I think it is more important to look at offer lists anyway
"Right now Alec Burks is using and abusing this Texas defense"
Where it falls apart to the "anyone's guess" is when we're talking about players who are 3* or high 2* but are outside of the positional rankings. Most players signed outside the top 40 classes are mostly made of those types of prospects.
This is why I've always said that I am only confident that our classes bring the talent we need to compete for a conference title if they are ranked in the top 35. You do that consistently, you have depth of BCS talent and if you get the right quarterback (or maybe a dominant RB) you are able to challenge the teams that are recruiting in the top 10 while also taking care of business against all the other conference opponents who have been recruiting in the 20-50 range.
By being in a conference like that and playing that schedule Boise only has to pay much attention to 2-3 games a year. The rest of the games give them two huge advantages. One is that by being 30 points up at half means that the starters get to sit, reducing dramatically the depth needed to get through the season. In a major conference they would be playing much more time against much better players and dealing with much more injury issues.
Secondly the starters on the bench means that the backups are getting significant time on the field to develop, by the time they become a starter they already have a bunch of game experience. If a normal team in a major conference tried to do this they would get killed on the field.
There is also the question of focus and preparation. Boise can beat up Idaho and San Jose State without having to get up for the game. They only expend the mental energy for those 2-3 teams a year that are legitimate threats.
Apples to oranges mid-major to major conference.
Last year, Boise State had ZERO 4 star commits per Rivals, but it had FIVE commits that Rivals listed at 5.7. Colorado, on the other hand, had 2 four star commits and 1 3 star ranked at 5.7 by Rivals and everyone else was below that. This had a pretty major difference in the overall class ranks. Something like 25 spots or what not.
If two of our commits get evaluated at 5.8 and two of yours get evaluated at 5.7, then our "class ranking" is probably flipped. (I'm oversimplifying a bit here, obviously, but bear with me.)
On paper, it looks like Colorado had a MUCH better class than us, but dig into the details and we both signed a ton of three stars, you got a couple of kids evaluated over the 4 star threshold and had a bit of a larger class, but I'm skeptical that there's a huge talent disparity like the one that exists when looking at the class rankings.
It's been fun guys. I got to run for a bit. Thanks a bunch for the good discussion and having me around. Good luck with the rest of the OLine recruitment and congrats again on your Sutton win.
Scout ranks the top 25 for each school class using this formula:
Team Rankings are a math formula that based on a player's rating and his rankings. 5-Star is a rating, No. 1 quarterback is his ranking.
5 Star = 200 points
4 Star = 120 points
3 Star = 40 points
2 Star = 20 points
The No. 1 player at a position is worth 100 points, counting down to the last ranked player at his position to 0.
For Example, assuming Scout ranks 100 quarterbacks.
5-Star, No. 1 QB = 300 points
4-Star, No. 10 QB = 210 points
3-Star, No. 50 QB = 90 points
2-Star, No. 75 QB = 45 points
The Team Rankings are compiled of the Top 25 players per class. Some teams will over-sign, but only 25 count towards the Team Rankings.
a statistician from UC-Berkeley developed this for rivals:
Please note you only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.
POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)
H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star
L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star
N = a big honkin' calculation, described below
CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50
24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...
--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)
If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars - 3)) to N.
You are not getting it. We know coaching matters. But you can't turn lead into gold. At some point, you need the Jimmy's and Joe's. Getting up for one or two games a year is expected. I remember several times when Boise St was playing some godawful team and was obviously not really up for the game, and were actually losing or in a close game before pulling away late.
Why did they pull away? Individual talent. As games go on, talent shows. When coaches have nothing left in their bag of tricks, talent wins games.
If Boise was in a power conference, they would lose 3-4 games a year. In the SEC? Probably more. Would they have done better than CU under HaLk? probably. Cause that guy couldn't recruit and he sure as hell couldn't coach, while Peterson is a stud of a coach. But even he would need a few years to stock up the cupboard.
The Spring Evaluation period is about to wrap up, so now is a good time to take a look at where we stand here. We are still in it for Cameron Hunt and Sean Harlow. Both will probably decide toward the end of the summer. Doubtful we get both, but hopefully we can land at least go one for two. Both guys may not have the lofty 4* ratings, but I think they are two of the better OL in the west and the gap between the "elite" prospects and quality BCS prospects does not seem to be that large this year.
Other names that we should know more about this summer after camps/visits:
Obviously we have other offers out, but the above players are at least interested and are likely to visit Boulder this summer. Nowland could be our next commit. Mayes, Hinnant, Skipper, and Kearsley do not look likely right now. Not that ever counted on landing Skipper (nor do I think it would be a big loss), but it would be nice to make some sort of impression on the other three players.
Overall, pretty underwhelming IMO. Some guys on the above list like Andrew Bucklin and Gunnar Graham look like reaches to me. If we strike out on both Hunt and Harlow, we are looking at an average OL class at best.
Everybody hates you, Everybody wishes that you were dead
Cuz Peter you suck, Peter you suck
Peter your music is ****ing terrible
Peter you suck, Peter you suck
Peter you don't do anything of value, Peter you suck
Write some music but instead you sit and write these bulls**t songs
It's so self loathing go see a psychiatrist
I hate the psychiatrist
Well go see one anyway
I don't like the psychiatrist
You need to go see one
See a psychiatrist
I'm not going
Is flipping Fox a pipe dream? I've heard that UM is pulling some big time OL talent this year, and already has a bunch of guys on their roster.