in our society to see examples of this everywhere.
If every college coach could have their first choice there would only be like 100 players selected total.
There's a difference between there being a strong correlation between rankings and performance and a PERFECT correlation and Pete is as guilty as anyone at trying to poison our society with the notion than a non-perfect correlation is basically the same thing as no correlation.
When "my friend" was banging Carol Shaeffer and her 38DDD boobs after school in 9th grade, it seemed a compelling argument that this was the optimal choice and boob size was the only TRUE important criteria upon which conquests could or should be measured.
Until small-boobed (but way hotter) Bridget Perry gave a wink, then everyone was fucking falling all over themselves to learn the words to Bon Jovi songs and buy her pizza pockets.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Pete is full of shit on recruiting rankings. He had to be at Boise state and when you form an attitude that hard and publicly mock the obvious truth, it's hard to turn that shit around even when it is clear that you are wrong. You won't have to crane your neck in our society to see examples of this everywhere.
If every college coach could have their first choice there would only be like 100 players selected total.
There's a difference between there being a strong correlation between rankings and performance and a PERFECT correlation and Pete is as guilty as anyone at trying to poison our society with the notion than a non-perfect correlation is basically the same thing as no correlation.
The top 1% or so of players are so easy to identify even Eklund could do it. I do give Petersen some real credit for being able to identify and project long term potential a lot better than most coaches.
But the narrative that recruiting rankings are meaningless is reflexive BS.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Pete is full of shit on recruiting rankings. He had to be at Boise state and when you form an attitude that hard and publicly mock the obvious truth, it's hard to turn that shit around even when it is clear that you are wrong. You won't have to crane your neck in our society to see examples of this everywhere.
If every college coach could have their first choice there would only be like 100 players selected total.
There's a difference between there being a strong correlation between rankings and performance and a PERFECT correlation and Pete is as guilty as anyone at trying to poison our society with the notion than a non-perfect correlation is basically the same thing as no correlation.
The top 1% or so of players are so easy to identify even Eklund could do it. I do give Petersen some real credit for being able to identify and project long term potential a lot better than most coaches.
But the narrative that recruiting rankings are meaningless is reflexive BS.
There's definitely plenty of "noise" in the data and unseen variables but the correlation is there.
Heh, this stuff is way more reliable than economic data I do work with and we make way more important decisions based on that.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
I have created a table in Tableau with all known offers outstanding, per Rivals and 24/7. I grouped them by projected position for the Huskies, based on common sense. I included the three verbal commitments as well. There was one QB/Athlete that I removed from the list since he seems intent on playing QB and UW is done at that position.
It almost certainly has to do with evaluation timetables. And UW does have to get in the game earlier with out of state kids, particularly those outside of California and the PNW.
But one does see how it could create the perception of a bias against locals.
The other thing that I find amusing is the fact Petersen likes to make those snarky comments about recruiting star rankings being garbage, yet at least 42 of his 56 early offers are guys that carry 4- or 5-star early rankings. And most of the remainder are high 3-stars.
Pete is full of shit on recruiting rankings. He had to be at Boise state and when you form an attitude that hard and publicly mock the obvious truth, it's hard to turn that shit around even when it is clear that you are wrong. You won't have to crane your neck in our society to see examples of this everywhere.
If every college coach could have their first choice there would only be like 100 players selected total.
There's a difference between there being a strong correlation between rankings and performance and a PERFECT correlation and Pete is as guilty as anyone at trying to poison our society with the notion than a non-perfect correlation is basically the same thing as no correlation.
The top 1% or so of players are so easy to identify even Eklund could do it. I do give Petersen some real credit for being able to identify and project long term potential a lot better than most coaches.
But the narrative that recruiting rankings are meaningless is reflexive BS.
There's definitely plenty of "noise" in the data and unseen variables but the correlation is there.
Heh, this stuff is way more reliable than economic data I do work with and we make way more important decisions based on that.
Recruiting rankings >>> The dismal science
I'll take recruiting rankings over the official index of leading economic indicators all day, every day.
Comments
If every college coach could have their first choice there would only be like 100 players selected total.
There's a difference between there being a strong correlation between rankings and performance and a PERFECT correlation and Pete is as guilty as anyone at trying to poison our society with the notion than a non-perfect correlation is basically the same thing as no correlation.
When "my friend" was banging Carol Shaeffer and her 38DDD boobs after school in 9th grade, it seemed a compelling argument that this was the optimal choice and boob size was the only TRUE important criteria upon which conquests could or should be measured.
Until small-boobed (but way hotter) Bridget Perry gave a wink, then everyone was fucking falling all over themselves to learn the words to Bon Jovi songs and buy her pizza pockets.
FLAG ME FUCK YOU.
Such flag, DDY.
But the narrative that recruiting rankings are meaningless is reflexive BS.
Heh, this stuff is way more reliable than economic data I do work with and we make way more important decisions based on that.
Recruiting rankings >>> The dismal science