Search results

Pope was a sick prospect. 5*. He will be good.

Nice pick up. Finally, we are getting some talent and depth at DT.

Lmao.

Saying it in advance has credibility as to that kid. Anytime someone puts themselves on the line up front so they can be assessed later, that’s worthy of notice. Now I love D$, but he is a known optimist who has also been high on kids who didn’t turn out as good. It’s hard to view any one...

I now see the disconnect. No one here is saying that rivals is right because they say so. That’s the opposite of what is being said. What proves the rankings is the nfl draft. 5* kids hit at a much higher rate than 4* kids, and 4* kids hit at a much higher rate than 3* kids. We got into...

lol. They lyin

For you to know that as certainly as you think you know it, you must believe in Fate and the Book being written already. What you are missing here is variance. Here’s an illustration: Two bets: - Option (a) pay a dollar, have two equal probability outcomes: $2 or $0. - Option (b) pay a...

Let’s do it. I will buy drinks to discuss.

I am not used to seeing you make such loose and controversial statements. CFB success impacts millions of fans. Some specific branch of cancer research may impact a small number of people you have never met, years from now. How to trade off those matters is not obvious, at least unless...

Here’s the challenge. If the rating services are systematically wrong in a predictie way on *some* kids, then there should be an algoritm that could tell you which kids they are likely underrating or overrating. An arbitrage algorithm in effect. Maybe its kids with good measurables from small...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I suspect you are right that Crowley is underrated, but note rivals has him as a 4* kid, not a 3* kid. Still, you have to be able to do this for a reasonable number of kids, and be more accurate on average than the services, for this debate to have any relevance. And Crowley is a weird...

Lu I was headed towards the topic you are mentioning. A huge gap in this discussion is a lack of understanding about what the rating services actually do. The _reality_ of what they do is a lot closer to compiling info on who is recruiting a kid and then rating kids based on who is recruiting...

Rivals had m. jackson as a 4* also.

you are confusing circular with uncertain. Paly’s gambling example is spot on. Buying a lottery ticket is a bad financial decision at the time you buy it. That is a certainty. It costs a dollar and has an expected value of much less than a dollar. Someone wins. Does that mean they made a...

Jerome Brown, Russell Maryland, Cortez Kennedy, Warren Sapp and Big Vince say ‘hi.’

You are missing an important mathematical point. Just take two pools of 100 kids. Say one groups has a 50% probability of being drafted in the nfl four years later, and the other pool of kids have a 5% probability of being drafted at the same time. It’s a mathematical fact that some of...

You have a point to make but undermine it by mischaracterizing what the ranking services actually do. They are not running probabilistic models. You are trying to present a rationale for what they should be doing, and it’s logical. But they just don’t do it that way. They are basically...

I find myself agreeing on the narrative point but not the math. It is entirely possible that the ranking services suck, are dishonest, not accountable and yet a probability model is still logically better and reasonably easy to assess. That kind of has to be the case because uncertainty has to...

The numbers were just hypothetical. You can adjust them to whateverr they should be. The point remains that the probability model contemplates some three stars outperforming some 5 stars.