5th Annual Jesse Callier Commemorative Post-Collegiate Career Impact Ranking Survey RESULTS (2019)

whatshouldicareabout

Do you have historical votes by people? Would be interesting to see their 5-year averages and look at trends in their voting year-over-year.

Mad_Son

A key thing for me is peak contributions. For example I gave bbk 4 because of what he was this year. I would have potentially given him 2 pre-season and almost gave him 3 because he started the year a bit slower but he definitely had a big year for us this year and it's not his fault we had little depth and he had to play before he was ready (another factor I considered for 3 was did he only become as good as he did because he got the jillion game time reps that he did but erred on giving him cred)

Tequilla

Browning’s a (low) 4 due to his longevity and 2016

In the end, 2 conference titles and 3 NY6 Bowls are reasonably solid ... although fair to note he largely sucked in each game

dhdawg

I probably should have given Browning a 3. 2016 he was a 4/5 level player. This year he was so bad that I felt like I had to give him a 2

Tequilla

Browning is also a guy whose rating was as much due to not separating personal hate vs on field performance

Doogles

Woof said:

Doogles said:

kh83 said:

So I think we all sort of vary a little on what 2-3-4 rankings are, but generally, id bet we all think a 5 is a complete baller, best in the nation worthy and a 1 contributed nothing. For me, Bowman hit the field and played. Thats a minimum 2 ranking.

People forget why this thing started in the first place.

It's because Jessie Callier WAS a 3 star and I'll die on that sword!

He was a low 3, but I agree.

My rating system is something like:
1 - never played, or only played in garbage time and generally sucked - Michael Neal
2 - played a bit, maybe some spot starts, but never held down a full season and/or generally was below average when on the field - Shane Bowman
3 - started about a year and likely contributed another year or two, but generally pretty average - Tevis Bartlett
4 - multi-year starter, above average for at least a year, likely with some postseason honors like Pac-12 1st or 2nd team - BBK
5 - multi-year starter that was above average for multiple years. Made lots of splash plays and won a significant award like the Morris Trophy or was an All-American - MMFG

From there, I will bump up or down a point, given my personal like/dislike of said player. My system likely overrates longevity, but IMHO a guy like Gaskin that stays 4 years and sets a ton of records has a more impactful career than a guy like Byron Murphy that kills it for 18 games and then goes to the NFL. This year was tough because there were so many likeable players in that 3+ range (Sample, String, Tevis, Miller, McIntosh, etc.)

Personal bias or likeability factor is dumb considering it's supposed to be about impact to UW football program, nothing more.

By your definition BBK is a slam dunk 5 (productive multi-year starter, all-american, P12 DPOY, made splash plays) but because Dennis hates white people he's a 4?

Mad_Son

Tequilla said:

Browning is also a guy whose rating was as much due to not separating personal hate vs on field performance

I hate him because of his on-field performance.

Joey

I'm open to discussion as to why Sugar Shane Bozeman isn't a 1

Tequilla said:

Browning is also a guy whose rating was as much due to not separating personal hate vs on field performance

I gave him a 3 because after 2016 I would have put him at a 5 then docked him a point every year after

UW_Doog_Bot

After receiving the most retarded voter status last year I sat this year out. #additionbysubtraction

RaceBannon

It’s almost like people here are projecting the qualities of being OKG as being impacted by racial stereotypes, and ignoring how its actually being applied by their background/surroundings....