Oregon vs USC

[sojourner]

For those who, like me, watched Oregon destroy USC last night and read in the paper today that Pete Carroll says that Oregon was "much too fast for them", how did that happen? Hasn't USC had one of the best recruiting ratings in the past 5 years? When has Oregon ever had a higher recruiting ranking than USC?

I am tired of these people who quote Rival rankings like they are gospel and don't even uderstand what the rankings really say.

[gerntz]

OK, let's forget about recruiting and just judge coaches on whether they win or not. Fine by me.

[sojourner]

gerntz,

Actually that would be fine with me as well. I thought the point was wins and losses not recruiting wars.

But what really chaffs me in this area are the poeple who quote something they don't understand. If they actually looked at the Rival rankings and studied them, they might realize that the rankings have an arbitrary math connected to them and, at their core, are based on subjective interpretations of ability.

[gerntz]

Originally Posted by sojourner

gerntz,

Actually that would be fine with me as well. I thought the point was wins and losses not recruiting wars.

But what really chaffs me in this area are the poeple who quote something they don't understand. If they actually looked at the Rival rankings and studied them, they might realize that the rankings have an arbitrary math connected to them and, at their core, are based on subjective interpretations of ability.

Which is why they are so flawed though not without some merit. They beat a random blind pick of HS players.

[Soldier1969]

Bottom line is that USC was (once again) way over rated (my opinion), was a great job to put them in their place, now I wonder when they start chanting national championship hopes because they beat up on USC. They do typically get a good haul of players, regardless of what anybody wants to give them credit for - they do recruit very well.

[Mark Blueblood]

The problem with ranking football players is that it is a crapshoot at best. If a kid plays basketball and is 6'10" and can run the floor and shoot - it's a pretty easy bet, he'll be a major contributor, if indeed not a star, at the college level.

Now...football? Whole 'nother story. For some reason predicting college success based on a high school career is just much more difficult to judge when it comes to football. Also, sometimes stars are assigned in retrospect - "Gee Southern Cal signed him, so he must be good" so the kid gets rated a notch or two higher than he should have.

All I know is - I HATE Southern Cal - and I was ecstatic they got clobbered!!

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Soldier1969

Bottom line is that USC was (once again) way over rated (my opinion), was a great job to put them in their place, now I wonder when they start chanting national championship hopes because they beat up on USC. They do typically get a good haul of players, regardless of what anybody wants to give them credit for - they do recruit very well.

You are correct, Oregon does recruit very well to THEIR system. But that is not something Rivals can project. All this focus on stars, and the incredible weight they give to a 5 star over a 4 star over a 3 star seriously skews any ability to realistically track recruiting.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Mark Blueblood

The problem with ranking football players is that it is a crapshoot at best. If a kid plays basketball and is 6'10" and can run the floor and shoot - it's a pretty easy bet, he'll be a major contributor, if indeed not a star, at the college level.

Now...football? Whole 'nother story. For some reason predicting college success based on a high school career is just much more difficult to judge when it comes to football. Also, sometimes stars are assigned in retrospect - "Gee Southern Cal signed him, so he must be good" so the kid gets rated a notch or two higher than he should have.

All I know is - I HATE Southern Cal - and I was ecstatic they got clobbered!!

I agree that projecting basketball is much easier. And I would submit another reason is that the good high school basketball players spend all summer playing each other in camps. This is something you really can't do in football. It allows for a much better assessment of relative levels of skills. In football camps you can get an idea of physical skills but not of heart.

Also it takes longer for football players to grow into big enough bodies to compete at the college level.

[boomdaddy]

It would be nice for a Florida football coach to say the UK was too fast for them after a UK win. Hey, if your gonna dream, dream big.