Coach Bell going back and forth with Hawknation on twitter.
- Thread starter Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll
- Start date
I don’t agree. I would rather not have a coach engaged in a high school pissing match on social media. Makes him look insecure.
The local media in ATL seems pretty convinced that one of those 5-stars (Eason) is going to transfer out.
I look at offers more than stars. Sometimes we get a 3* guy whose only offers are Buffalo, Central Michigan and Idaho. Other times we get a 3* offered by Michigan St, Missouri, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame and Wisconsin. I'll take the latter 10 times out of 10 as that kid will outperform the other 9 times out of 10. To that end, the staff must feel the player is coachable and a good fit. That being said, a team made up of 4* and 5* guys will beat a team made up of "hidden gem" 2* and 3* guys 9 times out of ten and will consistently compete for conference championships.
This is an important discussion to those that see things as black or white. Those that say "stars don't matter" or "stars are the most important" are both wrong IMO.
Of course stars "matter". Should a recruiter rely on star ratings to get players? Of course not.
Should a coach recruit a 4* harder than a 3* - NO! They should recruit the player that best fits their program.
Do recruiting rankings effectively determine who had the best recruiting class? Probably not, but it's the best indicator the fans have. The proof is performance on the field, and that won't happen for a while.
Of course stars "matter". Should a recruiter rely on star ratings to get players? Of course not.
Should a coach recruit a 4* harder than a 3* - NO! They should recruit the player that best fits their program.
Do recruiting rankings effectively determine who had the best recruiting class? Probably not, but it's the best indicator the fans have. The proof is performance on the field, and that won't happen for a while.
How much $ does Bama spend on football vs what Iowa can afford to spend? How many extra people in the Admin/operations, etc. That impacts it greatly also.
And yet still can't win anything of any important at all
ISU,Minnesota,Nebraska...everybody gets a trophy games.
Not bad at night games recently at Kinnick
Bowl games less than stellar
Better recruiting will win you more games
It's the Jimmy's and Joe's. Always has been, always will be.
Some Coaches are better at handling those Jimmy's and Joe's than others, but you give a half-assed Coach a roster full of 4&5 star players you're going to win, the only question is how much.
Coach Bell's belief is why Iowa will stay Iowa. Now that doesn't mean I'm shitting on him or know more than him when it comes to recruiting. But hey...
Howe and Miller could use to both learn some science and also some epistemology before they can claim to know something about "facts."
some coaches are able to look past everything but talent
you won't hear iowa players yelling **** the president, certainly not in front of cameras. you won't see iowa players on the field after they punch someone, attempt to attack their coach, and push a woman out of their way!
i can only imagine what goes on when cameras aren't around!! :crazy:
This is an interesting call. Hawkeyereport needs a data scientist (i.e. an unpaid intern) who examines the classes and the number of p5/g5 offers vs. player production.
Me thinks the kids who have been under-looked might be those who come out on top. For every Greg Garmon there is an Adrian Clayborn. For every Noah Clayberg, there is a Josey Jewel.
Lol...I'm one of the 20 people on this earth that had a Class that discussed epistemology. How do I know what I know? I don't know. You're nuts Ghost.
A lot of key ideas in epistemology are identical to what computer scientists care about when devising machine-learning algorithms. Thus, while epistemology at face value seems to be an extreme exercise in mental masturbation ... it is weirdly awesome how those ideas can be applied (at least as it relates to AI, pattern recognition, and machine learning).
Except its way more likely a garmon rating works out than a clayberg
Facts: alabama has won 5 of last 9 championships. Alabama recruits ridiculously good.
Fact: not coincidence
5.7 is a 3-star, 5.8 is the first 4-star. However, I firmly believe there's not much difference between 5.7 3's and 5.8 4's. I feel a team like Iowa falls off hard when we have injuries, do to lack of overall depth.
My small town Iowa roots make me very "afraid" of AI. But I am somewhat "educated". My humble assessment is that we are only nibbling at the edges of AI. The biggest impact people don't see coming is in transportation. The Jetsons is not that far away.
The transition from high school to college is extremely difficult regardless of the star rating. Yes some exceptionally talented athletes out of high school can make a difference and contribute. How many of these 4 or 5 star athletes have success in college and have a long NFL career? Very few! The star rating system is overrated!
Coach Bell is doing a great job!Kelvin Bell is a great man IMHO. And the fact that Kirk hired him says a great deal.
I'm following Bell. Those that don't can go to hell.
I like Bell, but he needs to avoid Twitter fights with college co-ed ISU fans. Especially when they prove him wrong with not much effort. Kinda embarrassing.
Good coach and recruiter though, probably just needs to sit down with Binns to go over Twitter arguments and such.
Good coach and recruiter though, probably just needs to sit down with Binns to go over Twitter arguments and such.
Why do people have so much trouble distinguishing correlation from causation? Stars correlate to winning, not because they are a determining factor, but because they are an imperfect reflection of an imperfect reflection of a determining factor.
That is, the stars largely reflect how much pursuit there is for a kid - who has offered him and how hard they're pursuing. This is an imperfect reflection because guys outside the footprint of elite schools are pursued less, guys who are solidly committed are pursued less, etc.
Then, the extent of a pursuit for a kid is an imperfect reflection of how good a player and prospect he is - evaluations aren't perfect. So, stars are a doubly imperfect reflection of who the best players are.
The composite picture of recruiting rankings imperfectly shows what we already know - what schools have their pick of players. But, we knew that before the rankings. The rankings were based on the knowledge of who got their pick of guys.
So, no, stars don't matter. Getting the best players matters. The rankings just sort of kind of approximate who did that.
There are also other determining factors. Namely, how well do you develop players and how well do you put them in a position to win by maximizing their skills and covering up their weaknesses?
That is, the stars largely reflect how much pursuit there is for a kid - who has offered him and how hard they're pursuing. This is an imperfect reflection because guys outside the footprint of elite schools are pursued less, guys who are solidly committed are pursued less, etc.
Then, the extent of a pursuit for a kid is an imperfect reflection of how good a player and prospect he is - evaluations aren't perfect. So, stars are a doubly imperfect reflection of who the best players are.
The composite picture of recruiting rankings imperfectly shows what we already know - what schools have their pick of players. But, we knew that before the rankings. The rankings were based on the knowledge of who got their pick of guys.
So, no, stars don't matter. Getting the best players matters. The rankings just sort of kind of approximate who did that.
There are also other determining factors. Namely, how well do you develop players and how well do you put them in a position to win by maximizing their skills and covering up their weaknesses?
