[Husker] A case for recruiting rankings

[Mike Jaixen]

It's so flawed it makes the whole article a
meaningless exercise.  2007 recruits made minimal
impact on those numbers, and 2002 results on the field
had very little to do with these recruits.

In addition, there's a certain chicken vs. the egg
argument to be made here.  If you were to throw out a
list of teams that were good in 2002, chances are that
you would have included teams like Oklahoma, LSU,
Florida, Michigan, and USC.  I think if I matched the
2002 ratings up against the 2007 ratings, I'd see
nearly the same results of this survey.

Especially when the author decides to exclude all of
the examples that break his hypothesis.  (UConn,
Hawai'i, and Boise State.)

--- Theodore Heise <theo at heise.nu> wrote:


> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, jon johnston wrote:
> 
> >
>
http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228
> >
> > The guy that writes this site, Matt Hinton, is
> very very good. 
> > Here he makes a case for the recruiters' rankings
> and does a 
> > pretty decent job of it.
> 
> Not bad, but using recruiting rankings and BCS
> winning percentage 
> from the same time period seems like a major flaw in
> the method.
> 
> -- 
> Theodore (Ted) Heise     <theo at heise.nu>    
> Bloomington, IN, USA
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> 
> Note:  Comcast has been bouncing a lot of list
> traffic recently.  The problem appears to be on
> their end.
> 


Mike Jaixen
Blog: http://huskermike.blogspot.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs