forums

Honest Questions re: Recruiting

Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
The first part is much easier said than done. Every season more talented teams (by blue-chip ratio) lose to less talented teams. And every season talent-rich teams lose to talent-poor teams.

O$U has a 76% ratio and lost to Purdue by 4 TDs this year. USC has the third highest ratio in the country and lost to Texas (55%), Stanford, and Utah -- respectable teams, but teams with a much lower ratios. That clown show f$u actually has a higher ratio (67%) this year than they did last year, and they lost to us (46% ratio), VT, and Syracuse. Penn State (53%) lost to Michigan State and was an OT score away from losing to App State. Clemson (56% last year) lost to Syracuse last season. Clemson also lost to Pitt in 2016 (Clemson was 52% in 2016). L$U (65%) lost to Troy in 2017. And Michigan (61% last year) got worked by Wisconsin worse than we did last season despite having a 20 percentage points on us (Wisconsin is definitely a bit of an outlier, since they seem to do pretty well the last few years despite all the 2* and 3* players on their roster).

As to winning 70% of games against opponents with equal or more talent, last year we beat an f$u team (65% ratio) and a ND team (56% ) with higher blue-chip ratios than ours, and we throttled a VT team with similar talent, but obviously got smacked around by a more talented Clemson team. This year, Miami has a 46% ratio and we are 1-1 against teams with better talent than us. That makes us about 60% against teams with equal or more talent since the start of last season. It's not quite 70%, but I think 70% is a big ask anyway.
Click to expand...

Great point.

People have a tough time understanding probability. Even very smart people struggle with it.

If Miami has an 80% chance of winning every single game on its schedule, fans will look at that and say we should win every game, and be disappointed when we don't.

In truth, if you play enough games, then that 80% chance means we are very likely to drop a game here and there.... even to lesser teams.

People don't get that.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
We have FAR more talent than any team in the Coastal. We should be like Wisconsin. Perennial division champ who loses in the Conf. Championship.
Click to expand...

I agree with this with the caveat that some years VT has been close. But I will also point out that if we win out this season and UVAg loses a game, that'll be 2/3 seasons meeting the expectation you just set. It looks like a big "if" right now, I know...
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
The first part is much easier said than done. Every season more talented teams (by blue-chip ratio) lose to less talented teams. And every season talent-rich teams lose to talent-poor teams.

O$U has a 76% ratio and lost to Purdue by 4 TDs this year. USC has the third highest ratio in the country and lost to Texas (55%), Stanford, and Utah -- respectable teams, but teams with a much lower ratios. That clown show f$u actually has a higher ratio (67%) this year than they did last year, and they lost to us (46% ratio), VT, and Syracuse. Penn State (53%) lost to Michigan State and was an OT score away from losing to App State. Clemson (56% last year) lost to Syracuse last season. Clemson also lost to Pitt in 2016 (Clemson was 52% in 2016). L$U (65%) lost to Troy in 2017. And Michigan (61% last year) got worked by Wisconsin worse than we did last season despite having a 20 percentage points on us (Wisconsin is definitely a bit of an outlier, since they seem to do pretty well the last few years despite all the 2* and 3* players on their roster).

As to winning 70% of games against opponents with equal or more talent, last year we beat an f$u team (65% ratio) and a ND team (56% ) with higher blue-chip ratios than ours, and we throttled a VT team with similar talent, but obviously got smacked around by a more talented Clemson team. This year, Miami has a 46% ratio and we are 1-1 against teams with better talent than us. That makes us about 60% against teams with equal or more talent since the start of last season. It's not quite 70%, but I think 70% is a big ask anyway.
Click to expand...

Folllw my blueprint & Miami football is back.

Follow yours..& we’ll forever be the new age Miami of Ohio

& for the record: I don’t believe all these numbers you’re throwing around either.
 
RightSaidFred said:
Great point.

People have a tough time understanding probability. Even very smart people struggle with it.

If Miami has an 80% chance of winning every single game on its schedule, fans will look at that and say we should win every game, and be disappointed when we don't.

In truth, if you play enough games, then that 80% chance means we are very likely to drop a game here and there.... even to lesser teams.

People don't get that.
Click to expand...

Quick follow up on this point. E$PN's FPI win probability for each UM game at the start of the season was as follows:

l$u - 65.7%
ss - 99.9%
tol - 86.3%
fiu - 98.3%
unc - 85.3%
f$u - 68.3%
uva - 85.8%
bc - 62.5%
duke - 79%
gt - 63.5%
vt - 57.2%
pitt - 89.5%

If you do the math (by multiplying the win probabilities of each independent event) it comes out to about a 4.5% chance of us having an undefeated regular season. Now, I think FPI is almost certainly trash, but it's the only readily available statistic I could find to make the above point. Which is simple: even when the odds say you should win each (independent) game, the chances can still be quite slim that you won't win all your games.
 
Tee3000 said:
Folllw my blueprint & Miami football is back.

Follow yours..& we’ll forever be the new age Miami of Ohio

& for the record: I don’t believe all these numbers you’re throwing around either.
Click to expand...

I have not laid out a blue print, so I am not certain what you're talking about. I was simply noting that your "blue print" (which is not much of an actual "blue print" in that it does not even attempt to address how to avoid losing to less talented teams or how to win 70% against equal and better talent) has some glaring issues and seems fairly unattainable (off the top of my head, maybe Wisconsin and UCF are meeting both your reqs).

And so that we have a complete record to ease your skeptical mind:

https://www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
In the wake of this season's losses to l$u and UVAg, some of the attention has inevitably shifted to recruiting and the impact that winning consistently and putting players into the NFL has on recruiting. Maybe I am misreading the board, but there seems to be a general consensus here that we won't land the elite local recruits consistently until we start winning consistently. The board also (generally) agrees with the working theory that to get into the CFB playoffs and compete for championships, UM needs to have a blue-chip ratio of at least 50.1% (i.e., majority of the roster being 4*/5* guys). The general consensus also seems to be that Miami does not play the bag game to the level of schools like Baga, l$u, o$u, Texa$, Ole ****, and a host of others, and that if UM ever tried to step up to that level, the NCAA would obliterate us because we aren't an $ec, e$pn, or Emmert darling.

So my question is, other than bags, how are we supposed to develop into this program that consistently wins big and keeps elite local recruits home without the elite recruits necessary to win big consistently in college football? Is the answer to make this a long play by establishing better relationships with youth football programs in the tri-county area, so that we're making meaningful relationships with those kids and their parents years before the $martS and $abags of the world show up at their door? Would that even make a difference (and are we honestly that patient of a fanbase to allow a head coach that much time to put a plan in place)? I imagine a lot of the answers may address changing our offensive philosophy/identity, but I can't help think that's not enough (after all, we're losing out on tons of elite recruits on the defensive side of the ball, where we are killing it).

P.s. - I will add the "@Cane Dynasty Qualifier" to my question... assume we don't have access to a time machine and Butch Davis circa 1999, Jimmy Johnson circa 1988, or Howard Schnellenberger circa 1983.
Click to expand...

My answer would be if we can’t consistently land the elite guys, then we need a better coaching staff who can win with a bunch of 4 star guys with a few 3 stars and your sporadic 5 star. We have to spend more money on the staff and get rid of Simpson, Banda, Patke, Searels, lil Richt and move Hartley to TE only. We need to go spend real money on a top flight DL coach, hire someone to either help Diaz with LB or Rumph with the secondary, get a big time OL and also bring in a real OC.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Quick follow up on this point. E$PN's FPI win probability for each UM game at the start of the season was as follows:

l$u - 65.7%
ss - 99.9%
tol - 86.3%
fiu - 98.3%
unc - 85.3%
f$u - 68.3%
uva - 85.8%
bc - 62.5%
duke - 79%
gt - 63.5%
vt - 57.2%
pitt - 89.5%

If you do the math (by multiplying the win probabilities of each independent event) it comes out to about a 4.5% chance of us having an undefeated regular season. Now, I think FPI is almost certainly trash, but it's the only readily available statistic I could find to make the above point. Which is simple: even when the odds say you should win each (independent) game, the chances can still be quite slim that you won't win all your games.
Click to expand...

Exactly right.

Adding to that - my Probability Modeling professor at Yale does a lot of consulting work for the sports betting industry. One thing he taught me, which I will never forget, is just how big of a role DUMB LUCK plays in football games.

We can question players and coaches as fans, and we are right to do so, but so much of what's actually going in to winning comes down to pure chance. An unlucky bounce, a bad call, a no-call that should have been called, lucking in to the right playcall, etc.

But that's a side-note of interest, since you brought up FPI

If there really is an SEC bias, where SEC teams can lose a game without dropping in the polls.... and if Miami really does get less calls in their favor during ACC play..... the impact is HUGE. Fans probably discount the impact of refs and conference bias too much.

I believe we should look to switch conferences, personally. John Swofford is worse for the Miami program than any coach we have.
 
BeastMode said:
My answer would be if we can’t consistently land the elite guys, then we need a better coaching staff who can win with a bunch of 4 star guys with a few 3 stars and your sporadic 5 star. We have to spend more money on the staff and get rid of Simpson, Banda, Patke, Searels, lil Richt and move Hartley to TE only. We need to go spend real money on a top flight DL coach, hire someone to either help Diaz with LB or Rumph with the secondary, get a big time OL and also bring in a real OC.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of those moves with the exception of Simpson and Banda. DL is performing pretty well atm with less depth than last season. Our entire starting secondary looks great this year so I can't bag Banda on performance. That has me willing to give them each another season, despite the fact neither has much experience coaching p5 college football. I'd add that whatever defensive coach comes in to replace Patke needs to be a guy with a bona fide recruiting resume. That side of the ball could use a recruiting ace.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
I agree with this with the caveat that some years VT has been close. But I will also point out that if we win out this season and UVAg loses a game, that'll be 2/3 seasons meeting the expectation you just set. It looks like a big "if" right now, I know...
Click to expand...

Even the years VT is close it is still a significant drop off. For example the most recent time it was even close was 2015 and They had 12 4 stars to our 24. We had 2 5 stars they had 0. So we had an extra 2 5 stars and double their 4 stars. That is a massive talent advantage and that is the 2nd best team in the Coastal. The difference is Wisconsin usually goes undefeated in their division and usually wins games by pretty big margins.
 
stb said:
Virginia has NO offensive linemen listed higher than 3 stars in HS. Many of the OL-men are sophomores and they still play as a unit.
First, get the recruits. Virginia showed that you do not have to have 5 and even 4 star people to develop a solid offensive line. You juts need a good eye to spot the material. Purdue and Central Florida have shown this. If you look at their 3 star lines out of high school.
Second, have a coach that really knows how to develop them.
Until this problem is solved it will be a 4th year, then a 5th year, then a 6th year etc. of SOS
Click to expand...

Virginia had 230 yards of offense against us, and a couple 1st downs in the 2h. I don't want their OL.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Quick follow up on this point. E$PN's FPI win probability for each UM game at the start of the season was as follows:

l$u - 65.7%
ss - 99.9%
tol - 86.3%
fiu - 98.3%
unc - 85.3%
f$u - 68.3%
uva - 85.8%
bc - 62.5%
duke - 79%
gt - 63.5%
vt - 57.2%
pitt - 89.5%

If you do the math (by multiplying the win probabilities of each independent event) it comes out to about a 4.5% chance of us having an undefeated regular season. Now, I think FPI is almost certainly trash, but it's the only readily available statistic I could find to make the above point. Which is simple: even when the odds say you should win each (independent) game, the chances are you won't win all your games.
Click to expand...

Maths!
 
stb said:
Virginia has NO offensive linemen listed higher than 3 stars in HS. Many of the OL-men are sophomores and they still play as a unit.
First, get the recruits. Virginia showed that you do not have to have 5 and even 4 star people to develop a solid offensive line. You juts need a good eye to spot the material. Purdue and Central Florida have shown this. If you look at their 3 star lines out of high school.
Second, have a coach that really knows how to develop them.
Until this problem is solved it will be a 4th year, then a 5th year, then a 6th year etc. of SOS
Click to expand...
Fun fact ucf played memphis before their most recent game against ECU and milton got sacked in the first quarter and that was the 3rd sack they've given up all year. Granted they don't face elite d-lines but thats good production considering the talent they do face is equal to theirs. That just shows that solid line play is one thing but getting the ball out quick like they do is also important
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
I have not laid out a blue print, so I am not certain what you're talking about. I was simply noting that your "blue print" (which is not much of an actual "blue print" in that it does not even attempt to address how to avoid losing to less talented teams or how to win 70% against equal and better talent) has some glaring issues and seems fairly unattainable (off the top of my head, maybe Wisconsin and UCF are meeting both your reqs).

And so that we have a complete record to ease your skeptical mind:

https://www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018
Click to expand...

Son this is a message board, not a dissertation. I have come to the conclusion that your numbers are fugazee though...it's what Mark Twain said about 3 types of lies.

Bama, Ohio state, and Clemson win roughly 70% of their games against equal and/or better talent going back the last 5 years...in hindsight, it's hard to say better talent when all 3 teams are elite at recruiting & likely have better talent that everyone they play not named Bama, Clemson, and Ohio State so that portion of it may be off.

70% isn't a big ask....at all.

Decent numbers but I reject it.
 
Last edited:
Tee3000 said:
Son this is a message board, not a dissertation. I have come to the conclusion that your numbers are fugazee though...it's what Mark Twain said about 3 types of lies.

Bama, Ohio state, and Clemson win roughly 70% of their games against equal and/or better talent going back the last 5 years...in hindsight, it's hard to say better talent when all 3 teams are elite at recruiting & likely have better talent that everyone they play not named Bama, Clemson, and Ohio State so that portion of it may be off.

70% isn't a big ask....at all.

Decent numbers but I reject it.
Click to expand...

Quit playing with me, Tee. We both know you've never read a dissertation. You've got not real basis for comparison, son.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Quit playing with me, Tee. We both know you've never read a dissertation. You've got not real basis for comparison, son.
Click to expand...

Easy there Maga Boy...let's not show your stereotypical bigoted outlook onto others in this public forum....keep that in-house among your family.

& I've read a few of em...even submitted one. Look me up on LinkedIn....on 2nd thought...don't.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Tee3000 said:
Easy there Maga Boy...let's not show your stereotypical bigoted outlook onto others in this public forum....keep that in-house among your family.

& I've read a few of em...even submitted one. Look me up on LinkedIn....on 2nd thought...don't.
Click to expand...

Possible Tee dissertation topics:

"You wouldn't say that to my face: a thesis on internet tough guys."

"Your facts are fugazee: a frank discussion of how I don't believe your facts, without fact."

"The distracting insult: when you can't be right, be rude."

"Larry Hodges' is definitely at least 6'3" based on standing next to him, no matter what the actual measurements say."

"Meet me in the parking lot: a qualitative analysis on winning arguments and making friends online."
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Possible Tee dissertation topics:

"You wouldn't say that to my face: a thesis on internet tough guys." - Most wouldn't
"Your facts are fugazee: a frank discussion of how I don't believe your facts, without fact." - See mark Twain again...

"The distracting insult: when you can't be right, be rude." - says the bigot

"Larry Hodges' is definitely at least 6'3" based on standing next to him, no matter what the actual measurements say." - I said he was 6'2 and I love how you follow my every post, he was 6'1 a year ago...we got an uncle here that you grab the **** of who told you his nephew wasn't measure right at the same event years prior.

"Meet me in the parking lot: a qualitative analysis on winning arguments and making friends online." - never the parking lot, always at your girl's house.
Click to expand...

Nah...more on the lines of Methods of hypothesizing strategic human resource management as it relates to governance, productivity, and contingency.

I sense your dissertation is as follows:

Legalizing incest: Love is Love..who are we to judge

Love is Love: why adults marrying children makes sense

I can do this all day Fly guy
 
305407cane said:
Fun fact ucf played memphis before their most recent game against ECU and milton got sacked in the first quarter and that was the 3rd sack they've given up all year. Granted they don't face elite d-lines but thats good production considering the talent they do face is equal to theirs. That just shows that solid line play is one thing but getting the ball out quick like they do is also important
Click to expand...


UCF has better talent than their whole conference more than likely. **** USF as well. UCF recruits pretty well.
 
Back
Top