Down year. Our overall talent and depth is better than Sark’s.
There were really only a handful of Sark players that did anything in 2016. Victor, Bierria, Qualls, and Eldrenkamp.
The leveling up stuff was always bullshit. We are a top 10-20 team in recruiting. We are underachieving. The talent has only been part of the problem. Pete’s had a horrible year as the coach. I think there has been some complacency that has set in.
We over achieved bigly in 2016- 18 based on recruiting. 2019 is our first underachieving year.
2016
1st in PAC; #4 Final Ranking
247 College Team Composite - #24 Nationally; #6 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2012- 16 Classes- #6
2017
Tied for 2nd in PAC; #15 Final Ranking
247 College Team Composite - #24 Nationally; #6 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2013- 17 Classes- #6
2018
1st in PAC; #13 Final Ranking
247 College Team Composite - #20 Nationally; #4 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2014- 18 Classes- #4
2019
247 College Team Composite - #19 Nationally; #3 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2015- 19 Classes- #4
I think the better you do as a team in the previous seasons, the better the players are ranked.
A player that commits to Alabama is going to be a four or five star. That same player with the same ability that commits to Kentucky gets rated lower.
We were really good in 2016 so we got slight inflations for our future players. It’s just a theory, but I’ve thought it to be true for awhile.
This seems plausible.
It’s a business and 247 has to cater to the programs that bring in the most money. It also makes sense to think a guy is really good if Ohio State or Alabama wants them.
When Michigan State had a good 3 year with a couple of BCS bowl wins and a playoff appearance, their recruits were rated much higher. They ended up sucking. It’s why I don’t really get caught up in the ratings after the elite guys.
It’s easy to think, “look what we did with all these 3 stars, imagine once we start getting more 4 and 5 stars.” It rarely works out that way.
Down year. Our overall talent and depth is better than Sark’s.
There were really only a handful of Sark players that did anything in 2016. Victor, Bierria, Qualls, and Eldrenkamp.
The leveling up stuff was always bullshit. We are a top 10-20 team in recruiting. We are underachieving. The talent has only been part of the problem. Pete’s had a horrible year as the coach. I think there has been some complacency that has set in.
We over achieved bigly in 2016- 18 based on recruiting. 2019 is our first underachieving year.
2016
1st in PAC; #4 Final Ranking
247 College Team Composite - #24 Nationally; #6 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2012- 16 Classes- #6
2017
Tied for 2nd in PAC; #15 Final Ranking
247 College Team Composite - #24 Nationally; #6 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2013- 17 Classes- #6
2018
1st in PAC; #13 Final Ranking
247 College Team Composite - #20 Nationally; #4 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2014- 18 Classes- #4
2019
247 College Team Composite - #19 Nationally; #3 in PAC Average Rank in PAC of 2015- 19 Classes- #4
I think the better you do as a team in the previous seasons, the better the players are ranked.
A player that commits to Alabama is going to be a four or five star. That same player with the same ability that commits to Kentucky gets rated lower.
We were really good in 2016 so we got slight inflations for our future players. It’s just a theory, but I’ve thought it to be true for awhile.
This seems plausible.
It’s a business and 247 has to cater to the programs that bring in the most money. It also makes sense to think a guy is really good if Ohio State or Alabama wants them.
When Michigan State had a good 3 year with a couple of BCS bowl wins and a playoff appearance, their recruits were rated much higher. They ended up sucking. It’s why I don’t really get caught up in the ratings after the elite guys.
It’s easy to think, “look what we did with all these 3 stars, imagine once we start getting more 4 and 5 stars.” It rarely works out that way.
We are, however, getting guys now in the past few classes with way more impressive offer lists than Pete's first four of five classes, right?
I think it's easy to conflate 4 star recruits with 5 star recruits, which you shouldn't do. If you are one of the top players at your position in football or basketball out of high school, you are much more likely to be a star player at your position in college. But outside of the top 30 players or so, it gets murkier. Alabama and Clemson are so dominant right now, in part, because they are getting the best of the best recruits. See Duke, Kentucky, and UNC in hoops as well.
But I also agree that stars don't mean much for a program like UW because we? aren't going to get the top 5 star guys at every position. That makes finding players that fit the way you play so important (ie, chip at oregon).
3 star dudes can be fucking studs. There are more of them than 5 stars, which means they can also be slow, steaming piles of shit (see, Manu, Kyler).
Therefore, you better have good coaches that know the difference between a shiny turd pretending to be gold and the real thing (obligatory fire gregory sentiment).
Comments
When Michigan State had a good 3 year with a couple of BCS bowl wins and a playoff appearance, their recruits were rated much higher. They ended up sucking. It’s why I don’t really get caught up in the ratings after the elite guys.
It’s easy to think, “look what we did with all these 3 stars, imagine once we start getting more 4 and 5 stars.” It rarely works out that way.
But I also agree that stars don't mean much for a program like UW because we? aren't going to get the top 5 star guys at every position. That makes finding players that fit the way you play so important (ie, chip at oregon).
3 star dudes can be fucking studs. There are more of them than 5 stars, which means they can also be slow, steaming piles of shit (see, Manu, Kyler).
Therefore, you better have good coaches that know the difference between a shiny turd pretending to be gold and the real thing (obligatory fire gregory sentiment).