Search results

Sure. Although don’t use “how many,” use “% of.”

Lol. Wut?

Sure. But that doesn’t create recruiting. If I sell you a box of ****, eventually you’re going to stop buying the box. But that doesn’t speak to my ability to sell you the box.

I don't think winning creates recruiting. And I think the star system is usually pretty accurate. 3 * athletes can be dynamic athletes. I was responding to the sentiment above my post where somebody was arguing Flagg isn't exactly what we need because he's a cerebral type players rather...

That’s fine. If a staff at Miami can’t bring in a class full of dynamic athletes, it’s time to fire the staff. Not reach for a class of low-ceiling “solid” players. Pitt can have that class. Iowa can have that class.

I’ll pass on “solid” players.

You go ahead and link whatever studies you’re holding onto that shows the star system isn’t accurate.

Okay? It’s kinda silly to argue that a particular staff has the magic touch to where every one of their 3* players is going to be the underrated kid. Chances are, *on average*, your 3* players are going to be just like his 3* players.

Of course you can. Look at the way analytics has taken over all of sports. The early argument against it was: these are just a bunch of nerds that never played the game. Guess what? The nerds won out because they were right. The star system is very accurate. People can hate that. Any...