forums

Nobody ain't played nobody

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted18380
  • Start date Start date
D

deleted18380

Guest
I keep seeing threads/posts about how this xyz stat or that xyz win can't be taken seriously because xyz team ain't **** and blah blah blah.

The reality is, college football athletics are at a level of parity that none of us have ever witnessed. Period. Most schools have great athletes and somewhat competent coaches at the very least. Star ratings are proving to mean less than ever, and we're more routinely seeing FCS and G5 teams blow up "elite" P5 programs.

The point of this thread is that every game, every victory, and every stat can feasibly be used as a valid measuring stick for our progress as a program, regardless of whether it's FIU or LSU.

We also have to remember that teams get up for The U. Regardless of our general lack of success over the last 15 years, beating the U is still a super bowl win for the vast majority of programs that play us. They bring their best, and these days it means that anyone could theoretically beat us if we're not up for the game. The potential is ALWAYS there.

So when our guys get out there and beat the **** out of someone, it matters. The stats matter, the win matters, and the way they do it matters. So please, no more of this "we ain't played nobody" talk. Every program has the potential to be "somebody" these days. Just ask VT and Penn St.

Go Canes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement
"Star ratings are proving to mean less than ever"

Star ratings actually mean more now than they ever have. Recruiting top ten classes 3 out of every 4 years has been a requirement to win a championship over the past 20ish years. That wasn't the case in the past. This is a fact, the data does not lie.
 
John77 said:
"Star ratings are proving to mean less than ever"

Star ratings actually mean more now than they ever have. Recruiting top ten classes 3 out of every 4 years has been a requirement to win a championship over the past 20ish years. That wasn't the case in the past. This is a fact, the data does not lie.
Click to expand...

And here come the stampeding masses to say that since that one program is good with some 3* kids rankings don't matter. Or there's that unranked guy who's a star in the NFL, surely that means rankings don't matter. Because if they aren't right in predicting the future every single time, then they have no value.
 
John77 said:
"Star ratings are proving to mean less than ever"

Star ratings actually mean more now than they ever have. Recruiting top ten classes 3 out of every 4 years has been a requirement to win a championship over the past 20ish years. That wasn't the case in the past. This is a fact, the data does not lie.
Click to expand...

Star rating has to pair with great coaching to mean anything. The difference between a lower ranked kid and a higher ranked kid is proving to be smaller and smaller...hence my point - FCS and G5 teams regularly taking "loaded" teams to task.

The data is also multivariate. You can't simply quote one facet of recruiting data and say that it proves something. There are far more variables at play than recruiting class.

Yes, POOLS of highly ranked players help your chances, but the success of teams without those consistently highly ranked players suggests that parity is more present than ever.
 
kryptonite said:
And here come the stampeding masses to say that since that one program is good with some 3* kids rankings don't matter. Or there's that unranked guy who's a star in the NFL, surely that means rankings don't matter. Because if they aren't right in predicting the future every single time, then they have no value.
Click to expand...

Never said they have no value, nor did I even suggest it. "Proving to have less value" means just that - the value has been decreased somewhat. That doesn't mean there is no value.

My suggestion is that the differences between a high ranked and a lower ranked recruit may not be as great as everyone thinks it is. That's all.
 
CaneMountain08 said:
Star rating has to pair with great coaching to mean anything. The difference between a lower ranked kid and a higher ranked kid is proving to be smaller and smaller...hence my point - FCS and G5 teams regularly taking "loaded" teams to task.

The data is also multivariate. You can't simply quote one facet of recruiting data and say that it proves something. There are far more variables at play than recruiting class.

Yes, POOLS of highly ranked players help your chances, but the success of teams without those consistently highly ranked players suggests that parity is more present than ever.
Click to expand...

This is another point many people are confused about. Having top ten talent does not guarantee championship contention or even being good. However, the data shows that it is a PRE-REQUISITE for championship contention.

And there is no success of teams that do not meet the criteria listed above, they have never won a championship in the past 20 years, period. Giving top teams an occasional challenge is NOT success. Championships are success, and the data shows you cannot win one without consistent top 10 classes.
 
John77 said:
This is another point many people are confused about. Having top ten talent does not guarantee championship contention or even being good. However, the data shows that it is a PRE-REQUISITE for championship contention.

And there is no success of teams that do not meet the criteria listed above, they have never won a championship in the past 20 years, period. Giving top teams an occasional challenge is NOT success. Championships are success, and the data shows you cannot win one without consistent top 10 classes.
Click to expand...

You're debating about championships, when that was never a part of my point. My point concerns the presence of increased parity and how it creates a greatly increased possibility of "unlikely" upsets. It makes every win more valuable whether or not we care to acknowledge it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement
I’ll bet if you ask VT about the Old Dominion Monarchs you’d get a different tune about having played nobody.

You still have separation at the top but there’s soooo many good players to go around now and with the 25/85 rule the mid majors are recruiting enough good talent to knock off P5 teams if they aren’t paying attention.

That one rule did as much for parity than anything in my opinion.Kept the Bamas and OU’s of the world from hiding 40 players from their opposition.

I remember back in the day when OU would have 120 players dressing out for home games.Took them 15 minutes for all of them to run out of the tunnel..🤣
 
John77 said:
However, the data shows that it is a PRE-REQUISITE for championship contention.
Click to expand...

And so we're on the same page, I don't disagree with you at all. It's just not the point I was coming here to make. That's all.
 
CaneMountain08 said:
Never said they have no value, nor did I even suggest it. "Proving to have less value" means just that - the value has been decreased somewhat. That doesn't mean there is no value.

My suggestion is that the differences between a high ranked and a lower ranked recruit may not be as great as everyone thinks it is. That's all.
Click to expand...

I read what you wrote, I was talking about the people who show up to threads like this and pull out anomalies as proof that rankings don't matter.
 
Back
Top