Home› The Fisch Bowl (Recruiting)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

This guy gets it.

animateanimate Member Posts: 4,240
in The Fisch Bowl (Recruiting)
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23793823/oklahoma-state-ad-mike-holder-wants-mike-gundy-recruit-better

So, Dennis/Coker, are we barking (lol) up the wrong tree?

Should we be sending TSIO podcasts to Tig Ol Bitties Jen Cohen?

So she can squeeze Petersen's nuts a little?

Fuck!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • NorwegianHuskyNorwegianHusky Member Posts: 3,425
    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    #9 class last year. Getting a little too alarmist around here the past month. Is the bored always like this in June? I'm too lazy to dig up old TBS threads.

    According to what? Our class was #13 in the composite rankings.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • animateanimate Member Posts: 4,240
    dnc said:

    Calling out your employee who makes 7 times more than you do. Fucking. Stupid.

    It's a lot easier to find another Mike Holder.

    I agree. I just find it interesting.

    Either he's got big balls... Or t. Boone Pickens has his ear and Gundy knows not to fuck with that guy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whatshouldicareaboutwhatshouldicareabout Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,749 Swaye's Wigwam
    NorwegianHusky said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    #9 class last year. Getting a little too alarmist around here the past month. Is the bored always like this in June? I'm too lazy to dig up old TBS threads.

    According to what? Our class was #13 in the composite rankings.
    #9 for 247's own rankings, #13 using composite
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bananasnblondesbananasnblondes Member Posts: 15,286
    NorwegianHusky said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    #9 class last year. Getting a little too alarmist around here the past month. Is the bored always like this in June? I'm too lazy to dig up old TBS threads.

    According to what? Our class was #13 in the composite rankings.
    Composite rankings are for queers
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WaSoonerWaSooner Member Posts: 11
    animate said:

    dnc said:

    Calling out your employee who makes 7 times more than you do. Fucking. Stupid.

    It's a lot easier to find another Mike Holder.

    I agree. I just find it interesting.

    Either he's got big balls... Or t. Boone Pickens has his ear and Gundy knows not to fuck with that guy.

    Remember he is a man he’s 40 and have the players mama feeding them.

    Oops my bad That was a few years ago

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FireCohenFireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    Let’s not pretend like we understand how composite ranking works. We need roaddawg to explain
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    bananasnblondes said:

    NorwegianHusky said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    #9 class last year. Getting a little too alarmist around here the past month. Is the bored always like this in June? I'm too lazy to dig up old TBS threads.

    According to what? Our class was #13 in the composite rankings.
    Composite rankings are for queers
    No they're not. I go by the 247 ones.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,746
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    NorwegianHusky said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    #9 class last year. Getting a little too alarmist around here the past month. Is the bored always like this in June? I'm too lazy to dig up old TBS threads.

    According to what? Our class was #13 in the composite rankings.
    Composite rankings are for queers
    No they're not. I go by the 247 ones.
    So right now you're the married straight keyboardist of a mediocre late 70's/early 80's rock band, not the gay black dude we all know and secretly lust after?

    Sometims I have trouble keeping your personas straight.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,746
    AIRWOLF said:

    There are pros and cons to using the Composite Rankings.

    I use them for a lot of the analysis I do because there is a more robust history, because the rankings scale is more granular, and because having inputs from multiple sources ought to theoretically remove bias, rather than introduce it.

    There are two problems with this, however.

    The first is that the composite rankings used to be based on four independent inputs (Rivals, 24/7, ESPN and Scout). Now, with 24/7's acquisition of Scout, that is reduced to just three. That is a little less good but isn't a problem except...

    that ESPN's rankings are clearly incomplete and probably without real merit on any prospects West of Texas. And now, ESPN's bad data on the West is a third of the total inputs, rather than just a quarter.


    So, in general I'd say the composite rankings have value, but that for prospects and programs in the West they are problematic.

    The composite rankings use a hell of a lot more inputs than those. If those were all the inputs they used it might be okay. The problem is they use a shit load of inputs and (to my knowledge) have not divulged what all the inputs are. But there have been a number of cases of the composite rankings spitting out far different results than what just Scout/247/Rivals/ESPN would have.

    If they've reduced down to just those (minus Scout, RIP) then that's a recent change.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    I just typed a response and it disappeared, saying that it will appear after it is approved. Bravo Vanilla and Stalin!

    You're right, of course. The Composite Ratings, which are on a decimal scale (with a high degree of false precision) from about 70-100, have to take into account more than 3-4 individual star ranks. I should have said those are the PRIMARY inputs. They probably take into account state and positional rankings, to some degree. And they may also make an adjustment for quality and/or quantity of offers.

    But they are highly correlated with the individual ratings from each service. And they are very predictive of which players make it to the NFL.

    I'd say it is the best data on recruiting overall, but that it is problematic for teams and recruits in the West, especially when you get beyond just the super high-profile recruits out of California.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    AIRWOLF said:

    I just typed a response and it disappeared, saying that it will appear after it is approved. Bravo Vanilla and Stalin!

    You're right, of course. The Composite Ratings, which are on a decimal scale (with a high degree of false precision) from about 70-100, have to take into account more than 3-4 individual star ranks. I should have said those are the PRIMARY inputs. They probably take into account state and positional rankings, to some degree. And they may also make an adjustment for quality and/or quantity of offers.

    But they are highly correlated with the individual ratings from each service. And they are very predictive of which players make it to the NFL.

    I'd say it is the best data on recruiting overall, but that it is problematic for teams and recruits in the West, especially when you get beyond just the super high-profile recruits out of California.

    You have to love that 70-100 scale!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    AIRWOLF said:

    I just typed a response and it disappeared, saying that it will appear after it is approved. Bravo Vanilla and Stalin!

    You're right, of course. The Composite Ratings, which are on a decimal scale (with a high degree of false precision) from about 70-100, have to take into account more than 3-4 individual star ranks. I should have said those are the PRIMARY inputs. They probably take into account state and positional rankings, to some degree. And they may also make an adjustment for quality and/or quantity of offers.

    But they are highly correlated with the individual ratings from each service. And they are very predictive of which players make it to the NFL.

    I'd say it is the best data on recruiting overall, but that it is problematic for teams and recruits in the West, especially when you get beyond just the super high-profile recruits out of California.

    You have to love that 70-100 scale!
    Yeah, it is silly. As is having that data down to multiple decimal points.

    I did add scores of 60 for unranked recruits to my data set.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.