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

Steve Sarkisian on the 'science' of recruiting

2

Comments

  • BayDawg
    BayDawg Member Posts: 1,623
    Sarks science of recruiting:

    1. Go thru scout.com ratings
    2. Make contact with highly rated guys
    3. Dont evaluate mid level guys film, that would interfere with partying time
    4. Get in top 5 of big time guys, all the while knowing you have no shot but its great pub
    5. Miss on those guys and panic offer guys that you didnt evaluate properly
    6. ???????
    7. Profit
  • PurpleJ
    PurpleJ Member Posts: 37,778

    Next up, his treatise on "The Science of Coaching".

    Roster Management 301: Burning Redshirts in Meaningless Games
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    BayDawg said:

    Sarks science of recruiting:

    1. Go thru scout.com ratings
    2. Make contact with highly rated guys
    3. Dont evaluate mid level guys film, that would interfere with partying time
    4. Get in top 5 of big time guys, all the while knowing you have no shot but its great pub
    5. Miss on those guys and panic offer guys that you didnt evaluate properly
    6. ???????
    7. Profit

    This. I always thought sark was lazy as fuck and recruited from scout.com and not from film. I also think dawgman fucks pumped up ratings of UW recruits.
  • chuck
    chuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,851 Swaye's Wigwam

    “I don’t think it’s always about taking every five-star you can get your hands on,” Sarkisian said. “I think there’s something to be said about a two- or three-star who comes in with a chip on his shoulder and has something to prove as well.”

    The fact that he actually uses the bolded terms above to describe players says all you need to know about Steve Sarkisian... My word.

    It's funny how I, as a TBS follower, feel somehow guilty paying attention and referring to star rankings. This idiot frat boy doesn't even get it after all this time. He doesn't even think of or refer to them as people. He should at least know enough by now to pretend.
  • Dick_B
    Dick_B Member Posts: 1,301
    PurpleJ said:

    Next up, his treatise on "The Science of Coaching".

    Roster Management 301: Burning Redshirts in Meaningless Games
    Suddenly Senior: how to run off kids other coaches could win with.

  • dtd
    dtd Member Posts: 5,785 Standard Supporter

    “I don’t think it’s always about taking every five-star you can get your hands on,” Sarkisian said. “I think there’s something to be said about a two- or three-star who comes in with a chip on his shoulder and has something to prove as well.”

    The fact that he actually uses the bolded terms above to describe players says all you need to know about Steve Sarkisian... My word.

    Yup.

    Peterman pretty much said, "star rankings are fucking stupid."
    Except they aren't, not even close.
  • PostGameOrangeSlices
    PostGameOrangeSlices Member Posts: 27,989
    dtd said:

    “I don’t think it’s always about taking every five-star you can get your hands on,” Sarkisian said. “I think there’s something to be said about a two- or three-star who comes in with a chip on his shoulder and has something to prove as well.”

    The fact that he actually uses the bolded terms above to describe players says all you need to know about Steve Sarkisian... My word.

    Yup.

    Peterman pretty much said, "star rankings are fucking stupid."
    Except they aren't, not even close.
    Thanks for the input, Kim
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    chuck said:

    “I don’t think it’s always about taking every five-star you can get your hands on,” Sarkisian said. “I think there’s something to be said about a two- or three-star who comes in with a chip on his shoulder and has something to prove as well.”

    The fact that he actually uses the bolded terms above to describe players says all you need to know about Steve Sarkisian... My word.

    It's funny how I, as a TBS follower, feel somehow guilty paying attention and referring to star rankings. This idiot frat boy doesn't even get it after all this time. He doesn't even think of or refer to them as people. He should at least know enough by now to pretend.
    Even tho star rankings and not always right, they are something to go by. It's similar concept to where a player is drafted in the NFL. Russell Wilson would have been a low ranked 4 star and Sherman would have been a low ranked 3 star. Yet on the field they played like 5 star Earl Thomas.

    While some are bullshit, some are spot on. And regardless, over time with equal coaching, the 3.7 average star of USC is going to have more talent than the 3.2 average at UW.
  • MisterEm
    MisterEm Member Posts: 6,685
    Star rankings are on par with Steve Pool's weather forecast accuracy