'12 COLLEGE FOOTBALL OFF-SEASON (NSD, spring practice, summer sessions)

Michigan board melt downs coming in about an hour. A lot of "Oh noes!!!! Hoke can't close!!! Lol!!!"
 
Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

I Can't wait to see *BRAY THROW TO JHunt, Da'Rick, CordPat, Pig, Drae, & Croom

pimp.gif


GO F*CKING VOLS!!!
 
Originally Posted by ScarsOrScabs

Originally Posted by dreClark

^ A half Oz of Loud?

Syracuse will be in the Atlantic division of the ACC (FSU, Clemson, Wake, NC State, Boston College, Maryland)
Pitt will be in the coastal division of the ACC (VT, UVA, Miami, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke)
Nice.  We still have an easy road to the ACC Championship.  I know that's kinda like bragging about !$#+%*% a blind fat girl but whatever.

We've been in a committed relationship with that blind fat girl for quite some time now
laugh.gif
 
 
Originally Posted by firered18

Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

I Can't wait to see *BRAY THROW TO JHunt, Da'Rick, CordPat, Pig, Drae, & Croom

pimp.gif


GO F*CKING VOLS!!!

Mitchell, King, Marlon, Wooten, Bennett, Conley, Rome, Lynch, JSW, & Tibbs
What yall oline like? 
 
looks like center gonna be a problem again man. those shot gun snaps were worse than Pouncey's
other then that, gonna be nice with Tiny put in place at RT

ps after mitchell whoooo the hell are those fools???
 
nelson_agholor.jpg


It wouldn't be a National Signing Day without a potential NCAA violation by Lane Kiffin.

Around 8:30 a.m. on the USC campus, ESPN reporter Shelley Smith recounted a text message she had received from Kiffin about three hours earlier on the air, and possibly walked the Trojans right into a secondary recruiting violation.

"I got a text from Lane Kiffin at 5:15 this morning telling me to wake up, it was a big day and then I got a second text saying, 'We need to get Nelson,'" Smith said live on ESPNU. "Now, I'm not sure what last name because he didn't tell me that, there are a lot of Nelson's out there, but I'm going to guess that it's Nelson Agholor, a very highly talented athlete out of Tampa, Florida. He is expected to sign either with Florida or with USC in the next 45 minutes."

Here the thing: Coaches aren't allowed to talk about any recruit that hasn't signed a national letter of intent and as Smith noted herself, Nelson wasn't set to make his announcement until at least 45 later.

Whoops.

According to the NCAA:
Coaches can't talk about recruits before having a valid National Letter of Intent on file, and they can't attend NLI signings not on an institution's campus. Not allowing coaches to talk about the players they are recruiting avoids the "one-upmanship" that could (and previously did) occur between coaches in the recruiting process.


Lane-Kiffin1.jpg
Sadly, this isn't the first time ESPN has had a hand in helping Kiffin into a secondary violation. During Kiffin's brief tenure at Tennessee, he allowed ESPN to do an "Outside The Lines" piece on him and that segment included a scene of Kiffin having a meeting with a couple of recruits, which was a violation because media is not allowed to observe a coach having contact with a recruit.

That was just one of 12 secondary violations Kiffin committed in a 10-month span in Knoxville, all of them linked to recruiting.

Until today, Kiffin had been unscathed during his tenure at USC.

While Smith was probably just trying to use her relationship with Kiffin to give some depth to her report, it definitely backfired. USC probably won't get more than a slap on the wrist for this, but perhaps Kiffin needs to be a little more careful about what he says.


laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
at the people calling for more sanctions on usc because of this. college football fans are clowns.
 
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what’s-5...cting-future-team-success-recruiting-rankings
Not from the article but a poster's summary:

In short, there’s a low correlation between recruiting rankings and success on offense (besides QB), but a high one between recruiting rankings and success on defense (in all defensive positions). Even the correlation for QB is lower than the correlation for any defensive group between recruiting and success. That makes sense, as you can coach up the O-Line, RB’s, QB’s, and even WR’s & then put them in a scheme that best utilizes their strengths without exposing their weaknesses (for instance, turning a lightly recruited and lowly ranked average-sized guy with average speed but good hands & who is fearless in to a great slot receiver), but defense is more about reacting, where sheer physical talent is very important, and it’s very hard to hide a weakness, as the opposing team would look to exploit it.


If we based recruiting analyses on these suppositions, which schools really won recruiting? I know FSU would be one due to it's highly-rated D-line class. Who else? 

And to those who truly following this stuff, what do you think about the article?
 
How would you reassess recruiting rankings based on that though? Would you take points away from Oregon because DeAnthony is really only good at one thing - getting the ball in the open field and out-athleting other players? obviously in a pure RB or WR analysis he's not as good as any of the top guys and only works in a system like this, but how would u portray that statistically in a ranking because he's sooooo good at the very little he can do.
 
I think you misunderstood my post.

If you agree with the results, that defensive players are far more likely to succeed (i.e. positive impact to team) than top-ranked offensive players, then we can reassess rankings by downgrading teams with more top offensive recruits than defensive and vice versa. It's more of a toss-up with offensive talent, save for the QB, as opposed to all defensive talent. Again, this is according to the regression analysis.

With that said, who cleaned up more on the defensive side of the ball and who leaned more towards offense?
 
Ah.. well then my guess is based off shear numbers (the 28 signees) Bama will always be at the top and the other teams that sign tons of players each class (LSU, Texas) are going to be up there too.
 
It is a different way to look at recruiting as a whole but to me recruiting is just something to keep me occupied when it is not a Saturday from August until December.... Offer lists are always a good tell and I hate it when people go crazy over what a recruit did in shorts.... Film is very subjective because the majority of it is chopped and 99% of fans only get the highlights.... Player development is obviously something that needs to be hitting at a huge clip for your team to be a contender.... Tressell's classes were always respectable but rarely were vying for the top spot.... His staffs just busted their tails in the offseason to get guys physically ready whether they were 1st or 3rd stringers, 3 or 5 stars.... How they could reload those LB corps was beyond me and something I hope Mattison and Mark Smith can do at Michigan
 
Originally Posted by HankMoody

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what’s-5...cting-future-team-success-recruiting-rankings
Not from the article but a poster's summary:

In short, there’s a low correlation between recruiting rankings and success on offense (besides QB), but a high one between recruiting rankings and success on defense (in all defensive positions). Even the correlation for QB is lower than the correlation for any defensive group between recruiting and success. That makes sense, as you can coach up the O-Line, RB’s, QB’s, and even WR’s & then put them in a scheme that best utilizes their strengths without exposing their weaknesses (for instance, turning a lightly recruited and lowly ranked average-sized guy with average speed but good hands & who is fearless in to a great slot receiver), but defense is more about reacting, where sheer physical talent is very important, and it’s very hard to hide a weakness, as the opposing team would look to exploit it.
If we based recruiting analyses on these suppositions, which schools really won recruiting? I know FSU would be one due to it's highly-rated D-line class. Who else? 

And to those who truly following this stuff, what do you think about the article?

Essentially, if you skip past all those confusing charts and to the summary like I did when I first read this, rankings matter more on defense.  You can have alright offenses with lower ranked guys if they are developed right.  Sort of like Brian Kelly saying I need to recruit defense because I can manufacture offense.
 
Why do you ignore my posts Gunna?
frown.gif
. It's bout that defense or what? Y'all the recruiting heads. Damn near know every player under 18 in the South. No Sandusky. Too soon but IDGAF.
 
Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

did this pot head post a bleacher report link as if that was some informative expert analysis?
ASDCJKE
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
Bleachr Report articles should be an auto ban. I thought he quit smoking for the new year?
laugh.gif
 
laugh.gif
Gunna ignores everyone's posts, it's not personal.

If it doesn't deliver teh lulz or contain some info he wants/needs he just hits you with the "insert no name Tennessee player here dismissed for insert marijuana or armed petit larceny related crime here damn, but on a bright note insert random 5 star southern wide receiver here to UTk. Welcome to Death Row young blood.
2pac-x-Death-Row-Chain-x-eBay-x-iSneach.jpg
"
 
Back
Top Bottom