[Husker] A case for recruiting rankings

[Theodore Heise]

I'm not sure about the overachiever aspect (seems pretty subjective 
at best), but adding a stagger would sure seem to make the method 
more appropriate.

Ted


On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, jon johnston wrote:

> So... in order to make it work, you'd stagger the recruiting years 
> and the winning percentages, include more overachievers, and 
> that'd be okay?
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Mike Jaixen wrote:
>
>> 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.