What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The Great Recruiting Rankings non-Conspiracy

Not saying I agree with him, but he doesn’t do a bad job of illustrating his point.

Thanks. I never say anything matter as fact without actually reading about or looking up the details first. I’m just shocked it’s even gone this far. He committed, I went to look at his 247 page and saw he was now an 89 and not a 92, thought it was odd. Questioned what caused him to drop from being a top 300 player and admittedly said i thought if he stayed with OSU he wouldn’t drop, just my opinion. Chaos ensues and everyone loses their minds over the simplest question. But it’s allbuffs so I expect nothing less.
 
Thanks. I never say anything matter as fact without actually reading about or looking up the details first. I’m just shocked it’s even gone this far. He committed, I went to look at his 247 page and saw he was now an 89 and not a 92, thought it was odd. Questioned what caused him to drop from being a top 300 player and admittedly said i thought if he stayed with OSU he wouldn’t drop, just my opinion. Chaos ensues and everyone loses their minds over the simplest question. But it’s allbuffs so I expect nothing less.

Well, you took it way too far and hurt my feelings when you called me a girl.
 
Well, you took it way too far and hurt my feelings when you called me a girl.

Okay, I see we’re at an impasse. You seem to be out of witty comebacks and can’t provide any examples to my constant (hint: there aren’t any others) comments on this issue. Plus you’ve failed to provide any thoughts or examples on the original point, even though you insist on being part of this conversation. You just go for the duff special of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
 
Okay, I see we’re at an impasse. You seem to be out of witty comebacks and can’t provide any examples to my constant (hint: there aren’t any others) comments on this issue. Plus you’ve failed to provide any thoughts or examples on the original point, even though you insist on being part of this conversation. You just go for the duff special of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

I think we reached that impasse a while ago. I will concede anything and everything you want in this thread. You win. Seriously.

I do not care anymore. Have fun. I am not going to bother moving your posts in this forum anymore, it just leads to stupidity.
 
Okay, I see we’re at an impasse. You seem to be out of witty comebacks and can’t provide any examples to my constant (hint: there aren’t any others) comments on this issue. Plus you’ve failed to provide any thoughts or examples on the original point, even though you insist on being part of this conversation. You just go for the duff special of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
You're annoying because you want to come off as this hardass poster, but play victim constantly.
 
I think we reached that impasse a while ago. I will concede anything and everything you want in this thread. You win. Seriously.

I do not care anymore. Have fun. I am not going to bother moving your posts in this forum anymore, it just leads to stupidity.

You can block me. Oh wait, you’re a mod. Funny you’re the only mod who always finds yourself in these arguments with other posters.
 
You can block me. Oh wait, you’re a mod. Funny you’re the only mod who always finds yourself in these arguments with other posters.

I have zero posters on ignore and you will not be the first. I will mod and just avoid you. Have a nice night.
 
Really wish I had not clicked on this thread.

tenor.gif
 
Hey Allbuffs (long time lurker, first time poster). I hate to start this up again, and maybe this is due to my ignorance on how the ratings work, but can someone explain why Wray and Lewis recently dropped in the rankings and lost their composite 4 star rating on 247? I mean, Wray dropped 670 spots on 247...
 
Hey Allbuffs (long time lurker, first time poster). I hate to start this up again, and maybe this is due to my ignorance on how the ratings work, but can someone explain why Wray and Lewis recently dropped in the rankings and lost their composite 4 star rating on 247? I mean, Wray dropped 670 spots on 247...

Oh boyyyy. It’s a Colorado thing.
 
Hey Allbuffs (long time lurker, first time poster). I hate to start this up again, and maybe this is due to my ignorance on how the ratings work, but can someone explain why Wray and Lewis recently dropped in the rankings and lost their composite 4 star rating on 247? I mean, Wray dropped 670 spots on 247...

Lol I’m staying out of this.
 
Hey Allbuffs (long time lurker, first time poster). I hate to start this up again, and maybe this is due to my ignorance on how the ratings work, but can someone explain why Wray and Lewis recently dropped in the rankings and lost their composite 4 star rating on 247? I mean, Wray dropped 670 spots on 247...
 
Hey Allbuffs (long time lurker, first time poster). I hate to start this up again, and maybe this is due to my ignorance on how the ratings work, but can someone explain why Wray and Lewis recently dropped in the rankings and lost their composite 4 star rating on 247? I mean, Wray dropped 670 spots on 247...
I'm going to be the sucker who thinks there's a chance you are not someone's sock trying to be funny and give you a real answer.

The recruiting "ratings" are set by curve. There's pretty much the same total number of 5* and 4* recruits every. single. year.

Ask yourself: does that match your observed reality of how football talent ebbs and flows?

The NFL has good draft years, and bad draft years too - but every single year there are the same number of first round picks. We all know that there are some years that a lot guys go in the second round that would have gone in the first round in other years.

If recruiting rankings were "objective" from year to year, there would be a lot of variation in the number of 5* recruits each year. But every year, there's about 32 +/- 2 5* recruits.

That should tell you something. If a scout scores a player at, say a 47.5 on whatever scale they use, some years that might be a 4*, and some years it might be a 3*. Let's say it = a 4* when they put it into the database. Let's also say that there is another player that gets scored at a 47.3, and that right now, given all the scores in the database, the cutoff between a 4* and 3* is 47.4. Well, the second guy is now a "high 3*."

Now, another scout does an evaluation of the second recruit, and he scores the second player at a 48.1. If they average the two scout's scores (I don't know if they do this, or if they give more weight to more recent evaluations), that means the second guy now gets scored at a 47.7. Which is better than the first guy. Guy #2 is now a 4*.

Except the fact that we now have a player with a higher score means that the curve gets moved too. Now the cutoff for 4* is at 47.6. Boom, guy #1 is now a 3*.

It's even possible for no new scoring to be done on guys 1 and 2, but instead a whole bunch of scoring got done on some other guys that moved the curve up or down - viola, both of their ratings got changed, without there being any new information specific to them, their raw scores didn't change at all.

The main point to understand is that recruiting ratings are not a raw score. They are a rating that is created based on their raw scores in relationship to the raw scores of all the other recruits.

When people move "beyond the star ratings" to ratings like 5.5 or 5.7, or 91 or 89, they often think that these numbers represent a raw score. They don't. These are still ratings (albeit more granular than star ratings) that are based on some sort of raw scoring that is then compared, normalized, curved (whatever verb you want to use to describe it) to the raw scores of all the other recruits.

So, what can move a recruit's rating?

Updates in their raw scoring based on new information.
Updates in their raw scoring based on a different scout scoring them a little differently.
Updates in their raw scoring based on a scout taking a much closer look and doing a re-evaluation (yes, a P5 offer can trigger this, and yes, a "blue blood" offer can trigger this too).
Them actually getting a real evaluation and a true raw score instead of a basic score assigned by an algorithm (yes, P5 offers often trigger this, and it's why 2* often move to 3* after a P5 offer).

And of course the big one:
Any of the above happening to other recruits and the curve getting shifted as a result.

If you're in the high 3* and low 4* range, there's going to be a lot of movement in the recruit's ratings, and it's easy to tell yourself conspiratorial stories about why that movement is happening.

Duff's response is the right one: at the end of the day, if you fill your team with this level of recruits, you're going to win a lot of games, so don't worry about odd movements that you see at this level.

What you worry about is filling up with the low 3* - they're like C students in an old-fashioned grading curve: there's a whole lot of them, and while they each (presumably) have some great aspects as individuals, as a group they're... average.
 
I'm going to be the sucker who thinks there's a chance you are not someone's sock trying to be funny and give you a real answer.

The recruiting "ratings" are set by curve. There's pretty much the same total number of 5* and 4* recruits every. single. year.

Ask yourself: does that match your observed reality of how football talent ebbs and flows?

The NFL has good draft years, and bad draft years too - but every single year there are the same number of first round picks. We all know that there are some years that a lot guys go in the second round that would have gone in the first round in other years.

If recruiting rankings were "objective" from year to year, there would be a lot of variation in the number of 5* recruits each year. But every year, there's about 32 +/- 2 5* recruits.

That should tell you something. If a scout scores a player at, say a 47.5 on whatever scale they use, some years that might be a 4*, and some years it might be a 3*. Let's say it = a 4* when they put it into the database. Let's also say that there is another player that gets scored at a 47.3, and that right now, given all the scores in the database, the cutoff between a 4* and 3* is 47.4. Well, the second guy is now a "high 3*."

Now, another scout does an evaluation of the second recruit, and he scores the second player at a 48.1. If they average the two scout's scores (I don't know if they do this, or if they give more weight to more recent evaluations), that means the second guy now gets scored at a 47.7. Which is better than the first guy. Guy #2 is now a 4*.

Except the fact that we now have a player with a higher score means that the curve gets moved too. Now the cutoff for 4* is at 47.6. Boom, guy #1 is now a 3*.

It's even possible for no new scoring to be done on guys 1 and 2, but instead a whole bunch of scoring got done on some other guys that moved the curve up or down - viola, both of their ratings got changed, without there being any new information specific to them, their raw scores didn't change at all.

The main point to understand is that recruiting ratings are not a raw score. They are a rating that is created based on their raw scores in relationship to the raw scores of all the other recruits.

When people move "beyond the star ratings" to ratings like 5.5 or 5.7, or 91 or 89, they often think that these numbers represent a raw score. They don't. These are still ratings (albeit more granular than star ratings) that are based on some sort of raw scoring that is then compared, normalized, curved (whatever verb you want to use to describe it) to the raw scores of all the other recruits.

So, what can move a recruit's rating?

Updates in their raw scoring based on new information.
Updates in their raw scoring based on a different scout scoring them a little differently.
Updates in their raw scoring based on a scout taking a much closer look and doing a re-evaluation (yes, a P5 offer can trigger this, and yes, a "blue blood" offer can trigger this too).
Them actually getting a real evaluation and a true raw score instead of a basic score assigned by an algorithm (yes, P5 offers often trigger this, and it's why 2* often move to 3* after a P5 offer).

And of course the big one:
Any of the above happening to other recruits and the curve getting shifted as a result.

If you're in the high 3* and low 4* range, there's going to be a lot of movement in the recruit's ratings, and it's easy to tell yourself conspiratorial stories about why that movement is happening.

Duff's response is the right one: at the end of the day, if you fill your team with this level of recruits, you're going to win a lot of games, so don't worry about odd movements that you see at this level.

What you worry about is filling up with the low 3* - they're like C students in an old-fashioned grading curve: there's a whole lot of them, and while they each (presumably) have some great aspects as individuals, as a group they're... average.
Genuine question and excellent explanation. Thanks for that. I've also never heard of calling someone a sock. That's also solid. Going using that in my normal convos now.
 
Genuine question and excellent explanation. Thanks for that. I've also never heard of calling someone a sock. That's also solid. Going using that in my normal convos now.
Wanting to make sure you understand how to use it so you don't sound silly in front of your boss or your father in law: it's a derivative of "sock puppet." If I call someone a sock, I'm saying that they are not making their own statements, but they are making someone else's statements for them.

On a message board, you can create a sock puppet by creating a different account with a different username/email. For instance, the user @HaikuBUFF on this board is "someone's sock." That person normally participates using their main username, but every now and then, they log on as HaikuBUFF and give us a haiku.
 
Wanting to make sure you understand how to use it so you don't sound silly in front of your boss or your father in law: it's a derivative of "sock puppet." If I call someone a sock, I'm saying that they are not making their own statements, but they are making someone else's statements for them.

On a message board, you can create a sock puppet by creating a different account with a different username/email. For instance, the user @HaikuBUFF on this board is "someone's sock." That person normally participates using their main username, but every now and then, they log on as HaikuBUFF and give us a haiku.

Sock stinks in the woods
Lone, can anyone smell it?
My only profile :(
 
Wanting to make sure you understand how to use it so you don't sound silly in front of your boss or your father in law: it's a derivative of "sock puppet." If I call someone a sock, I'm saying that they are not making their own statements, but they are making someone else's statements for them.

On a message board, you can create a sock puppet by creating a different account with a different username/email. For instance, the user @HaikuBUFF on this board is "someone's sock." That person normally participates using their main username, but every now and then, they log on as HaikuBUFF and give us a haiku.
I think there needs to be full transparency on the new AllBuffs. Whose sock is Haiku? Who else has a sock? Answers. We need them.
 
I think there needs to be full transparency on the new AllBuffs. Whose sock is Haiku? Who else has a sock? Answers. We need them.
Some things are better left unknown.

As one random example: I really don't want to know what they put in cheetos.
 
Wanting to make sure you understand how to use it so you don't sound silly in front of your boss or your father in law: it's a derivative of "sock puppet." If I call someone a sock, I'm saying that they are not making their own statements, but they are making someone else's statements for them.

On a message board, you can create a sock puppet by creating a different account with a different username/email. For instance, the user @HaikuBUFF on this board is "someone's sock." That person normally participates using their main username, but every now and then, they log on as HaikuBUFF and give us a haiku.

It's nice to see that socks have come a long ways to morph into burner accounts on Twitter and other social media places.
 
Back
Top