[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 15:46:57 01/04/17 Wed
Wow, this thread got goofy fast. But I do have to point out that many on this board seem too interested in the All State thing. It's totally meaningless regardless of per-season/post-season status and kinda follows the "rink-dink" football rule. The whys are simple: first, it's local and political, second it's based on how the team does as much as the player, and third it's a one season honor based on how a player does against other HS players and often useless as predictor at next level. And since it's regional, it tends to biases kids from small states (less competition), and gives no clue how a kid from CT will actually do against a kid from TX or FL at next level. I've seen many kids who are "All something" from such football powers as NY, CT, MA etc. that couldn't survive against normal competition in the larger states like FL, TX and CA.
Big difference when the lines avg. 280 and athletic vs. 220 kids who trip on second step.
I get why all the Ivy heads on this board follow the "all xxxxx" thing so closely. First it's local so it's easy to see and since it's in the local paper it sticks out. But it's also what one is left to "hoot" about when the really good (and ranked) kids from the football factory states go elsewhere.
At this point, I'm sure one of you older Ivy types is saying, "that's how XXX Ivy school won all these years". Well, maybe so, but if you haven't noticed the arms race is on in the Ivy's with respect to getting ranked kids from top football states. And that's the Ivy's advantage over other FCS teams and allows them to occasionally steal FBS kids. Getting more of these kids to infuse programs will restore the status of Ivy football and feed on itself.
Rankings, as flawed as they can be are FAR more accurate and at least give a clue if kid is fast enough and big enough for next level. And, although far from a science, they're are marginally normalized across states. Film eval also helps, but HUDL highlights aren't great for obvious reasons, and the stats on HUDL are usually optimistic advertising. Better to go to youtube and pick games for kid to see how good he really is in a whole game. Then look for Rivals or Nike info to verify speed. We all see posts like "this DE runs 4.4", and all I cans say is that if it's true, he'll be at Michigan of FSU 99% of time.
Of course, trusting quality coaching to figure it all out is probably best. They get paid for it, so the crazy views get filtered out.
I've been crapped-on by others (Old Lion) for saying this, but will repeat over and over. The number of ranked kids is a a good (and possibly best) measure of class strength, and must be compared to other schools on the target list (and not peers). Obviously, the more ranked kids the better the school draw on recruits is, and the more ranked kids from big football states is even better. And over time, the ranked kids will emerge as the biggest contributors. That doesn't mean every ranked kid is a guarantee, and since the Ivy gets so few relatively, and it doesn't mean other kids won't contribute and thrive too. It only means that on average, the team with more ranked kids tend to be better.
The kid Jack Young looks like a good addition and anyone at CU should be happy to have him. But more importantly, there are now several ranked kids in this class, and many plug holes in last years class, and that bodes well for CU. For CU to get consistently competitive, they need many more.
Some on this board have been very touchy that the CU 2017 class isn't as strong as 2016. It's not and it's really not even close, but it doesn't have to be. All the coaches need to do is keep filling in the holes with quality players and the 2017 class seems to do that.
So, if your happy with how CU (and other Ivy's) did over last 10yrs, keep looking at regional kids with All-something status. If your interesting in seeing your team move up in Ivy rankings and start beating Harvard consistently, count the ranked kids, especially from top football states.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]