keying on 3 commits

[jaffarosenfels]

I'll tell you one thing, we are in no danger of seeing a Jon Licklighter type anytime soon. We are discussing the POSSIBILITY of having a 6'5" guy with super long arms and nice hops possibly being our PG and Phantom thinks we should zag.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:
I'll tell you one thing, we are in no danger of seeing a Jon Licklighter type anytime soon. We are discussing the POSSIBILITY of having a 6'5" guy with super long arms and nice hops possibly being our PG and Phantom thinks we should zag.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I'm intrigued that William's own AAU coach said he thought Williams would come into Iowa as a wing, but would become a point guard.

And, the thing that I think is really important? It's not that Moss, Fleming or even Williams MIGHT have the skills to play point, or not, it's that we should have greatly improved ball handling across the wings. It was really tough missing Marble's 118 assists from last season. Helping get guys open off creating his own shot took a ton of pressure off the point.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:


People are always going to be excited about incoming players on some level. He sees it as people touting the next Fab 5 but there is nothing to that extent. Why make that crap up Phantom?

In the end, I guess I'd rather be a bit optimistic and point out what players can do rather then the opposite. I have no problem that others do and the debate can be fun but they haven't even stepped on the court yet. Why not try to be a little bit positive about a 17-18 year old kid who chose to play for your favorite team?

I think he just doesn't like Fran. That's fair though as he's not alone. For most fans I think it's less not liking Fran and more he's not Fred. You're gonna get that.

I'm not making up anything. Hyperbole? Yes. However, people over-hype the Iowa recruits then are surprised when they don't live up to expectations. Every team in the conference has good players coming in. Fran is not bringing in the same level of talent of many schools in the conference. This is just reality. Outside of DanL, very few people think ratings are meaningless. There's a reason Ky is undefeated. They have a roster filled with highly rated kids. The same with Duke, Az, etc. We saw the same thing in football with people like Kilfoy trying to tell everyone stars don't matter. Of course they do. There's a reason that every team who's won the BCS championship has had at least 2 recruiting classes ranked in the top 10 prior to winning the championship.

A bit optimistic? Maybe you are but many are off the charts optimistic with these players. What's wrong with being objective? If you don't unfairly place expectations on these kids coming in (which is what you are really doing) then you won't be upset when they turn out to be nothing more than a Josh O. You are doing a disservice to these kids. It's not optimism. It's putting unrealistic expectations on them. I'm trying to temper the hype and get you to come down out of the clouds so then you aren't upset when Williams isn't avg 15 pts a game his junior year (I'm not saying he won't but don't expect it).

I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach. That's subjective. I'm tired of the stupid technicals, like the one at the end of the PSU game, the poor game coaching, and his inability to bring in higher rated talent. Just my opinion but I don't think Fran holds a candle to Matta, Bo, Izzo and several other B1G coaches. I think he's a gimmick coach. His press and running style worked at small schools because he was able to recruit more talent than the other schools in those conferences. It's not going to happen at Iowa.

And just so Dan or someone else doesn't misrepresent my position, I don't think Fran should be fired. He's a decent coach but I don't see him taking Iowa to the next level. I don't see him doing what Bennett and Bo did at Wis. I could care less if "he's not Fred". I don't watch ISU until the tournament, so I don't care what Fred does. Well, I'll give him credit for the success he's had at ISU and wouldn't mind him as the next Bulls coach if they fire Thibs. I want Fran to be more like Bo or Thad or Izzo. Guys who are great teachers, great recruiters and great game coaches. The B1G is loaded with some good coaches, it's not going to get any easier.

Good post Jaff.

Phantom, again, my opinion on rankings is that outside the top 35 or so players, the rankings are pretty much meaningless. Dang but I've repeatedly corrected the misinformation you put out concerning my opinion. And it is unfortunate that to make a point you have to resort to deceptive practices.

Kind of ruins any chance you have of getting any respect for you or your opinions from me.

I've asked you before to provide some kind of study/statistical evidence to support your rankings opinion. I'm still waiting for even the slightest evidence to support your position. I'll likely grow old waiting for you to support this claim up.

I'm not really concerned what your opinion is of me. When you write what you did in your final paragraph (in the previous message) it speaks volumes to your maturity level, and makes it impossible to hold an adult discussion with you.

This paper is interesting and seems to directly support Dan's proposition that differences in rankings among players outside the top tier are less meaningful than ranking players within the top tier.

Put another way: recruiting matters in separating the "elite" from the "good." Thus, it is significant that some Big 10 schools, like OSU for example, are bringing in terrific classes that easily out-rank Iowa. However, it is not signifcant that some teams like Nebraska might rank slightly higher than Iowa in terms of being ranked in the middle of the pack in the Big 10.

Part of the study discussed in the linked article separates players into quintiles based on recruiting rankings. What it finds is that there is a significant difference between Q1 and Q2 in terms of correlating recruiting ranking with production efficiency once in college. However, there is not a significant difference between Q2 and Q3. In other words, if you rank outside the top 100, the difference between two middle-of-the-pack recruits is not significant -- it's kind of a crapshoot.

With all this said, I agree with Phantom's overall point that many Iowa fans tend to overhype the incoming recruits. There is no legitimate argument that Iowa's recruiting class is better than most other Big 10 schools, because the fact of the matter is that most experts rank the other Big 10 schools' classes ahead of Iowa's. At best there is no meaningful difference between Iowa's class and the rest of the Big 10.


Link

 

[jaffarosenfels]

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:
I'll tell you one thing, we are in no danger of seeing a Jon Licklighter type anytime soon. We are discussing the POSSIBILITY of having a 6'5" guy with super long arms and nice hops possibly being our PG and Phantom thinks we should zag.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I'm intrigued that William's own AAU coach said he thought Williams would come into Iowa as a wing, but would become a point guard.

And, the thing that I think is really important?  It's not that Moss, Fleming or even Williams MIGHT have the skills to play point, or not, it's that we should have greatly improved ball handling across the wings.  It was really tough missing Marble's 118 assists from last season.  Helping get guys open off creating his own shot took a ton of pressure off the point.

 

Great point. The most natural fit is probably at the 2G with these 3 and all will bring things immediately Jok doesn't bring. Whether it's better ball handling, the ability to finish above the rim, defending more effectively, or even creating for others.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:



People are always going to be excited about incoming players on some level. He sees it as people touting the next Fab 5 but there is nothing to that extent. Why make that crap up Phantom?

In the end, I guess I'd rather be a bit optimistic and point out what players can do rather then the opposite. I have no problem that others do and the debate can be fun but they haven't even stepped on the court yet. Why not try to be a little bit positive about a 17-18 year old kid who chose to play for your favorite team?

I think he just doesn't like Fran. That's fair though as he's not alone. For most fans I think it's less not liking Fran and more he's not Fred. You're gonna get that.

I'm not making up anything. Hyperbole? Yes. However, people over-hype the Iowa recruits then are surprised when they don't live up to expectations. Every team in the conference has good players coming in. Fran is not bringing in the same level of talent of many schools in the conference. This is just reality. Outside of DanL, very few people think ratings are meaningless. There's a reason Ky is undefeated. They have a roster filled with highly rated kids. The same with Duke, Az, etc. We saw the same thing in football with people like Kilfoy trying to tell everyone stars don't matter. Of course they do. There's a reason that every team who's won the BCS championship has had at least 2 recruiting classes ranked in the top 10 prior to winning the championship.

A bit optimistic? Maybe you are but many are off the charts optimistic with these players. What's wrong with being objective? If you don't unfairly place expectations on these kids coming in (which is what you are really doing) then you won't be upset when they turn out to be nothing more than a Josh O. You are doing a disservice to these kids. It's not optimism. It's putting unrealistic expectations on them. I'm trying to temper the hype and get you to come down out of the clouds so then you aren't upset when Williams isn't avg 15 pts a game his junior year (I'm not saying he won't but don't expect it).

I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach. That's subjective. I'm tired of the stupid technicals, like the one at the end of the PSU game, the poor game coaching, and his inability to bring in higher rated talent. Just my opinion but I don't think Fran holds a candle to Matta, Bo, Izzo and several other B1G coaches. I think he's a gimmick coach. His press and running style worked at small schools because he was able to recruit more talent than the other schools in those conferences. It's not going to happen at Iowa.

And just so Dan or someone else doesn't misrepresent my position, I don't think Fran should be fired. He's a decent coach but I don't see him taking Iowa to the next level. I don't see him doing what Bennett and Bo did at Wis. I could care less if "he's not Fred". I don't watch ISU until the tournament, so I don't care what Fred does. Well, I'll give him credit for the success he's had at ISU and wouldn't mind him as the next Bulls coach if they fire Thibs. I want Fran to be more like Bo or Thad or Izzo. Guys who are great teachers, great recruiters and great game coaches. The B1G is loaded with some good coaches, it's not going to get any easier.

Good post Jaff.

Phantom, again, my opinion on rankings is that outside the top 35 or so players, the rankings are pretty much meaningless. Dang but I've repeatedly corrected the misinformation you put out concerning my opinion. And it is unfortunate that to make a point you have to resort to deceptive practices.

Kind of ruins any chance you have of getting any respect for you or your opinions from me.

I've asked you before to provide some kind of study/statistical evidence to support your rankings opinion. I'm still waiting for even the slightest evidence to support your position. I'll likely grow old waiting for you to support this claim up.

I'm not really concerned what your opinion is of me. When you write what you did in your final paragraph (in the previous message) it speaks volumes to your maturity level, and makes it impossible to hold an adult discussion with you.

This paper is interesting and seems to directly support Dan's proposition that differences in rankings among players outside the top tier are less meaningful than ranking players within the top tier.

Put another way: recruiting matters in separating the "elite" from the "good." Thus, it is significant that some Big 10 schools, like OSU for example, are bringing in terrific classes that easily out-rank Iowa. However, it is not signifcant that some teams like Nebraska might rank slightly higher than Iowa in terms of being ranked in the middle of the pack in the Big 10.

Part of the study discussed in the linked article separates players into quintiles based on recruiting rankings. What it finds is that there is a significant difference between Q1 and Q2 in terms of correlating recruiting ranking with production efficiency once in college. However, there is not a significant difference between Q2 and Q3. In other words, if you rank outside the top 100, the difference between two middle-of-the-pack recruits is not significant -- it's kind of a crapshoot.

With all this said, I agree with Phantom's overall point that many Iowa fans tend to overhype the incoming recruits. There is no legitimate argument that Iowa's recruiting class is better than most other Big 10 schools, because the fact of the matter is that most experts rank the other Big 10 schools' classes ahead of Iowa's. At best there is no meaningful difference between Iowa's class and the rest of the Big 10.

Thank you:

"The study was able to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that shows that if a player is highly ranked, they will help the team they compete on to appear in more NCAA tournament games, to win conference regular season championships, or to become conference tournament champions."

How is that possible? What about Kentucky? The TOP ranked players are accurately assessed often enough that a team like Kentucky, which has signed something like 21 five star players in the last five years, will beat the odds with shear numbers. They WILL get enough top talent.

What I've argued, many times, is the further from the top the rankings get, the more likely they are wrong. This can be demonstrated simply by comparing services. Now, around the 35th player (depending) the errors begin to outweigh the accuracy and though there will be SOME slight advantage in those players ranked in the top 35-75 as compared to 76-150, etc, the advantages are such a small factor that the rankings are pretty much useless.

No team needs five guys that could score 20 points a game. Not if none of them wish to rebound. Not if none of them get along.

One thing I fear, is Phantom will latch onto the fact that the study you found used only a little over 200 players. Here comes his traditional "small sample size!" argument. The one where he reveals a complete lack of understanding of what a healthy sample really is!

Or, he could drag out an old football study that and then make the claim that basketball should be easier to scout. Claims that can't be proven or disproven but that I would dispute.

Most likely, he'll use his tired, "That's not what you said", fairy tale.

I am so VERY glad you found this study, Ican't. And, if I look hard enough I could find the post where I completely agree with you regarding the current class of recruits. In no way would I claim it is better than Illinois, Ohio State, or Michigan State...but I will say it is POSSIBLE, unlikely but possible, it could be as high as fourth....and probably closer to the middle of the pack, maybe (getting unlikely again) even as low as tenth.

BUT, that is measuring individual talent. Again, there is more to basketball. My old expression, "While other teams may sign four aces, we can still build a straight flush!"

 

[hooper56]

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach.

________________________________

I respect your right to have an opinion but the facts tell a different story. Fran has absolutely won everywhere he has ever coached. Everywhere. It isn't even debateable. There is really no reason to dialogue with you any further.

 

[combes]

I saw Simeon last night. All three BT recruits were bad in a loss to Normal Community. DJ Williams had 9, Morrow 7, Moss 6. Shocking result. Season over.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Originally posted by combes:
I saw Simeon last night. All three BT recruits were bad in a loss to Normal Community. DJ Williams had 9, Morrow 7, Moss 6. Shocking result. Season over.

Thanks for the update.

Also, I asked before in the middle of a long post, but how much of Hutton have you seen?

I was curious so I read some more articles on him yesterday and I guess he averaged around 12-14 points last year and is putting up similar numbers this year. Apparently he also plays the 4 position in HS and I couldn't find much about how his outside game is going other than one article recapping a game in which he hit back-to-back three's in the first half of a blowout earlier this season (the article mentioned he was driving and making plays at-will).

There are a lot of comparisons to Alando Tucker who also played the 4 in HS and this is what Bo Ryan told Hutton during his recruitment. What would you think of this comparison?

I appreciate your input for the same reasons Phantom does -- Iowa fans are always going to give a sunny review of Iowa recruits so it's hard to put much weight into such reviews. But when you say you like a recruit like Christian Williams, it gives such praise much more weight.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Originally posted by DanL53:




Thank you:

"The study was able to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that shows that if a player is highly ranked, they will help the team they compete on to appear in more NCAA tournament games, to win conference regular season championships, or to become conference tournament champions."

How is that possible? What about Kentucky? The TOP ranked players are accurately assessed often enough that a team like Kentucky, which has signed something like 21 five star players in the last five years, will beat the odds with shear numbers. They WILL get enough top talent.

What I've argued, many times, is the further from the top the rankings get, the more likely they are wrong. This can be demonstrated simply by comparing services. Now, around the 35th player (depending) the errors begin to outweigh the accuracy and though there will be SOME slight advantage in those players ranked in the top 35-75 as compared to 76-150, etc, the advantages are such a small factor that the rankings are pretty much useless.

No team needs five guys that could score 20 points a game. Not if none of them wish to rebound. Not if none of them get along.

One thing I fear, is Phantom will latch onto the fact that the study you found used only a little over 200 players. Here comes his traditional "small sample size!" argument. The one where he reveals a complete lack of understanding of what a healthy sample really is!

Or, he could drag out an old football study that and then make the claim that basketball should be easier to scout. Claims that can't be proven or disproven but that I would dispute.

Most likely, he'll use his tired, "That's not what you said", fairy tale.

I am so VERY glad you found this study, Ican't. And, if I look hard enough I could find the post where I completely agree with you regarding the current class of recruits. In no way would I claim it is better than Illinois, Ohio State, or Michigan State...but I will say it is POSSIBLE, unlikely but possible, it could be as high as fourth....and probably closer to the middle of the pack, maybe (getting unlikely again) even as low as tenth.

BUT, that is measuring individual talent. Again, there is more to basketball. My old expression, "While other teams may sign four aces, we can still build a straight flush!"

Something else that should be mentioned is that even with the teams in the Big 10 that are recruiting at an elite level, many of those players are going to be gone after 1 or 2 years. Therefore, in 4 years, a team with a similar recruiting class that Iowa has coming in could still compete for a Big 10 title if at least 3 of those recruits turn into all-Big 10 caliber players.

Last year I believe we had the talent to really compete for the Big 10 title and that was largely on the backs of Marble and White (1st team all-Big 10 and 3rd team all-Big10, respectively). In addition we had a number of solid role players like Basabe, Olaseni, Gesell, Uthoff, etc.

The article I linked supports the strategy of not saving scholarships because of the middle-tier recruits, it's very difficult to project who will pan-out and who will not. Strength in numbers gives teams an advantage, especially if the recruits that don't pan-out (Ingram, Meyer, Dickerson) end up transferring to get more playing time. In that situation, there are two scenarios with offering someone like Williams: either he (1) turns into a solid contributor and it was worthwhile offering him, or (2) he does not have the skills to contribute, doesn't play, and transfers after a couple years. There is a decent upside without much downside.

 

[iowalaw]

So guys who average 20 points per game and are stars on their high school teams are not team players and we don't want them? That is mid-major coaching staff thinking.

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by iowalaw:
So guys who average 20 points per game and are stars on their high school teams are not team players and we don't want them? That is mid-major coaching staff thinking.

Keep the posts you are responding to in context and you will answer your own questions.

 

[jaffarosenfels]

Originally posted by iowalaw:
So guys who average 20 points per game and are stars on their high school teams are not team players and we don't want them?  That is mid-major coaching staff thinking.

No one has said that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:


People are always going to be excited about incoming players on some level. He sees it as people touting the next Fab 5 but there is nothing to that extent. Why make that crap up Phantom?

In the end, I guess I'd rather be a bit optimistic and point out what players can do rather then the opposite. I have no problem that others do and the debate can be fun but they haven't even stepped on the court yet. Why not try to be a little bit positive about a 17-18 year old kid who chose to play for your favorite team?

I think he just doesn't like Fran. That's fair though as he's not alone. For most fans I think it's less not liking Fran and more he's not Fred. You're gonna get that.

I'm not making up anything. Hyperbole? Yes. However, people over-hype the Iowa recruits then are surprised when they don't live up to expectations. Every team in the conference has good players coming in. Fran is not bringing in the same level of talent of many schools in the conference. This is just reality. Outside of DanL, very few people think ratings are meaningless. There's a reason Ky is undefeated. They have a roster filled with highly rated kids. The same with Duke, Az, etc. We saw the same thing in football with people like Kilfoy trying to tell everyone stars don't matter. Of course they do. There's a reason that every team who's won the BCS championship has had at least 2 recruiting classes ranked in the top 10 prior to winning the championship.

A bit optimistic? Maybe you are but many are off the charts optimistic with these players. What's wrong with being objective? If you don't unfairly place expectations on these kids coming in (which is what you are really doing) then you won't be upset when they turn out to be nothing more than a Josh O. You are doing a disservice to these kids. It's not optimism. It's putting unrealistic expectations on them. I'm trying to temper the hype and get you to come down out of the clouds so then you aren't upset when Williams isn't avg 15 pts a game his junior year (I'm not saying he won't but don't expect it).

I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach. That's subjective. I'm tired of the stupid technicals, like the one at the end of the PSU game, the poor game coaching, and his inability to bring in higher rated talent. Just my opinion but I don't think Fran holds a candle to Matta, Bo, Izzo and several other B1G coaches. I think he's a gimmick coach. His press and running style worked at small schools because he was able to recruit more talent than the other schools in those conferences. It's not going to happen at Iowa.

And just so Dan or someone else doesn't misrepresent my position, I don't think Fran should be fired. He's a decent coach but I don't see him taking Iowa to the next level. I don't see him doing what Bennett and Bo did at Wis. I could care less if "he's not Fred". I don't watch ISU until the tournament, so I don't care what Fred does. Well, I'll give him credit for the success he's had at ISU and wouldn't mind him as the next Bulls coach if they fire Thibs. I want Fran to be more like Bo or Thad or Izzo. Guys who are great teachers, great recruiters and great game coaches. The B1G is loaded with some good coaches, it's not going to get any easier.

Good post Jaff.

Phantom, again, my opinion on rankings is that outside the top 35 or so players, the rankings are pretty much meaningless. Dang but I've repeatedly corrected the misinformation you put out concerning my opinion. And it is unfortunate that to make a point you have to resort to deceptive practices.

Kind of ruins any chance you have of getting any respect for you or your opinions from me.

I've asked you before to provide some kind of study/statistical evidence to support your rankings opinion. I'm still waiting for even the slightest evidence to support your position. I'll likely grow old waiting for you to support this claim up.

I'm not really concerned what your opinion is of me. When you write what you did in your final paragraph (in the previous message) it speaks volumes to your maturity level, and makes it impossible to hold an adult discussion with you.

This paper is interesting and seems to directly support Dan's proposition that differences in rankings among players outside the top tier are less meaningful than ranking players within the top tier.

Put another way: recruiting matters in separating the "elite" from the "good." Thus, it is significant that some Big 10 schools, like OSU for example, are bringing in terrific classes that easily out-rank Iowa. However, it is not signifcant that some teams like Nebraska might rank slightly higher than Iowa in terms of being ranked in the middle of the pack in the Big 10.

Part of the study discussed in the linked article separates players into quintiles based on recruiting rankings. What it finds is that there is a significant difference between Q1 and Q2 in terms of correlating recruiting ranking with production efficiency once in college. However, there is not a significant difference between Q2 and Q3. In other words, if you rank outside the top 100, the difference between two middle-of-the-pack recruits is not significant -- it's kind of a crapshoot.

With all this said, I agree with Phantom's overall point that many Iowa fans tend to overhype the incoming recruits. There is no legitimate argument that Iowa's recruiting class is better than most other Big 10 schools, because the fact of the matter is that most experts rank the other Big 10 schools' classes ahead of Iowa's. At best there is no meaningful difference between Iowa's class and the rest of the Big 10.

Thanks for the paper..

You are giving Dan credit for something he never said. He didn't say the degree of variance becomes less pronounced after the top 35. If this was all Dan was saying he and I wouldn't have been arguing about this since the beginning of the year. From the beginning I've agreed with that point. Dan takes his stance to a more extreme and illogical position. Dan has basically said unless a player is ranked in the top 35, it doesn't even matter if they are ranked in the top 150 or not. This is wrong.

One of my jobs as a budget analyst was to explain price variance for the items my command was responsible. We found the top 20% of the cost drivers made up about 80% of the overall price change for our items. So, I'm well aware that there's a significant difference between as you say Q1 and Q2.

What Dan stated was the ratings, after 35, are meaningless. This isn't true. He even went further to say it doesn't even matter if a player is ranked in the top 150 (because I and others were criticizing the fact Fran was getting no top 150 recruits in the past couple classes). I used the example of the MLB draft. The top 10 players are clearly the positions that deliver the highest career WAR. However, it's fallicious to say there's no difference between the 11th pick vs the 30th pick. There is absolutely a declining WAR value as you move down the first round. It's not as pronounced as the first 1-10 picks but there's still a quantifiable difference. This is even more so when you compare the 15th pick vs a pick in the 2nd or 3rd round. To say a player ranked 36th (Dan's cutoff is 35) is no more likely to be a better than a player ranked 150 or not even ranked, is just factually wrong.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Originally posted by hooper56:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:


I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach.

________________________________

I respect your right to have an opinion but the facts tell a different story. Fran has absolutely won everywhere he has ever coached. Everywhere. It isn't even debateable. There is really no reason to dialogue with you any further.

So has Alford. Do you think Alford is a very good coach? There's a difference between good and very good.

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:



People are always going to be excited about incoming players on some level. He sees it as people touting the next Fab 5 but there is nothing to that extent. Why make that crap up Phantom?

In the end, I guess I'd rather be a bit optimistic and point out what players can do rather then the opposite. I have no problem that others do and the debate can be fun but they haven't even stepped on the court yet. Why not try to be a little bit positive about a 17-18 year old kid who chose to play for your favorite team?

I think he just doesn't like Fran. That's fair though as he's not alone. For most fans I think it's less not liking Fran and more he's not Fred. You're gonna get that.

I'm not making up anything. Hyperbole? Yes. However, people over-hype the Iowa recruits then are surprised when they don't live up to expectations. Every team in the conference has good players coming in. Fran is not bringing in the same level of talent of many schools in the conference. This is just reality. Outside of DanL, very few people think ratings are meaningless. There's a reason Ky is undefeated. They have a roster filled with highly rated kids. The same with Duke, Az, etc. We saw the same thing in football with people like Kilfoy trying to tell everyone stars don't matter. Of course they do. There's a reason that every team who's won the BCS championship has had at least 2 recruiting classes ranked in the top 10 prior to winning the championship.

A bit optimistic? Maybe you are but many are off the charts optimistic with these players. What's wrong with being objective? If you don't unfairly place expectations on these kids coming in (which is what you are really doing) then you won't be upset when they turn out to be nothing more than a Josh O. You are doing a disservice to these kids. It's not optimism. It's putting unrealistic expectations on them. I'm trying to temper the hype and get you to come down out of the clouds so then you aren't upset when Williams isn't avg 15 pts a game his junior year (I'm not saying he won't but don't expect it).

I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach. That's subjective. I'm tired of the stupid technicals, like the one at the end of the PSU game, the poor game coaching, and his inability to bring in higher rated talent. Just my opinion but I don't think Fran holds a candle to Matta, Bo, Izzo and several other B1G coaches. I think he's a gimmick coach. His press and running style worked at small schools because he was able to recruit more talent than the other schools in those conferences. It's not going to happen at Iowa.

And just so Dan or someone else doesn't misrepresent my position, I don't think Fran should be fired. He's a decent coach but I don't see him taking Iowa to the next level. I don't see him doing what Bennett and Bo did at Wis. I could care less if "he's not Fred". I don't watch ISU until the tournament, so I don't care what Fred does. Well, I'll give him credit for the success he's had at ISU and wouldn't mind him as the next Bulls coach if they fire Thibs. I want Fran to be more like Bo or Thad or Izzo. Guys who are great teachers, great recruiters and great game coaches. The B1G is loaded with some good coaches, it's not going to get any easier.

Good post Jaff.

Phantom, again, my opinion on rankings is that outside the top 35 or so players, the rankings are pretty much meaningless. Dang but I've repeatedly corrected the misinformation you put out concerning my opinion. And it is unfortunate that to make a point you have to resort to deceptive practices.

Kind of ruins any chance you have of getting any respect for you or your opinions from me.

I've asked you before to provide some kind of study/statistical evidence to support your rankings opinion. I'm still waiting for even the slightest evidence to support your position. I'll likely grow old waiting for you to support this claim up.

I'm not really concerned what your opinion is of me. When you write what you did in your final paragraph (in the previous message) it speaks volumes to your maturity level, and makes it impossible to hold an adult discussion with you.

This paper is interesting and seems to directly support Dan's proposition that differences in rankings among players outside the top tier are less meaningful than ranking players within the top tier.

Put another way: recruiting matters in separating the "elite" from the "good." Thus, it is significant that some Big 10 schools, like OSU for example, are bringing in terrific classes that easily out-rank Iowa. However, it is not signifcant that some teams like Nebraska might rank slightly higher than Iowa in terms of being ranked in the middle of the pack in the Big 10.

Part of the study discussed in the linked article separates players into quintiles based on recruiting rankings. What it finds is that there is a significant difference between Q1 and Q2 in terms of correlating recruiting ranking with production efficiency once in college. However, there is not a significant difference between Q2 and Q3. In other words, if you rank outside the top 100, the difference between two middle-of-the-pack recruits is not significant -- it's kind of a crapshoot.

With all this said, I agree with Phantom's overall point that many Iowa fans tend to overhype the incoming recruits. There is no legitimate argument that Iowa's recruiting class is better than most other Big 10 schools, because the fact of the matter is that most experts rank the other Big 10 schools' classes ahead of Iowa's. At best there is no meaningful difference between Iowa's class and the rest of the Big 10.

Thanks for the paper..

You are giving Dan credit for something he never said. He didn't say the degree of variance becomes less pronounced after the top 35. If this was all Dan was saying he and I wouldn't have been arguing about this since the beginning of the year. From the beginning I've agreed with that point. Dan takes his stance to a more extreme and illogical position. Dan has basically said unless a player is ranked in the top 35, it doesn't even matter if they are ranked in the top 150 or not. This is wrong.

One of my jobs as a budget analyst was to explain price variance for the items my command was responsible. We found the top 20% of the cost drivers made up about 80% of the overall price change for our items. So, I'm well aware that there's a significant difference between as you say Q1 and Q2.

What Dan stated was the ratings, after 35, are meaningless. This isn't true. He even went further to say it doesn't even matter if a player is ranked in the top 150 (because I and others were criticizing the fact Fran was getting no top 150 recruits in the past couple classes). I used the example of the MLB draft. The top 10 players are clearly the positions that deliver the highest career WAR. However, it's fallicious to say there's no difference between the 11th pick vs the 30th pick. There is absolutely a declining WAR value as you move down the first round. It's not as pronounced as the first 1-10 picks but there's still a quantifiable difference. This is even more so when you compare the 15th pick vs a pick in the 2nd or 3rd round. To say a player ranked 36th (Dan's cutoff is 35) is no more likely to be a better than a player ranked 150 or not even ranked, is just factually wrong.


"To say a player ranked 36th (Dan's cutoff is 35)"

If anyone is even interested in our little spat, Phantom, they will see through another of your fibs. They'll also notice the way you dodge the very study that just proved you wrong.

If you were truly any good at stats you would not be trying to hold me to 35, when I've repeatedly said AROUND 35. Player talent changes year in and year out. It's too bad you have to make things up.

 

[jaffarosenfels]

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:

Originally posted by hooper56:

Originally posted by PhantomFlyer:


I like Fran, I just don't think he's a very good coach.

________________________________

I respect your right to have an opinion but the facts tell a different story. Fran has absolutely won everywhere he has ever coached. Everywhere. It isn't even debateable. There is really no reason to dialogue with you any further.

So has Alford. Do you think Alford is a very good coach? There's a difference between good and very good.

4 out of 6 years conference champs at NM. I think some folks in that part of the country would say he is pretty darn good. Most schools don't sign coaches to 10 year deals in major sports if they are just good.
This post was edited on 3/18 3:42 PM by jaffarosenfels

 

[MattFoleyHawk]

Originally posted by 4th & 9 inches:
Thanks, Hawkeye2222, for telling us stuff we've all known for 6 months.

Did you hear we invaded Iraq?

This post was edited on 3/16 6:38 PM by 4th & 9 inches


You knew they were going to offer Williams 6 months ago? Really? You're one of those swami's or something.

"I see a recruit. Fran will offer him in about 6 months....It' coming through...He is a Christian, no,no, it's coming clearer. His first name is Christian.....
I see a Willford, no,no, it's Williams. Yes, Williams....Christian Williams.....Hmmmmmmmm...

You're 9 inches of short of a 1st down, alright. And running at about 400 baud!

 

[Hawkeye2222]

this has been discussed elsewhere and the consensus cutoff is "ABOUT" the top 35. to me it might be around the top 50.

51-151 it is a crap shoot as their talent goes. remember Burke was rated 142nd 3* and was a FR AA and turned Pro after 2 years. White was a unranked 3* and was a FR AA and just was named to the 1st team All BT, Marble was a unranked 3* and was drafted and actually started for a NBA Team, ranking are fun to look at and make good fodders for people to talk about only.

just like discussing where the cutoff is most consider 35, some consider 25. me I consider 50 as the cutoff.

just like I don't judge a player till after his SR season, I have seen way to may players that do very little till their SR Season, Lohaus was a McDonald AA and was going nowhere till after Dr, Tom Took him and used his ability to shoot the 3 at 7'0 as a RSSR, then he was drafted into the NBA,

May was another one that very few had time for till after his SR season, sometimes the light comes on FINALLY for a player as a SR sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Quintana]

Originally posted by Hawkeye2222:

... ranking are fun to look at and make good fodders for people to talk about only.

 

[DanL53]

That study ICan't linked...I almost hate to see it sink and be gone.

There are a lot of lessons that can be extrapolated from it. Not the least of which is that team recruiting rankings, which are based on player rankings, certainly MUST be taken with a grain of salt.

Perhaps we can stop worrying about whether Nebraska, or Northwestern, are "passing" us?

I still believe that services like Rivals have merit, but taking rankings as the all powerful tool of predicting future success? As shown, a fallacy.

Let me put it this way.

Home cooked meal = being patient and seeing the results when they ARE results
Box dinner prepared on stove = reading up on players, watching videos, going to PTL, reading rankings.
TV Dinner in Microwave = A quick check of a kids ranking and "instant expert".

 

[4th & 9 inches]

MattFoleyHawk posted on 3/18/2015...

Originally posted by 4th & 9 inches:
Thanks, Hawkeye2222, for telling us stuff we've all known for 6 months.

Did you hear we invaded Iraq?




This post was edited on 3/16 6:38 PM by 4th & 9 inches







You knew they were going to offer Williams 6 months ago? Really? You're one of those swami's or something.

"I see a recruit. Fran will offer him in about 6 months....It' coming through...He is a Christian, no,no, it's coming clearer. His first name is Christian.....
I see a Willford, no,no, it's Williams. Yes, Williams....Christian Williams.....Hmmmmmmmm...

You're 9 inches of short of a 1st down, alright. And running at about 400 baud!



*No, Gilligan-we've known about what type of player Williams is for over 6 months, not to mention all the info about the other players mentioned in this thread's original post. If you'd of read the first post to this thread you would know that.

It's okay-you're not the only person in this world a couple beers short of a six pack.

This post was edited on 3/19 10:54 AM by 4th & 9 inches