Kengera Daniel's father on recruiting process

[JRowland]

Originally posted by CatsFanGG24:

But the SEC hasn't been nailed...go by a 12 year average, maybe it looks better but honestly it would have to be split up in 4-5 year segments and then look back to see how a particular class or two performs...

Like I already showed, Auburn had 1 class of their 4 before the title in the SEC top 3...ARK wasn't ranked top when they won the SEC west, their highest ranking was 24th...Mizzou 2 years straight at the top of the East, ranked near bottom of east...Tenn and UF haven't been out of the top 10 much and they have been awful. LSU just finished 8-5, their last 4 classes (6,18,6,2)

Look, I like Rivals and like the rankings systems and all that...but they get as much wrong as they do right.

There is always more potential for variation when you make your sample size smaller.

Some points from memory that I would make:

-- When Alabama was recruiting on average of about ~20th the first few years of Rivals.com, the results on field were not there. More recently their on field performance reflects the string of top classes.

-- Georgia, Florida and LSU have been the most consistent programs recruiting in the SEC from '02-'14, and in just about every five year window their on-field results reflect that. Really the only blip has been the Will Muschamp era and even he went to a Sugar Bowl.

-- Missouri did rank near the bottom of the East in recruiting rankings. Their recruiting classes have also been slightly underrated by my guess, according to public perception. They recruit about like a mid-Power Five program. Missouri and Tennessee are the outliers.

-- Tennessee has been awful but look at the # of draft picks for Tennessee. They have almost 40 players in the NFL. Missouri has 25. What does that tell you? It tells me that Tennessee's higher classes have been properly ranked higher, but internal program problems, e.g. coaching turnover, bad culture, bad coaching, etc., have failed to get results from talented players that have gone on to NFL success.

Below is a snapshot of what I posted at HOB. Yes, it's over the '02-14 period of time. That's a long time but it's not that long; so it's short enough to account for significant variance as in the cases of Missouri and Tennessee. And the correlation is strong enough it makes you to take notice.

Here's another thing: There are some straw men in this argument. Nobody on the ranking side says other factors don't matter. QB play, coaching consistency, quality of coaching, strength of schedule, injuries, home/away, etc., all play factors. Recruiting rankings are supposed to just measure talent and other glaring factors (e.g. if kid has a weight problem, a work ethic problem, is extremely coachable, etc).

I don't have any real problem with what Kengera's father has posted. In the case of some players shutting it down and limiting exposure certain affects their ability to rise in the rankings. Sometimes players like Chris Williamson blow up anyways if their film is good enough. And yeah, I'll say something that maybe others won't -- if Alabama has a track record of six straight #1 classes and way more draft picks than anyone else, and if they start going "all in" on a kid, I'd at least look at the kid's film twice to see if they've noticed something. That's a no brainer.

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

It may actually be fair to rank Kentucky's recruiting class number 13 in the SEC, but I still think our class is underrated. Class rankings address the whole class. We didn't sign a quarterback or a middle linebacker, and I'm not counting Love since he is a transfer. The offensive tackles in our class are SEC projects who will need a couple of years. Those are major weaknesses in our class. No doubt about it, we didn't sign a balanced class. But if you look at the class from the standpoint of addressing needs, Stoops hit the jackpot with the receivers, defensive backs, and the edge defenders. At those positions, this is a really good class. To JRowland's point, his stats from '04-'12 are the closest thing to science when it comes to analyzing the accuracy of star ratings. But it still isn't really science, because this doesn't address perception biases. You can look at it from the political point of view too. When a top team like Alabama or Georgia does well in national rankings, they get a whole lot more media coverage. NFL scouts know that Alabama has a better team than Kentucky so they are more likely to find future NFL players at Alabama. From a perception standpoint, that has to slant everything. NFL teams see players playing at ranked programs in a more favorable light. High school players recruited by these coaches in the headlines probably get ranked a little higher in some cases. If Kengera Daniel had received an offer from Florida State, which almost happened by many accounts, do we doubt that he would be a 4 star? Naturally, it isn't that simple. When Bill Belichek finds Malcolm Butler at West Alabama and Julian Edelman at Kent State, there is no doubt that good players at small schools have a better chance than ever before for NFL recognition. But it still isn't an even playing field. Definitely, multiple factors are at play here. But to a certain extent, ranking services are ranking high school players and NFL scouts are favorably evaluating college players by the national ranking of their college. It's human nature. So I am not saying JRowland is wrong. He is not wrong at all. But I am saying that perception biases make things more complicated than they appear.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by C1180:

Let me take a shot at why. Missouri over achieved because of great coaching and player evaluation and UT has underachieved because of just the opposite poor coaching and poor player evaluation.

======================================================================================

Would have to disagree. Missouri high becasue of heavy redshirting, low attrition and excellent player development. UT low becasue of massive attrition and multiple coaching changes.

I do not understand what you are disagreeing with. IMO we are saying the exact same thing only with different words. Is not Redshirting, keeping your players, and player development part of good coaching and is not poor evaluation and poor management of players which caused the multiple coaching changes and exodus of players at UT bad coaching?. Getting the proper players, coaching them up, deciding who to redshirt, and keeping them is all part of a college coaching staffs duties.

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by C1180:

Let me take a shot at why. Missouri over achieved because of great coaching and player evaluation and UT has underachieved because of just the opposite poor coaching and poor player evaluation.

======================================================================================

Would have to disagree. Missouri high becasue of heavy redshirting, low attrition and excellent player development. UT low becasue of massive attrition and multiple coaching changes.

I do not understand what you are disagreeing with. IMO we are saying the exact same thing only with different words. Is not Redshirting, keeping your players, and player development part of good coaching and is not poor evaluation and poor management of players which caused the multiple coaching changes and exodus of players at UT bad coaching?. Getting the proper players, coaching them up, deciding who to redshirt, and keeping them is all part of a college coaching staffs duties.

He is saying that Missouri has done a much better job of retaining and developing players than Tennessee has. And he is right.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Blue Decade:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by C1180:

Let me take a shot at why. Missouri over achieved because of great coaching and player evaluation and UT has underachieved because of just the opposite poor coaching and poor player evaluation.

======================================================================================

Would have to disagree. Missouri high becasue of heavy redshirting, low attrition and excellent player development. UT low becasue of massive attrition and multiple coaching changes.

I do not understand what you are disagreeing with. IMO we are saying the exact same thing only with different words. Is not Redshirting, keeping your players, and player development part of good coaching and is not poor evaluation and poor management of players which caused the multiple coaching changes and exodus of players at UT bad coaching?. Getting the proper players, coaching them up, deciding who to redshirt, and keeping them is all part of a college coaching staffs duties.

He is saying that Missouri has done a much better job of retaining and developing players than Tennessee has. And he is right.

Dang you have fooled the hell out of me. I thought those things were part of the duties of a head college football coach and his staff. I agree that he is right but it is the same thing I said only different words. Lets put it this way the Missouri coaching staff has done a good all around job and the last several UT coaching staffs have done a poor all around job. This is what likely has caused an anomaly in the stats concerning recruits rankings.

 

[Blue Decade]

Some coaches do this better than others. Okay?

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Blue Decade:
Some coaches do this better than others. Okay?

Well to be redundant that is exactly what I said. The Missouri coaches did a better job than the UT coaches If you want to go into explaining how they did that better job good for you. That does not however make my post something that either you or Deeefense should be disagreeing with. The reason that Missouri has been successful is because the Missouri coaches have done a better job than the UT coaches!!!!!!! UT has had better recruited classes than Missouri so it doesn't take the sharpest knife in the drawer to figure out the anomaly.

 

[jnewc2]

Come on now, no offense, but this sounds like an attempt to put a positive spin on what was possibly the worst collapse of a signing class in the country.

"The most underrated class in the country"? Come on guys, there are times where you can't put a positive spin on these things; this is one of those times. The class ended horribly and now we're starting to sound like we did during the Brooks and Joker years saying "stars don't matter!" "He's a diamond in the rough!"

Sure there are some exceptional cases here and there, but overall, STAR RATINGS DO MATTER. Want proof? Go look at who the winningest teams in the nation have been the last decade. Now go look at what they're recruiting rankings were. Sure they're hit and miss sometimes, but for the most part a four star player is going to be better than a 2 or 3 star player.

Come on guys. We're starting to do the exact same thing that we've ripped Louisville fans for since Stoops' arrived and had whipped them in recruiting. Let's not make ourselves look foolish by using the "recruiting rankings don't matter" arguments that we make fun of them for.

I like the players we have, and I'm sure there are a couple of diamonds in the rough, but would I rather have all of the exceptional players that we lost? Absolutely, and you're kidding yourself if you don't agree.

This class ended terribly. Let's just call a spade a spade. We ended the season on a six-game losing streak and lost maybe our best recruiter in Neal Brown, let's call a spade a spade.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by jnewc2:
Come on now, no offense, but this sounds like an attempt to put a positive spin on what was possibly the worst collapse of a signing class in the country.

"The most underrated class in the country"? Come on guys, there are times where you can't put a positive spin on these things; this is one of those times. The class ended horribly and now we're starting to sound like we did during the Brooks and Joker years saying "stars don't matter!" "He's a diamond in the rough!"

Sure there are some exceptional cases here and there, but overall, STAR RATINGS DO MATTER. Want proof? Go look at who the winningest teams in the nation have been the last decade. Now go look at what they're recruiting rankings were. Sure they're hit and miss sometimes, but for the most part a four star player is going to be better than a 2 or 3 star player.

Come on guys. We're starting to do the exact same thing that we've ripped Louisville fans for since Stoops' arrived and had whipped them in recruiting. Let's not make ourselves look foolish by using the "recruiting rankings don't matter" arguments that we make fun of them for.

I like the players we have, and I'm sure there are a couple of diamonds in the rough, but would I rather have all of the exceptional players that we lost? Absolutely, and you're kidding yourself if you don't agree.

This class ended terribly. Let's just call a spade a spade. We ended the season on a six-game losing streak and lost maybe our best recruiter in Neal Brown, let's call a spade a spade.

You lost your credibility with me when you stated that Neil Brown was UKs best recruiter. Some of your other stuff is shaky but that is pure BS.

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Blue Decade:
Some coaches do this better than others. Okay?

Well to be redundant that is exactly what I said. The Missouri coaches did a better job than the UT coaches If you want to go into explaining how they did that better job good for you. That does not however make my post something that either you or Deeefense should be disagreeing with. The reason that Missouri has been successful is because the Missouri coaches have done a better job than the UT coaches!!!!!!! UT has had better recruited classes than Missouri so it doesn't take the sharpest knife in the drawer to figure out the anomaly.

Show me where I disagreed with you. I think you are beating the hell out of a dead horse, but I haven't disagreed.

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by jnewc2:
Come on now, no offense, but this sounds like an attempt to put a positive spin on what was possibly the worst collapse of a signing class in the country.

"The most underrated class in the country"? Come on guys, there are times where you can't put a positive spin on these things; this is one of those times. The class ended horribly and now we're starting to sound like we did during the Brooks and Joker years saying "stars don't matter!" "He's a diamond in the rough!"

Sure there are some exceptional cases here and there, but overall, STAR RATINGS DO MATTER. Want proof? Go look at who the winningest teams in the nation have been the last decade. Now go look at what they're recruiting rankings were. Sure they're hit and miss sometimes, but for the most part a four star player is going to be better than a 2 or 3 star player.

Come on guys. We're starting to do the exact same thing that we've ripped Louisville fans for since Stoops' arrived and had whipped them in recruiting. Let's not make ourselves look foolish by using the "recruiting rankings don't matter" arguments that we make fun of them for.

I like the players we have, and I'm sure there are a couple of diamonds in the rough, but would I rather have all of the exceptional players that we lost? Absolutely, and you're kidding yourself if you don't agree.

This class ended terribly. Let's just call a spade a spade. We ended the season on a six-game losing streak and lost maybe our best recruiter in Neal Brown, let's call a spade a spade.

You don't trust your own eyes enough to compare and contrast recruits and their rankings, to see if they're properly rated or passed over. You'd rather take the word of a bunch of people who are somehow supposed to be able to properly evaluate every player attempting to play college football, which you know cannot happen.
So we should see your word as credible because~?

 

[THE_OAK]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by jnewc2:
Come on now, no offense, but this sounds like an attempt to put a positive spin on what was possibly the worst collapse of a signing class in the country.

"The most underrated class in the country"? Come on guys, there are times where you can't put a positive spin on these things; this is one of those times. The class ended horribly and now we're starting to sound like we did during the Brooks and Joker years saying "stars don't matter!" "He's a diamond in the rough!"

Sure there are some exceptional cases here and there, but overall, STAR RATINGS DO MATTER. Want proof? Go look at who the winningest teams in the nation have been the last decade. Now go look at what they're recruiting rankings were. Sure they're hit and miss sometimes, but for the most part a four star player is going to be better than a 2 or 3 star player.

Come on guys. We're starting to do the exact same thing that we've ripped Louisville fans for since Stoops' arrived and had whipped them in recruiting. Let's not make ourselves look foolish by using the "recruiting rankings don't matter" arguments that we make fun of them for.

I like the players we have, and I'm sure there are a couple of diamonds in the rough, but would I rather have all of the exceptional players that we lost? Absolutely, and you're kidding yourself if you don't agree.

This class ended terribly. Let's just call a spade a spade. We ended the season on a six-game losing streak and lost maybe our best recruiter in Neal Brown, let's call a spade a spade.

You lost your credibility with me when you stated that Neil Brown was UKs best recruiter. Some of your other stuff is shaky but that is pure BS.

He has quickly become one of the worst posters on this board, and that's saying something. To him Neil Brown is the greatest thing since sliced bread and every other coach on our staff is garbage. Just look at his post history, and anytime you call him out on it he will just stop posting in that thread. I swear he is related to Neil Brown or Neil Brown has something on him.

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by jnewc2:
Come on now, no offense, but this sounds like an attempt to put a positive spin on what was possibly the worst collapse of a signing class in the country.

This class ended terribly.

You have been pushing this agenda for a while in your posts. Probably shouldn't bring up other people's perception biases without acknowledging your own.