M. Humphrey WR commits to Arky.
- Thread starter opusdawg
- Start date
to have, given that apparently Alabama and Auburn didn't even recruit him, I certainly don't see Humphrey as making or breaking our recruiting class.
perhaps it is you just sucking yourself? We have had back to back losing seasons and you expected exactly what as far as recruiting?
Is we haven't gotten many of the big name guys. But overall, this is a very solid class when you consider our needs. Also of note, most of our best recruits committed early and therefore haven't generated the buzz some of the others have by staying uncommitted. If we get 6 Ws and a bowl next year, which I don't foresee being a big problem, Mullen's recruiting should really take off.
You do understand how those sites rankclasses, don't you? The point system they use. You guys are behind Ole Miss' class, and have6 more commitments at this time. Those rankingsmean nothing.Here's an example....if you signed 28 players who wereall 3 stars, and OleMiss signed 15, all4 stars, your class would rate higher using this system. Hopefully, you understand that.Lumpy Chucklelips said:
If you want to look at the classes in comparison, why don't you do average star of the players? In that scenario, we rate over .5 stars better, and 16th in the country. OnScout,you rate 9th, and only slightly higher than Arky and KY.
Now, I don't say this because I believe in the star system. I think itis a joke, after the first 25 or so players.But, since that was your argument, I just thought I would throw you a bone and give you anunderstandingon how bogus those class rankings are.
dont look at it like points system, class ranking, or stars, just use your common sense.
MSU offers the players they want early, then they work their way down. When we constantly miss on guys, its common sense the next guys WERE RATED LOWER BY THE MSU COACHING STAFF.
We offered Brunettie, Newton, C Thompson, Vincent Sanders, all very early in the process. Those were guys we really wanted, and we're missing out on the them.
<span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">This class is not nearly as good as I was expecting from this staff..</span>
MSU offers the players they want early, then they work their way down. When we constantly miss on guys, its common sense the next guys WERE RATED LOWER BY THE MSU COACHING STAFF.
We offered Brunettie, Newton, C Thompson, Vincent Sanders, all very early in the process. Those were guys we really wanted, and we're missing out on the them.
<span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">This class is not nearly as good as I was expecting from this staff..</span>
A class ranked in the mid 30's really isn't bad considering where y'all are right now. Next year, assuming y'all win at least 6, you'll see this turn around. The biggest mistake people have made is assuming the egg bowl made any difference in recruiting. It didn't (and it never does). Recruiting is about relationships.
First of all, your example is wrong. Four-star players get significantly more points than three-star players, so a class of 15 four-star players <span style="font-style: italic;">would </span>be ranked higher than one with 25 three-star players. If you don't believe it, look at Penn State's present recruiting class or Ohio State's 2007 recruiting class.
Second, it would not make sense to judge a class <span style="font-style: italic;">only </span>by average number of stars. According to this reasoning, a class with 10 four-star players and 1 three-star player is worse than a class with just 10 four-star players. That doesn't make sense.
Second, it would not make sense to judge a class <span style="font-style: italic;">only </span>by average number of stars. According to this reasoning, a class with 10 four-star players and 1 three-star player is worse than a class with just 10 four-star players. That doesn't make sense.
dbb49 said:
So what you're sayingis that thepoint system isa better indicator of a class than average star? If you really believe that, then there is no reason to debate this with you.
For the record, it depends on where that3 star is ranked nationally versus where the4 star is. Example would be if you hada 4 star QB, who was number 15 in the country, and I had the number 17QB, who was a three star.....this difference is insignificant. The question becomes how far down the list is that3 star player? Scott Kennedy came onYancy's board and explained the points system at one point, and it was then and there that I realized it was a complete joke. I tried to find it there, but couldn'tlocate it.
As for my argumentusing average stars, of course itwouldn't make sense with the scenario you provided. However, that would NEVER be the case. Im assuming that teams sign somewhere in the same ballpark on numbers., and that this number is significant. 20 or more players would be a good number to start. Now, I realize that a class of 20 4*'s would rank lower using average stars that a class with 20 4*, and 2 3* players, but that difference would be very insignificant. Maybe .05 or so. When you start getting into .25-.5 difference over 20or more players, it becomes a pretty significant difference.
You also have to consider the position a player plays, IMO. An example of this would be Dorsey and Newton. AlthoughDorsey is a 5*, and surely should help us this year, Newton, being a4*, would havemade a much bigger impact for you guys, assuming he played up to what people expected. So, it's not ALL about average stars. There are manymore things that go into it.
My point was thatin comparing this Ole Miss class to the currentState class, using the points argument is notaccurate. Even taking away your6 lowest rated players, and leaving yourself with 16 players, would have a significanteffect on your ranking using points.