BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:Anything of note in globe article?
claver2010 {l Wrote}:kendall brings bc to the 32nd ranked class. apparently he joins a long list enrolling in 3 weeks.
just wait till hafley is able to get kids on campus.
eagle33 {l Wrote}:BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:Anything of note in globe article?
Boston College added to its highest-rated recruiting class in more than a decade by bringing in the top recruit in Massachusetts.
Offensive lineman Drew Kendall, who starred at Noble and Greenough in Dedham, announced Friday on Twitter that he committed to BC.
Kendall had offers from Stanford, Michigan, Duke, Maryland, N.C. State, Penn State, Virginia, West Virginia, and Syracuse, but turned them down including to follow in the footsteps of his father Pete Kendall, who twice earned All-Big East honors for the Eagles in the 1990s before going on to play 13 seasons in the NFL.
In a statement via Twitter, Eagles coach Jeff Hafley said, “There is a reason Drew is ranked the top player in the state of Massachusetts. He is smart, tough, talented, and his potential is through the roof. Drew will be a force in the ACC and college football.”
The addition of Kendall gives the Eagles two ESPN 300 recruits in their 2021 class, alongside defensive back C.J. Burton.
Kendall was rated 13th among offensive lineman by ESPN.
Eagles offensive line coach Matt Applebaum said, “Drew is a quick-twitch athlete that plays with great intensity and physicality. His high football IQ and strong fundamentals give him a platform to launch his college career.”
Fresh off a 6-5 season in Hafley’s first year as head coach, the Eagles put together an impressive 2021 class ESPN ranked 38th in the nation, the best showing for BC since ESPN started its recruiting rankings in 2006.
eagle33 {l Wrote}:BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:Anything of note in globe article?
Boston College added to its highest-rated recruiting class in more than a decade by bringing in the top recruit in Massachusetts.
Offensive lineman Drew Kendall, who starred at Noble and Greenough in Dedham, announced Friday on Twitter that he committed to BC.
Kendall had offers from Stanford, Michigan, Duke, Maryland, N.C. State, Penn State, Virginia, West Virginia, and Syracuse, but turned them down including to follow in the footsteps of his father Pete Kendall, who twice earned All-Big East honors for the Eagles in the 1990s before going on to play 13 seasons in the NFL.
In a statement via Twitter, Eagles coach Jeff Hafley said, “There is a reason Drew is ranked the top player in the state of Massachusetts. He is smart, tough, talented, and his potential is through the roof. Drew will be a force in the ACC and college football.”
The addition of Kendall gives the Eagles two ESPN 300 recruits in their 2021 class, alongside defensive back C.J. Burton.
Kendall was rated 13th among offensive lineman by ESPN.
Eagles offensive line coach Matt Applebaum said, “Drew is a quick-twitch athlete that plays with great intensity and physicality. His high football IQ and strong fundamentals give him a platform to launch his college career.”
eagle33 {l Wrote}:Fresh off a 6-5 season in Hafley’s first year as head coach, the Eagles put together an impressive 2021 class ESPN ranked 38th in the nation, the best showing for BC since ESPN started its recruiting rankings in 2006.
innocentbystander {l Wrote}: I'd be very interested to see where an 8-1 Miami had its 2021 class rated this year.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
Beyond having far better other offers than most previous classes, this year's class is also the highest ranked by both average star and total points in at least the last ten years. Other than that I guess it's "typical"...
bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
Beyond having far better other offers than most previous classes, this year's class is also the highest ranked by both average star and total points in at least the last ten years. Other than that I guess it's "typical"...
The absolute star rating inflates over time, it's a marketing ploy, the relative rankings are what matters. Total points are a function of quantity of players recruited. The "better offers" thing, as I have proven before, is highly unscientific and in all likelihood the combination of better infrastructure to maintain such lists and kids going out of their way to advertise their lists online.
myles kennefick {l Wrote}:This post was made by Corporal Funishment who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
So why exactly would BC's recruits have progressed more than anyone else's recruits in the past year?
Why exactly wouldn't other schools have recruited guys who haven't publicized their offer lists?
Why are the recruiting rankings so uniquely terrible at capturing the recruiting success of Jeff Hafley? Why should Jeff Hafley be given the benefit of the doubt that his recruits are so much better than the numbers would indicate?
bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
So why exactly would BC's recruits have progressed more than anyone else's recruits in the past year?
Why exactly wouldn't other schools have recruited guys who haven't publicized their offer lists?
Why are the recruiting rankings so uniquely terrible at capturing the recruiting success of Jeff Hafley? Why should Jeff Hafley be given the benefit of the doubt that his recruits are so much better than the numbers would indicate?
Nobody is saying other schools haven’t but I’m saying without getting eyes on a lot of these kids the early rankings mean little this cycle for everybody involved. This year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings outside of the top top kids that you’ll ever find. I also saw in the other post your continuing your fallacy about quantity making a difference. Once again the class rankings are done in a fashion where only the top commits really matter. BC has 26 commits taking the bottom 6-7 of them off the commit list would lose then about 2.5 points. Doesn’t drop them at all because high number of commits don’t matter. But keep preaching the wrong line of thinking.
myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
Beyond having far better other offers than most previous classes, this year's class is also the highest ranked by both average star and total points in at least the last ten years. Other than that I guess it's "typical"...
The absolute star rating inflates over time, it's a marketing ploy, the relative rankings are what matters. Total points are a function of quantity of players recruited. The "better offers" thing, as I have proven before, is highly unscientific and in all likelihood the combination of better infrastructure to maintain such lists and kids going out of their way to advertise their lists online.
You haven't proven shit. If you want to get your rocks off being the internet contrarian go ahead, but even using relative rankings, this year's class is BC's highest average star ranking relative to other ACC schools in the last 10 years.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
So why exactly would BC's recruits have progressed more than anyone else's recruits in the past year?
Why exactly wouldn't other schools have recruited guys who haven't publicized their offer lists?
Why are the recruiting rankings so uniquely terrible at capturing the recruiting success of Jeff Hafley? Why should Jeff Hafley be given the benefit of the doubt that his recruits are so much better than the numbers would indicate?
Nobody is saying other schools haven’t but I’m saying without getting eyes on a lot of these kids the early rankings mean little this cycle for everybody involved. This year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings outside of the top top kids that you’ll ever find. I also saw in the other post your continuing your fallacy about quantity making a difference. Once again the class rankings are done in a fashion where only the top commits really matter. BC has 26 commits taking the bottom 6-7 of them off the commit list would lose then about 2.5 points. Doesn’t drop them at all because high number of commits don’t matter. But keep preaching the wrong line of thinking.
If this year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings we've ever had, shouldn't that lend itself to heightened scrutiny of supposed recruiting success? Is no one else seeing the disconnect here?
And BC has an 85.33 ranking with 26 recruits. Rutgers has a more normal-sized class of 21 commits, which has an 85.35 ranking. (We're being outrecruited by Rutgers - hooray.) We have 200.84 points, Rutgers has 190.93 points. Therefore the quantity effect of the abnormal class size is roughly 10 points, not 2.5. As Steven K Bannon sometimes says, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!
StratEagle {l Wrote}:We've beat out blue bloods for a ton of these kids and flipped multiple kids from SEC schools, how often does that happen? We quickly lost 3 of the best players in the class in Wallace, Porter, and Martin and then went on to immediately bounce back with Steele, Asbury, and Kendall. The staff's ability to evaluate and get in early on relatively unknown players this year was super impressive - Wallace, Daymon David, Okpala, etc. Currently have 2 of the top 7 all time commits signed by composite. All this and they're not even done.
I do think the pandemic can work in our favor in some ways though. Young staff that can adapt to Zoom quickly, hides relative game day deficiencies vs schools like Michigan, impressive handling of keeping players safe, more difficult for bagmen, etc. Not that Hafley doesn't deserve credit there too.
bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
So why exactly would BC's recruits have progressed more than anyone else's recruits in the past year?
Why exactly wouldn't other schools have recruited guys who haven't publicized their offer lists?
Why are the recruiting rankings so uniquely terrible at capturing the recruiting success of Jeff Hafley? Why should Jeff Hafley be given the benefit of the doubt that his recruits are so much better than the numbers would indicate?
Nobody is saying other schools haven’t but I’m saying without getting eyes on a lot of these kids the early rankings mean little this cycle for everybody involved. This year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings outside of the top top kids that you’ll ever find. I also saw in the other post your continuing your fallacy about quantity making a difference. Once again the class rankings are done in a fashion where only the top commits really matter. BC has 26 commits taking the bottom 6-7 of them off the commit list would lose then about 2.5 points. Doesn’t drop them at all because high number of commits don’t matter. But keep preaching the wrong line of thinking.
If this year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings we've ever had, shouldn't that lend itself to heightened scrutiny of supposed recruiting success? Is no one else seeing the disconnect here?
And BC has an 85.33 ranking with 26 recruits. Rutgers has a more normal-sized class of 21 commits, which has an 85.35 ranking. (We're being outrecruited by Rutgers - hooray.) We have 200.84 points, Rutgers has 190.93 points. Therefore the quantity effect of the abnormal class size is roughly 10 points, not 2.5. As Steven K Bannon sometimes says, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!
Yes which is why I’ve said the entire time look at offers not the rankings. As for the points total there’s this wonderful little tool on 247 called the class calculator it’ll even show you the entire breakdown of how many points the recruits were worth. So why don’t you go and tell me if those 5 recruits on the bottom to get to this magical 21 number of RU and see if they take off 10 points. Just a little hint they won’t. And that’s a fact because it’s all laid out not an opinion. Should probably check it out before you comment.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
Beyond having far better other offers than most previous classes, this year's class is also the highest ranked by both average star and total points in at least the last ten years. Other than that I guess it's "typical"...
The absolute star rating inflates over time, it's a marketing ploy, the relative rankings are what matters. Total points are a function of quantity of players recruited. The "better offers" thing, as I have proven before, is highly unscientific and in all likelihood the combination of better infrastructure to maintain such lists and kids going out of their way to advertise their lists online.
You haven't proven shit. If you want to get your rocks off being the internet contrarian go ahead, but even using relative rankings, this year's class is BC's highest average star ranking relative to other ACC schools in the last 10 years.
it's 10th out of 14 (barely), WITH the first year coach recruiting bump, and 3 of the 4 programs we're ahead of have coaches who may be lame ducks
HJS {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:This post was made by Corporal Funishment who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Umm... you only have 71 posts, so consider this a PSA.
myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:myles kennefick {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
Beyond having far better other offers than most previous classes, this year's class is also the highest ranked by both average star and total points in at least the last ten years. Other than that I guess it's "typical"...
The absolute star rating inflates over time, it's a marketing ploy, the relative rankings are what matters. Total points are a function of quantity of players recruited. The "better offers" thing, as I have proven before, is highly unscientific and in all likelihood the combination of better infrastructure to maintain such lists and kids going out of their way to advertise their lists online.
You haven't proven shit. If you want to get your rocks off being the internet contrarian go ahead, but even using relative rankings, this year's class is BC's highest average star ranking relative to other ACC schools in the last 10 years.
it's 10th out of 14 (barely), WITH the first year coach recruiting bump, and 3 of the 4 programs we're ahead of have coaches who may be lame ducks
Qualify it now all you want, but it clearly wasn't a typical BC class even using your chosen metric.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
So why exactly would BC's recruits have progressed more than anyone else's recruits in the past year?
Why exactly wouldn't other schools have recruited guys who haven't publicized their offer lists?
Why are the recruiting rankings so uniquely terrible at capturing the recruiting success of Jeff Hafley? Why should Jeff Hafley be given the benefit of the doubt that his recruits are so much better than the numbers would indicate?
Nobody is saying other schools haven’t but I’m saying without getting eyes on a lot of these kids the early rankings mean little this cycle for everybody involved. This year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings outside of the top top kids that you’ll ever find. I also saw in the other post your continuing your fallacy about quantity making a difference. Once again the class rankings are done in a fashion where only the top commits really matter. BC has 26 commits taking the bottom 6-7 of them off the commit list would lose then about 2.5 points. Doesn’t drop them at all because high number of commits don’t matter. But keep preaching the wrong line of thinking.
If this year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings we've ever had, shouldn't that lend itself to heightened scrutiny of supposed recruiting success? Is no one else seeing the disconnect here?
And BC has an 85.33 ranking with 26 recruits. Rutgers has a more normal-sized class of 21 commits, which has an 85.35 ranking. (We're being outrecruited by Rutgers - hooray.) We have 200.84 points, Rutgers has 190.93 points. Therefore the quantity effect of the abnormal class size is roughly 10 points, not 2.5. As Steven K Bannon sometimes says, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!
Yes which is why I’ve said the entire time look at offers not the rankings. As for the points total there’s this wonderful little tool on 247 called the class calculator it’ll even show you the entire breakdown of how many points the recruits were worth. So why don’t you go and tell me if those 5 recruits on the bottom to get to this magical 21 number of RU and see if they take off 10 points. Just a little hint they won’t. And that’s a fact because it’s all laid out not an opinion. Should probably check it out before you comment.
You're cherry picking it by removing the BOTTOM 5 kids, which raises the average ranking of the class. You could just as easily remove the top 5 recruits and tell me what happens. It's more intellectually honest to maintain the average ranking and extrapolate the score with a lower number of recruits. Was it Statistics with Father McGowan you failed, or Ethics with Father Madigan?
bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:bceagles24 {l Wrote}:Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:As much as certain people don't like it when you speak ill of their golden boy, this year's class currently ranks 10th in the ACC by average player rank, and 53rd in the country. It's a huge class, but rating-wise it's typical BC recruiting with a slight boost for the first year coach bump. Some of you are talking yourself into believing fairy tales.
As I’ve said before this is the class to look at offers versus rankings more then any other. A lot of kids haven’t had an opportunity to boost their rankings in over a year now. If you think there’s no possible progression from kids I’m sure what to say to that. And the offer lists are better then what paper shows too because I know of atleast 3 commits that got offers after their commitments and never publicized them. Probably not guys you’d guess either. But again we’ll see where the class stacks up in 3 years but there’s zero doubt this is the best class on paper in quite a long time. It’s really not even close. Also I’d add that the formula that 247 uses doesn’t really give much of an advantage to having more commits. The bottom of the class being basically no value past a certain number. You put say the last 6-7 guys in the class out and they drop one place in the rankings so that line of thought is also wrong.
So why exactly would BC's recruits have progressed more than anyone else's recruits in the past year?
Why exactly wouldn't other schools have recruited guys who haven't publicized their offer lists?
Why are the recruiting rankings so uniquely terrible at capturing the recruiting success of Jeff Hafley? Why should Jeff Hafley be given the benefit of the doubt that his recruits are so much better than the numbers would indicate?
Nobody is saying other schools haven’t but I’m saying without getting eyes on a lot of these kids the early rankings mean little this cycle for everybody involved. This year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings outside of the top top kids that you’ll ever find. I also saw in the other post your continuing your fallacy about quantity making a difference. Once again the class rankings are done in a fashion where only the top commits really matter. BC has 26 commits taking the bottom 6-7 of them off the commit list would lose then about 2.5 points. Doesn’t drop them at all because high number of commits don’t matter. But keep preaching the wrong line of thinking.
If this year is the biggest crapshoot for rankings we've ever had, shouldn't that lend itself to heightened scrutiny of supposed recruiting success? Is no one else seeing the disconnect here?
And BC has an 85.33 ranking with 26 recruits. Rutgers has a more normal-sized class of 21 commits, which has an 85.35 ranking. (We're being outrecruited by Rutgers - hooray.) We have 200.84 points, Rutgers has 190.93 points. Therefore the quantity effect of the abnormal class size is roughly 10 points, not 2.5. As Steven K Bannon sometimes says, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!
Yes which is why I’ve said the entire time look at offers not the rankings. As for the points total there’s this wonderful little tool on 247 called the class calculator it’ll even show you the entire breakdown of how many points the recruits were worth. So why don’t you go and tell me if those 5 recruits on the bottom to get to this magical 21 number of RU and see if they take off 10 points. Just a little hint they won’t. And that’s a fact because it’s all laid out not an opinion. Should probably check it out before you comment.
You're cherry picking it by removing the BOTTOM 5 kids, which raises the average ranking of the class. You could just as easily remove the top 5 recruits and tell me what happens. It's more intellectually honest to maintain the average ranking and extrapolate the score with a lower number of recruits. Was it Statistics with Father McGowan you failed, or Ethics with Father Madigan?
That’s not the point but your missing it again. My point is the extra numbers did nothing to put BC above RU or whoever else you’d like to compare them too that is behind them in the rankings. RU has 21 commits. BCs top 21 commits would be higher then RU so comparing them to RU because they had more space and took some fliers they like is intellectually dishonest. But you’ve got your agenda and that’s fine. We’ll see what this class looks like in a couple years.
StratEagle {l Wrote}:We've beat out blue bloods for a ton of these kids and flipped multiple kids from SEC schools, how often does that happen? We quickly lost 3 of the best players in the class in Wallace, Porter, and Martin and then went on to immediately bounce back with Steele, Asbury, and Kendall. The staff's ability to evaluate and get in early on relatively unknown players this year was super impressive - Wallace, Daymon David, Okpala, etc. Currently have 2 of the top 7 all time commits signed by composite. All this and they're not even done.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 201 guests