|Subject: Re: Columbia's 2017 Football Class
|[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Date Posted: 18:38:45 06/17/17 Sat
In reply to:
's message, "Re: Columbia's 2017 Football Class" on 08:49:34 06/17/17 Sat
Agree, but somewhat misses the point that we're in a period of "guessing" about how good an incoming class is. For all us "sideline wannabees" and fans, waiting till the season starts downplays all the excitement we crave in the dead summer period!
But we must also remember that rankings are not really for us. The ranking services business model is to sell the data to those making recruiting decisions. We see the public back-end of this process and although it can be very useful it can also be misleading.
Player and team rankings are excellent longer term predictors, especially when there are big changes like at CU. But like so many stats, only meaningful when many points are measured and somewhat error prone when used as a single point. Obvious take-away is that one or two top ranked classes don't change a program. Many are needed.
I realize that because the Ivy teams over last 20yrs have had relatively few ranked players when compared to FBS programs, the attitude, especially for the bottom teams is a bit of "we can't get them realism" that leads to a somewhat defeatist view that "it doesn't matter". Kudos to CU staff for not falling into this trap!
Truth is, in this modern era of football there is a profound and direct correlation between the percent of each Ivy team w/ranked players and final team standings. Some bored Harvard (and probably Yale) BD/analytic guys have quietly proven this. For any given single year it can be ambiguous, but if you measure across 10 years it great indicator.
But for us wannabees, simpler proof: look at CU Over past 10yrs. Lowest number of ranked players in Ivy during period, and that almost perfectly matches lowest win record. Harvard has most ranked players and is arguably the run-away team in league during same period. Not sure we need Hadoop to prove this one for us.
CU coaching staff knows this, and although it's not the top issue it's an well understood and important measure of talent, and it's something they're working on hard. No good coach says they go after a kid solely because of rankings (although some do), but often rankings make coaches aware of kids, and many will say that the best prospects and rankings go hand in hand. So target it or not, it just comes!
But don't believe me. Look at Bagnoli's first 2 classes. Both are ranking rich compared to all the past loosing teams. Someone said that the 2016 team had more ranked players than the previous 20 teams combined. Didn't verify, but truth is buried in this likely exaggeration.
So, if you don't like the rankings argument, or just want to be surprised by each seasons "baby", just forget it all. It's football and not always fun to think about it too hard.
But if you interested if data, look at the Bagnoli era recruiting tactics. CU is showing up in all the same places during kids junior years as Harvard and Yale. And going hard after ranked kids. Coaches want a piece of the early talent haul, and seem to be having some success. Again, kudo's to them.
Another thing for those interested to pay attention to. With modern recruiting cycles, you usually can guess how strong an Ivy class is by how many kids are picked up up in summer before HS senior year. Kids that come late (past Oct/Nov) are usually the 4-5th down on team lists, and quickly acquire multiple late Ivy offers as the final roster panics ensue. Of course the top teams are mostly done by Nov, and the bottom teams are the primary cause the late offers flurries. I'm guessing many have noticed the top Ivy's, specifically Harvard, always notches up their best talent in summer months and have commit lists way before other teams!
Also correlated, is that these late Ivy kids never have (or had) any serious FBS interest by definition, mostly because all the FBS stuff cleared up way before August, so keep that in mind when applying the offer BS filter.
Unfortunately, all this waters down the meaning of kids having several Ivy offers, something touted on this board. What really matters isn't how many offers, but *WHEN* the offers come in. The kids that pick up 5 offers in June are much more coveted than kids that pick up 5 offers in Nov.
Big problem is that outsiders have little to no way to assess all this. Accurate info on early offers/commits is VERY hard to get for obvious reasons. Most bloggers don't have it, try to interpolate it, and come up with lots of semi-facts.
But this is really good news for CU fans. Several hidden gems have been buried in the not exactly correct info flow. There are a couple of 2016/2017 early offer/early commit kids that are likely to show up as surprises. Some correlate to the blogger hype, some are still to be discovered.
IMHO, coaches are doing right thing w/respect to recruiting. Each and every class won't and can't be the best, but the trend for the Bagnoli era so far is very very good! Winning will come as long as recruiting stays strong!
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |