Just a little fact I've noticed RR and Kelly have in common re: recruiting.
Certainly, nothing earth shattering here. However, many have bitched and moaned about RR's classes being lower rated than LC's despite the fact that last year's class that actually got us as close to a full roster as we've been in four years is rated only .65 lower, using the RR system of 6.0, 5.9, etc., than the past five UM classes. In other words, no difference in measurable talent, but a lot more bodies.
Now it would be difficult for anyone to follow CW as far as recruiting as successfully under the Rivals * system, but I think there's much more to it than Kelly simply not taking advantage of the ND brand. According to the chart on front of this site, Kelly is bringing in an average player that RR would put at 5.69 or not enough for a 4th star, but potentially, pretty damn high.
Kelly's accomplishments at all stops have been judged significantly great, even though he took over for a UM coach that probably got some nice talent on board at CMU but Kelly was a bit wiser in knowing how to use it. Probably the same reason for the immediate gain at Cincinnati, where he did a much better job than Dantonio.
It's obvious to me, and should be to most anyone following recruiting that Rivals Ratings will cross paths with who these two recruit often, but by and large they both put much more emphasis on their own conclusions than that of Rivals and both, while taking their own choices, which incidentally are much higher than they've had at former stops, have been successful at all other stops.
I see nothing, actually the opposite that would indicate either will be a failure at their current positions unless they are not allowed to do the job they were hired for.
While both have had different measures of success early in their stays, with Kelly getting the nod for earlier returns, it is quite evident that both are able to produce teams capable of performing at a much higher level than their immediate (same conference)peers, and RR has taken in a step further, proving also he's able to so against the "nation's best," as determined by the media.
If all goes according to my belief of what these two hires will bring, expect a return of the ND vs. UM annual clash to have national implications once again, and it's not in the distant future.
What is your point?
This will enable the opening of the Three Star Mafia - South Bend Chapter
I question your .65 calculation. What is the average rating you are using for LC (and over what years) and what is the comparable number you are using for RR? But, if your math is correct and RR's classes average .65 lower than LC's, it is a significant drop. It is the exact opposite of "no difference in measurable talent."
that if .65 isn't significant, I'll take a team of 6.0's and he can take a team of 5.4's and 5.3's. Tis a mammoth difference.
but by and large they both put much more emphasis on their own conclusions than that of Rivals,...
I don't think there is any 'by and large' - my guess is that RR and Kelly both put 0 emphasis on the conclusions of Rivals.
...while taking their own choices, which incidentally are much higher than they've had at former stops, have been successful at all other stops.
I really don't know what you are saying here, as well as in most of the rest of your post.
poster was of much higher intelligence than those found on other sites. Due to that, I didn't think I'd have to break it down for you. I figured all knew all about Rivals, their RR rating, etc.
Here are the answers to your questions:
.65 is minute comparing two different classes with roughly 26 recruits. This was the total difference between the two classes, one under LC of about 6 years ago and RR's last haul, the one so many fans were up in arms about, labeling it the "worst UM class in the past ten years." A total, not individual difference of .65 is minute psychomatt, no matter how you do your math. Additionally, the RR ratings are done more for pro potential, not college. For example, we got the second or third best college bound center in Pace, but because Rivals doesn't think he has the body for the Pros, he doesn't get a 4th star, no matter that he's perfect for this offense.
As to bbb,, you couldn't understand "while taking their own choices, which incidentally are much higher than they've had at former stops, have been successful at all other stops." This was of course speaking of Kelly and RR's recruits and their past success.
If you read it again, I think you'll understand that the level of player they have access to now is much higher than in the past, and because they've been successful in the past with lesser players than they will have at ND and UM, the increase in talent will have the same effect here.
And to airvipermb,asking what's my point. My point is these two have both proven they know talent much better than Rivals, and are in on it much easier, so I anticipate if over-indulged faculty and ignorant writers serving them get out of the way, both will do well, despite the fear of some ill-informed fans who don't understand a damn thing about building a program.
I could go copy the definition of "minute" from Webster's and post it here, but I have a feeling you generally know what it means. So let me help you out with the math and maybe you will better understand why I asked you for yours.
On a 6.1 scale, .65 is greater than 10% (.65/6.1 = 10.66, specifically). That is hardly "minute". Additionally, I assume you realize that under Rivals' rating system, a 5.4 is a 2-star, a 5.5 (that would be .1 higher) is a 3-star, a 5.8 is a 4-star and a 6.0 is usually a 5-star. Notwhithstanding this, what you did is (a) choose one class for LC (which one, I still do not know) (b) compare that to RR's 2010 class and, by your math, determine the Rivals average rating for RR's class to be .65 lower and (c) conclude that is "no difference in measurable talent".
Trying to project the talent level of high school kids who have not even played their senior years yet is a tricky business and no doubt the ratings are imperfect. And different coaches with different philosophies and team needs will place different values on the same potential recruits. But suggesting that a class of 2-stars is not measurably different from a class of 5-stars is, to put it mildly, a very unique position to take. Of course, RR's class is not full of 2-stars, so I still am at a loss to understand your math. I am sure it all makes sense to you, though.
he's saying .65 total difference, not average
Why the hell he is using total difference rather than average when classes have different numbers of players is beyond me. I quit reading as soon as I figured out he had done that.
RichRod's recruiting has been solid, imo, so I don't see the need for all of this, anyway.
I understand that is what he is claiming now, I just don't believe him. He refuses to provide the data so we can actually see what he did. More importantly, here is his first paragraph:
Certainly, nothing earth shattering here. However, many have bitched and moaned about RR's classes being lower rated than LC's despite the fact that last year's class that actually got us as close to a full roster as we've been in four years is rated only .65 lower, using the RR system of 6.0, 5.9, etc., than the past five UM classes. In other words, no difference in measurable talent, but a lot more bodies.
First, nothing in this or any subsequent paragraph talks about total points. He references 6.0 and 5.9, which are individual player ratings, not totals. He also references individual ratings in the second paragraph when talking about ND. Second, his basic complaint is that too many people on this board have been bitching and moaning about RR's classes being lower rated. As best I can recall, the vast majority of people have not been complaining about the total points of RR's classes, but rather about the average rating of RR's recruits and, more specifically, about not enough 4 and 5-star recruits and too many 3-star recruits. So, what rational person would read his initial post and think he was talking about totals? Who the f%ck would even talk about a discrepancy of .65 when talking about totals? It's insane! If that is what he really meant with his initial post, it only highlights how poor his original post was because no rational person would have read it that way.
Adding to the confusion, his later comments reflect numerous discrepancies from his initial post. The only way I can explain the discrepancies is to believe he is now changing his argument because he realizes how absurd the initial post was. For example, in the first paragraph of his initial post he said he compared RR's latest class to UofM's last 5 classes. Then, in his subsequent comments, he claims he didn't do that but instead selected a single (phantom?) class from 6 years ago that had 26 players because he wanted the classes to have the same number of recruits. Well, which is it? Similarly, in the first paragraph of his initial post he claims that RR's most recent class added "a lot more bodies". But if he compared two classes with an equal number of players how could that be? Maybe my math is bad, but don't two classes with the same number of players add exactly the same number of bodies?
And then he has the balls to say we have "self-perceived importance" and to condescendingly tell us he did not think he had to "break it down" for us? What a d%ck.
RR's classes have been rated lower by the scout websites. Whether that is because we now do go after some athletes than fall through the rating cracks because of our scheme I do not know. But it seems that our classes have been a bit light on the top-end (5 star or top 100) talent compared to the past, which according several of the posters whom I consider more "knowledgeable" than I, top talent is one of the main things our team needs to upgrade. I love the kids on the team, and guys like Gallon who I believe was a 3 star but I am pretty certain will turn out to be better on the field and were way underrated. I just don't want to fall into the MSU syndrome always making excuses as to why we are not at the top or why our guys are better. Every team will find diamonds in the rough and every team will find talent underrated by the scouts.
I know it is blasphemy to some, but I would love for our class to be all 5 stars and not have to wonder whether we found a diamond in the rough, even if sometimes they are such.
However, despite that lower ranking I was amazed at the number of contributors from RR's first class. The number of freshman that made it onto the field their first year was astonishing. This could be because we had few RR type of players when he got here and we were changing scheme, but still that 2008 team was like half made up of freshman which is astonishing for a recruiting class no matter the ranking.
gallon was a four star and played in the all american game
EDIT: ah he was a 3 star on scout
you're putting too much stock in rivals ratings; shouldn't base whatever you're trying to say off of only a third of the data on the front page.
that BK's record after 2 years mirrors RR's.
Do you have a foundation for "... even though he took over for a UM coach that probably got some nice talent on board at CMU...?"
I just looked at the '02 and '03 (DeBord's last?) classes on Rivals. They're all 2-stars with one recognizable name (Dan Bazuin for '02, who got some NFL attention).
I'm inclined to believe that the turnaround was mostly Kelly's coaching.
Mike Desimone put out a nice chart that has the Avg. Rivals Rating by class from 2002 and on. On average RR is about where LC was for class ratings. The large discrepency that seems to appear is the large number of kids from those classes that did not play out their eligiblity. Either from injury, leaving early, or transferring. At the end of his tenure (not counting the 2007 class for obvious reasons) LC brought in a lot of 4 star recruits that left prematurely for transfers and injury. RR so far (even though it is still early on his classes) has not had the attrition that LC did at the end of his tenure. Hopefully this trend subsides and he will begin to retain talent from here on out. It is expected some will leave, but we cannot afford 10-12 from each class to leave. That is where the depth of talent was lacking in 2008 and 2009.
I thought you might be trying to say RR and BK have both been successful with lots of 3 star guys whose talents fit their systems.
but I got lost.
This post was completely incoherent. I agree that there's...
"...Certainly, nothing earth shattering here."
Hey, how do you do the yellow box? I've been trying to figure it out with no success.
There's a little quotation mark in the bar above the box you type in, between the bold/italics buttons and the outline buttons. Click it, and the text you type will appear tabbed over. Click again to end the quote. It won't be yellow when you type, but the box will appear when you submit.
The final result is something like this:
What the hell is the OP trying to say? I recognize all of the individual words, but something about the way he assembled them into sentences seemed to negate any meaning. This post reads like the combination of Charlie Brown's teacher and a vuvuzela-esque BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Sorry, now that you have explained it, I should have been able to figure it out.
post is made even more confusing by your use of "RR" to stand for both Rivals Recruiting and Rich Rod.
I don't think these players that RR and Kelly are recruiting aren't as good as the Carr recruits. They are rated lower because most of them are fit for a spread team, and usually have less NFL potential. Rivals and Scout want to be able to say that their star system is better than the other by who gets drafted early. Spread players usually don't get drafted as early as traditional/pro-style players.
At first glance I thought this post was about R.Kelly recruiting. I am glad it is not.