What's silly is the observation that Tim was objective. I find it amusing you ignore the three most respectable recruiting services team rankings and justify Tim's weak reasoning by citing MaxPreps. Brilliant! Let's hope Tim rids us of Rivals, ESPN and Scout and simply rely on MaxPreps henceforth since they got the rankings right this year!.
what do you think the reason is that Rivals averages the star ratings of the players and not their RR score when determining team average? Logically, Rivals should know the correct method to determine how to use their numbers. Seems like we should take direction from them and rely less on our "expertise".
One reason Rivals may not use the RR average is the variance one encounters when there are several different (regionally-based) analysts do the evaluating. For example, hypothetical analyst Brian from the upper midwest region assigns hypothetical player Bosch a 5.7, whereas hypothetical analyst Tim from the upper Pacific coast assigns a player who (on tape and via measurables) is identical to Bosch a 5.9. This phenomena creates a subjective fissure that has a disparate impact on the overall team ratings. To adjust for evaluator variance on how they assign the numerical values to players, Rivals likely looks to the star grouping, which flattens analysts error.
In any event, in the UM v MSU ranking, again it seems like Tim still doesn't see the folly of his reasoning. In the instance of explaining OSU v ND, the Buckeyes lead in the Scout average and in number of commitments, a draw in the Rivals rankings, but trail the Irish in ESPN. Comparatively, the Wolverines lead in the Scout and ESPN ratings, a statistical draw in Rivals, but trail the Spartans by one in commitments. Given that Michigan only trails State in the number of commitments, and that by just one, and wins recruiting services war, the only logical conclusion is that the Wolverines should be ranked ahead of the Spartans. OSU and ND can't break serve according to the recruiting services, but are given the nod because of the one additional recruit.
Bottom line, one additional recruit by State should not tip the scales in their favor since UM players rate higher than the Spartans.
G_B's lack of class and smarkiness is just so pathetic. READ THE QUESTION, DUMB ASS! He didn't ask what service bestowed a coveted fifth star, the poster simply asked this board if anyone saw it as well. Drop the pompous facade - which is seemingly endemic among many of the "veterans" of this board - and quit acting so boorish like typical OSU fans.
Thanks for addressing the 5-star/4-star Tom Lemming issue in such a succinct fashion, and not like over half the poster in this thread who are such whiners. Let the development process begin!
While difficult to assess Cooper's intelligence through the nominal information available, I do trust the coaches discernment in all areas regarding recruiting. Therefore, to assert as Brad does that he "is a little disappointed" Hoke & Mattison haven't brought in a DT presupposes knowledge of DT's which were as of three weeks ago:
1) Open to adding UM to their list of possible schools
2) Open to reversing their verbal commitment of another school (Cooper)
3) Would be academically qualified (No more Demar Dorsey's, thank you)
4) Would be athletically gifted enough to play at Michigan
Let's face it, there weren't many prospects out there that would meet my minimal criteria. Unless one can offer other prospects, it is silly to say one is disappointed in the coaches effort thus far in trying to land a DT. Before getting negative, let's give Hoke a full year to recruit before asserting alleged deficiencies.
I suspect Tim will consider our angst regarding his rankings as first time poster nonsense, but the fact is I used to appreciate the insights provided by his blog postings, dating back to his pre-MGOBLOG affiliation. You can do better Tim, and you have a track record that proves it. Please seriously review your methodology and if it still makes sense to you, so be it.
So what you're saying is you have an ocular issue which skews your vision which results in a most nonsensical ranking. Come on Tim, exactly what's fair about your "eyeball test"? Frankly, your analysis doesn't pass the eyeball test. Combined with Brian's meltdown two weeks ago, this blog needs a serious vacation if it wants to be taken seriously again. Here's to hoping you will revisit whatever statistical tool(s) you use - beyond the reproachable eyeball test - and recognize it's not serving you well. How about recognizing that the three services you do use incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data in their analyses and then incorporate them properly into your rankings. There is no way any analyst worth a grain of salt could rank Michigan as low as you do, given the data from Scouts, Rivals and ESPN.
Recent Comments
What's silly is the observation that Tim was objective. I find it amusing you ignore the three most respectable recruiting services team rankings and justify Tim's weak reasoning by citing MaxPreps. Brilliant! Let's hope Tim rids us of Rivals, ESPN and Scout and simply rely on MaxPreps henceforth since they got the rankings right this year!.
what do you think the reason is that Rivals averages the star ratings of the players and not their RR score when determining team average? Logically, Rivals should know the correct method to determine how to use their numbers. Seems like we should take direction from them and rely less on our "expertise".
One reason Rivals may not use the RR average is the variance one encounters when there are several different (regionally-based) analysts do the evaluating. For example, hypothetical analyst Brian from the upper midwest region assigns hypothetical player Bosch a 5.7, whereas hypothetical analyst Tim from the upper Pacific coast assigns a player who (on tape and via measurables) is identical to Bosch a 5.9. This phenomena creates a subjective fissure that has a disparate impact on the overall team ratings. To adjust for evaluator variance on how they assign the numerical values to players, Rivals likely looks to the star grouping, which flattens analysts error.
In any event, in the UM v MSU ranking, again it seems like Tim still doesn't see the folly of his reasoning. In the instance of explaining OSU v ND, the Buckeyes lead in the Scout average and in number of commitments, a draw in the Rivals rankings, but trail the Irish in ESPN. Comparatively, the Wolverines lead in the Scout and ESPN ratings, a statistical draw in Rivals, but trail the Spartans by one in commitments. Given that Michigan only trails State in the number of commitments, and that by just one, and wins recruiting services war, the only logical conclusion is that the Wolverines should be ranked ahead of the Spartans. OSU and ND can't break serve according to the recruiting services, but are given the nod because of the one additional recruit.
Bottom line, one additional recruit by State should not tip the scales in their favor since UM players rate higher than the Spartans.
G_B's lack of class and smarkiness is just so pathetic. READ THE QUESTION, DUMB ASS! He didn't ask what service bestowed a coveted fifth star, the poster simply asked this board if anyone saw it as well. Drop the pompous facade - which is seemingly endemic among many of the "veterans" of this board - and quit acting so boorish like typical OSU fans.
Thanks for addressing the 5-star/4-star Tom Lemming issue in such a succinct fashion, and not like over half the poster in this thread who are such whiners. Let the development process begin!
While difficult to assess Cooper's intelligence through the nominal information available, I do trust the coaches discernment in all areas regarding recruiting. Therefore, to assert as Brad does that he "is a little disappointed" Hoke & Mattison haven't brought in a DT presupposes knowledge of DT's which were as of three weeks ago:
1) Open to adding UM to their list of possible schools
2) Open to reversing their verbal commitment of another school (Cooper)
3) Would be academically qualified (No more Demar Dorsey's, thank you)
4) Would be athletically gifted enough to play at Michigan
Let's face it, there weren't many prospects out there that would meet my minimal criteria. Unless one can offer other prospects, it is silly to say one is disappointed in the coaches effort thus far in trying to land a DT. Before getting negative, let's give Hoke a full year to recruit before asserting alleged deficiencies.
I suspect Tim will consider our angst regarding his rankings as first time poster nonsense, but the fact is I used to appreciate the insights provided by his blog postings, dating back to his pre-MGOBLOG affiliation. You can do better Tim, and you have a track record that proves it. Please seriously review your methodology and if it still makes sense to you, so be it.
So what you're saying is you have an ocular issue which skews your vision which results in a most nonsensical ranking. Come on Tim, exactly what's fair about your "eyeball test"? Frankly, your analysis doesn't pass the eyeball test. Combined with Brian's meltdown two weeks ago, this blog needs a serious vacation if it wants to be taken seriously again. Here's to hoping you will revisit whatever statistical tool(s) you use - beyond the reproachable eyeball test - and recognize it's not serving you well. How about recognizing that the three services you do use incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data in their analyses and then incorporate them properly into your rankings. There is no way any analyst worth a grain of salt could rank Michigan as low as you do, given the data from Scouts, Rivals and ESPN.