Damnit I have to post this

[fatty fat fat]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/theresaneil/BigXII_02_05.gif

[Leyton]

Holy crap.  Thank you.  I'm so tired of hearing "stars don't matter."

[purplecobra]

recruiting is the lifeblood of any college program.  always has and always will be.  great graph though

[sonofdaxjones]

recruiting is the lifeblood of any college program.  always has and always will be.  great graph though

The Nebraskatard Sock gets the Billy Packer Captain Obvious award for the day.

[Dan Rydell]

Well, I'll be.  Interesting how Tech is the outlier, there...with their gimmick offense and no defense until the past coupla years...kinda shows what you can do if you do something different than everyone else.

[FBWillie]

Holy crap.  Thank you.  I'm so tired of hearing "stars don't matter."

It doesn't matter for TTech

[Andy]

Holy crap.  Thank you.  I'm so tired of hearing "stars don't matter."

It doesn't matter for TTech

or a&m.  guess that means in at least 17% of the cases, how the players are coached is a key factor.

[FBWillie]

Atleast we're above that line!

[Racquetball_Ninja]

Fatty,

No worries, that's an inelastic supply curve, we'll be just fine.

RN

[ksuno1stunner]

oh my.  anyone out there willing to argue this???  anyone???

[chum1]

Here's a response one could make:

I'll grant you the claim that significantly higher ranked recruiting classes almost always tend to yeild significantly higher win percentages.  This claim, however, doesn't by itself entail something like the proposition that Prince should be making a better effort to land higher ranked recruits.  In order to establish something like that, you would need to do a lot more work.  You would need to show, for example, that it is not a case of Prince making its best effort and simply failing.  Generally speaking, ought implies can.  Right along those very same lines, lest we're too quick to find fault with Prince, you would also need to show that it is possible for any coach at KSU to land a significantly higher ranked recruiting class than the one we can reasonably expect for 2007.  Snyder doesn't help to make that case.  His classes were not ranked significantly higher.  And isn't it reasonable to expect that there is a limit on how high KSU's recruiting classes are ranked, and that this limit is much higher for other schools like Notre Dame and Florida State?  After all, people are always talking about the difficult task of recruiting to Manhattan, aren't they?  The bottom line is that you have a lot more work to do in order to show that Prince should be approaching recruting in a different manner.

I'm sure there are better responses.  I'll post any that come to mind.

[ksuno1stunner]

Here's a response one could make:

I'll grant you the claim that significantly higher ranked recruiting classes almost always tend to yeild significantly higher win percentages.  This claim, however, doesn't by itself entail something like the proposition that Prince should be making a better effort to land higher ranked recruits.  In order to establish something like that, you would need to do a lot more work.  You would need to show, for example, that it is not a case of Prince making its best effort and simply failing.  Generally speaking, ought implies can.  Right along those very same lines, lest we're too quick to find fault with Prince, you would also need to show that it is possible for any coach at KSU to land a significantly higher ranked recruiting class than the one we can reasonably expect for 2007.  Snyder doesn't help to make that case.  His classes were not ranked significantly higher.  And isn't it reasonable to expect that there is a limit on how high KSU's recruiting classes are ranked, and that this limit is much higher for other schools like Notre Dame and Florida State?  After all, people are always talking about the difficult task of recruiting to Manhattan, aren't they?  The bottom line is that you have a lot more work to do in order to show that Prince should be approaching recruting in a different manner.

I'm sure there are better responses.  I'll post any that come to mind.

bravo

[waks]

stunner seriously, you have caught up.

[chum1]

Here’s a better response:

If you look at a different timespan, you get an entirely different result.  From the mid-nineties through the late nineties, NU and KSU had the highest winning percentages in the conference yet their recruiting classes were not rated amongst the nation’s best.  OU and UT, on the other hand, did have recruiting classes that were rated amongst the nation’s best but had very average winning percentages.  Looking at this time period alone might make you think that recruiting rankings have little to do with winning percentage.  Similarly, looking solely at the graph linked above might give you the opposite impression.  In either case, the inference is a poor one.

[fatty fat fat]

Here’s a better response:

If you look at a different timespan, you get an entirely different result.  From the mid-nineties through the late nineties, NU and KSU had the highest winning percentages in the conference yet their recruiting classes were not rated amongst the nation’s best.  OU and UT, on the other hand, did have recruiting classes that were rated amongst the nation’s best but had very average winning percentages.  Looking at this time period alone might make you think that recruiting rankings have little to do with winning percentage.  Similarly, looking solely at the graph linked above might give you the opposite impression.  In either case, the inference is a poor one.

Recruiting services were garbage back then. No one paid $$$ for those.

You can't argue with the correlation. You just can't. And it will only get better.

[chum1]

Recruiting services were garbage back then. No one paid $$$ for those.

It's true that there weren't services like there are these days.  People still kept tabs on the best high school players, though.  For example, no one disputed that James Allen was one of the best running backs (most said the best) in the nation.  OU and UT were kicking ass in recruiting and they failed to get results on the field during that time.

[mjrod]

Here’s a better response:

If you look at a different timespan, you get an entirely different result.  From the mid-nineties through the late nineties, NU and KSU had the highest winning percentages in the conference yet their recruiting classes were not rated amongst the nation’s best.  OU and UT, on the other hand, did have recruiting classes that were rated amongst the nation’s best but had very average winning percentages.  Looking at this time period alone might make you think that recruiting rankings have little to do with winning percentage.  Similarly, looking solely at the graph linked above might give you the opposite impression.  In either case, the inference is a poor one.

Recruiting services were garbage back then. No one paid $$$ for those.

You can't argue with the correlation. You just can't. And it will only get better.

It's a horrible correlation.

The recruits in 2002 won't make an imact until 2-3 years later.   The successes of the teams in 2002 were from recruiting classes back in 1999 and 2000, which is not indicated on the chart.

When you guys make up these charts, you seem to forget the basic principle of data relevance.   I studied that chart for about 10 seconds before I realized, it's contextually WRONG.

[mjrod]

It's a &*$@!ing coincidence? 

It's not a coincidence.  It's two pieces of data brought together that has no bearing on the other.   The recruits that were used in that time period had LITTLE impact on the wins by the teams listed.

[mjrod]

r.   The recruits that were used in that time period had LITTLE impact on the wins by the teams listed.

Then why is the correlation nearly perfect?

Doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.  What you're saying is that the recruits for the class of 2002 played the games in 2002.  Do you agree with that?

[mjrod]

It's not perfect, but class of 2002 was significant in 2004 and 2005.

As you know, rivals doesn't past 2002, thus this is the best one can do.

And the correlation is incredible. It's statistically impossible to conclude "irrelevant"

How do you account for the success of KSU in 2002 and 2003 with very few to none playing during that time?  Your chart does not take that into consideration.  It's statistically, irrelevant.

[mjrod]

If you knew ANYTHING about statistics, concluding

It's statistically, irrelevant.

after seeing a r value of .95, will get you instantly failed.

It has nothing to with the construction of the sample, it has to do with your data in the model.  Anyone can make a statistic but the wins created in the 2002 and 2003 are with players that are not part of the sample.. hence your line, while nice, is meaningless.   Who cares how you constructed it, you can make it look anyway that fits your view.

I'm sure your professor would wonder why you chose two pieces of data that are not contextual.

[mjrod]

I'm sure your professor would wonder why you chose two pieces of data that are not contextual.

Obviously, they are.

So you agree that the recruiting class of 2002 was responsible for the wins win 2002.  That's what you're saying.  And if that's what you're saying, then prove it.

[Trim]

I think MJ's point is that the chart should compare recruiting rankings from '99-'02 vs. Big 12 winning percentage from '02-'05 or something close to that.

MJ, do you think that the schools' recruiting rankings would be so different if you adjusted the time periods that the correlation wouldn't work anymore?  

I don't think it can be argued that over 85+ man rosters, the teams that generally have higher-ranked players will have better results.  I'm aware that some highly-ranked players flop, and some low-ranked players are diamonds in the rough.  But over 85 players x 12 teams, better players will win more.

[FBWillie]

You guys are putting the egg before the chicken....


All this diagram showed me was that higher success rates on the field resulted in higher recruiting rankings in that year.  Not that higher ranked recruits resulted in higher success rates on the field in that year.  WELL DUHHHH YOU FRIEK'N DUMBA$$ES.  Do you think uSC has good recruits coming in this year? Did these recruits coming in this year effect the previous two NC's?

[mjrod]

The issue is lag time.   The recruits for 2002 had no impact for the wins in 2002.

fatty plotted with data that is not contextually accurate.   The premise of 85 scholarship players is not the issue, the issue is the two deep that plays on the field.   Generally speaking the two deep will include few if any players of a recruiting class of the same year.

[mjrod]

I think MJ's point is that the chart should compare recruiting rankings from '99-'02 vs. Big 12 winning percentage from '02-'05 or something close to that.

MJ, do you think that the schools' recruiting rankings would be so different if you adjusted the time periods that the correlation wouldn't work anymore? 

Plot it fatty.  What are you waiting on?

 

[mjrod]

Rivals doesn't go past 2002.

The only piece of data we have is the graph above.

It shows near perfect correlation. Most people who accept science know what to conclude. Others just need help.

You're looking awfully bad here.   Your data has been proven to be suspect, and it's clear you can't change it.  Bad science is a result of bad data.  You're being a bad scientist.

[mjrod]

Your using monkey data.

Answer the question, does the 2002 class have an impact on the winning percentage of 2002 campaign?

Yes or no?

Back your data up.

[mjrod]

You're ignoring the questioning of your data, and as a person of 19, I'd expect you to think you were right about everything as young people with no experience in the world often do.

However, you're wrong about the data, and since you refuse to address it, my conclusions are correct.

Your chart is meaningless.

[mjrod]

Answer the question, does the 2002 class have an impact on the winning percentage of 2002 campaign?

Apparently so. I don't argue with concrete facts.

So you admit, openly and willingly, that you know nothing of football.

Congratulations.