2022 Recruiting Thread

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly post anything dumber, you overachieve and post drivel like this. The only person who gives a tinkers damn about proficiency ratings and the dumbass ridiculous “belt” is you. Not a single poster on this board, not one poster on any other board, not one coach, not one player, not one news outlet. NOT ONE. Every year Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU and a few others are in the hunt for the playoffs due hot one reason... recruiting. And Cincinnati was NEVER in the hunt.

I thought several teams were at least in consideration. One of the arguments was effectively in relation to Cincinnati but actually was about Brigham Young. Colin Cowherd suggested that the Bulldogs would beat Brigham Young soundly. It's a podcast you can watch on You Tube. Cincinnati held their own. It probably isn't about recruiting anyway. While I will be the first to admit ignorance to the process I'm betting many people actually care about my proficiency ratings. You might not. So what? You speak for everyone else here? If you want to know the truth, and I suppose the truth can sting a little, Brigham Young came quite close a year ago. Certainly they proved they belong in the conversation. That isn't my opinion. That was the common consensus of opinion.

 

[Duckboy33]

I thought several teams were at least in consideration. One of the arguments was effectively in relation to Cincinnati but actually was about Brigham Young. Colin Cowherd suggested that the Bulldogs would beat Brigham Young soundly. It's a podcast you can watch on You Tube. Cincinnati held their own. It probably isn't about recruiting anyway. While I will be the first to admit ignorance to the process I'm betting many people actually care about my proficiency ratings. You might not. So what? You speak for everyone else here? If you want to know the truth, and I suppose the truth can sting a little, Brigham Young came quite close a year ago. Certainly they proved they belong in the conversation. That isn't my opinion. That was the common consensus of opinion.

Cincinnati's recruiting class rankings in the AAC:

2018 - #1
2019 - #2
2020 - #1

Cincinnati doesn't prove that recruiting rankings don't matter. In fact, quite the opposite. They had outrecruited the rest of the AAC and were able to put together an undefeated season in the AAC. Then they played Georgia, a team that has outrecruited them, and they lost.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Cincinnati's recruiting class rankings in the AAC:

2018 - #1
2019 - #2
2020 - #1

Cincinnati doesn't prove that recruiting rankings don't matter. In fact, quite the opposite. They had outrecruited the rest of the AAC and were able to put together an undefeated season in the AAC. Then they played Georgia, a team that has outrecruited them, and they lost.

Yeah, I know they were beaten. I recognize that. I think it's interesting to see where teams fall against the SEC. We can see progress being made. Cincinnati is possibly going to be recruited at some point to the ACC. Because they have a high standard. People who want to focus solely upon where teams land are missing the point. I know Cincinnati lost.

 

[Duckboy33]

Yeah, I know they were beaten. I recognize that. I think it's interesting to see where teams fall against the SEC. We can see progress being made. Cincinnati is possibly going to be recruited at some point to the ACC. Because they have a high standard. People who want to focus solely upon where teams land are missing the point. I know Cincinnati lost.

I don't see the ACC adding Cincinnati but Fickell is doing a great job with the program. They once again finished with the #1 class in the AAC. They finished ranked 42nd in 2021 and 41st in 2020. There are 65 "power" programs so their recruiting is approaching the middle of the power programs. That's actually pretty impressive.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

I don't see the ACC adding Cincinnati but Fickell is doing a great job with the program. They once again finished with the #1 class in the AAC. They finished ranked 42nd in 2021 and 41st in 2020. There are 65 "power" programs so their recruiting is approaching the middle of the power programs. That's actually pretty impressive.

I think it's highly likely that the ACC will invite Cincinnati. But that's not what I'm getting at. Top-60 is where I establish relevancy particular to the P-5 (a.k.a. the establishment). I don't really follow recruiting ratings that closely. That's definitely outside my preview, although it's certainly quite relevant, it's internal to my method. It's one of those factors that reveals itself over time. Again citing Brigham Young. I have them within top-60.
Not with respect to recruiting. But since recruiting plays a role, it's probably safe to assume Brigham Young's recruiting falls within that boundary, somewhere.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly post anything dumber, you overachieve and post drivel like this. The only person who gives a tinkers damn about proficiency ratings and the dumbass ridiculous “belt” is you. Not a single poster on this board, not one poster on any other board, not one coach, not one player, not one news outlet. NOT ONE. Every year Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU and a few others are in the hunt for the playoffs due hot one reason... recruiting. And Cincinnati was NEVER in the hunt.

The Belt is what selects a champion under the present format. People haven't demonstrated that it isn't at least complicit within the protocol. I want the national championship to be defined as the Belt. It would simply matters. As to your other point the New York Times was relative proficiency. So that's one news outlet. Making your statement a false accusation. Admittedly I never promoted it. Why should I? But I understand the method and it's something real. In fact you should be ashamed of yourself. There's nothing false in my representation. Or the basis through which it's implemented. I think I add a measure of pizazz to an otherwise mostly dull environment. The Belt is exciting! Belt games are popular. They always have been. That isn't me saying it, that's reality. If you are suggesting everything I post is my imagination you're simply wrong. Title games serve the consensus of opinion in part because of the things I support. I'll through down a caveat. If someone can prove me wrong on a salient point, I'll forfeit.

 

[Duckboy33]

5 star Athlete Sam McCall commits to Florida State. Huge pickup for Norvell and the Noles.

4 star QB Sam Horn commits to Missouri. Horn is a top 100 prospect nationally. Monster pickup for Missouri.

 

[RTR...USN (ret)]

The Belt is what selects a champion under the present format. People haven't demonstrated that it isn't at least complicit within the protocol. I want the national championship to be defined as the Belt. It would simply matters. As to your other point the New York Times was relative proficiency. So that's one news outlet. Making your statement a false accusation. Admittedly I never promoted it. Why should I? But I understand the method and it's something real. In fact you should be ashamed of yourself. There's nothing false in my representation. Or the basis through which it's implemented. I think I add a measure of pizazz to an otherwise mostly dull environment. The Belt is exciting! Belt games are popular. They always have been. That isn't me saying it, that's reality. If you are suggesting everything I post is my imagination you're simply wrong. Title games serve the consensus of opinion in part because of the things I support. I'll through down a caveat. If someone can prove me wrong on a salient point, I'll forfeit.

You wouldn’t understand a salient point if it jumped up and bit you in the dick.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

You wouldn’t understand a salient point if it jumped up and bit you in the dick.

I'm simply telling you I have factored into my metric recruiting rankings. Because they are internal to the result. Meaning a team with highly touted recruits ought to rank high among the title contenders as a consequence. I don't need to formula it. It's implicit within the outcome. As are many other things. Admittedly I don't factir motivation because I consider that internal. Along with injuries. There are such things as capable backups. So much of what people accuse me if is simply false. I said I consider the result (W, L, T) the most relevant statistic. I'm nit the only one. Vince Lombardi seemed to believe in that metric? Are you suggesting you are smarter than Vince Lombardi? Let me know when they requisition a trophy in your honor. Until then I think I'll listen to Vince and his cronies. He thought losing was never justified. I suspect Saban feels the same way although admittedly I can't speak for him directly. Maybe you can? Ask him if it's ever justifiable to lose. I'd be interested in what bus response might be. TYVM.

 

[LyquidMetal]

You wouldn’t understand a salient point if it jumped up and bit you in the dick.

For those that like to argue I spose that this belt/relative proficiency crap is good for babbling over. Actually in a previous post of this belt lover where a math formula was added kinda made sense in that way of looking at it. I say that because as an engineer I understand the math part. But, as I have mentioned to cfb a coupla times, I posted the trophy that is handed out on the field after the game is what matters.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

View attachment 5507

For those that like to argue I spose that this belt/relative proficiency crap is good for babbling over. Actually in a previous post of this belt lover where a math formula was added kinda made sense in that way of looking at it. I say that because as an engineer I understand the math part. But, as I have mentioned to cfb a coupla times, I posted the trophy that is handed out on the field after the game is what matters.

I invented the method that indirectly created CFP. The problem is in the execution. When the BCS was still solvent I tried desperately to retain it. That was before I contemplated any Belt. The Belt was created by an individual who thought Brigham Young wasn't a deserving national champion. To his credit, he was correct. But it seems unlikely to me that had Brigham Young been admitted to the Fiesta Bowl, they'd have lost.
I tried to explain that through protocol. Neither Oregon nor Stanford likely would have impeded Brigham Young. That's evident by how Brigham Young dismantled Utah. A team (6-5-1) roughly comparable to Washington St (6-5) that very season. Brigham Young obviously never beat Washington St (at least not in 1984) but successfully defeated them in a Holiday Bowl. A game that obviously proved BYU capable, if nothing else. Utah and Wazzou played. Washington St won 40-38 in Pullman. Brigham Young defeated Utah 24-14. Obviously, Washington St defeated Oregon and Stanford. Leaving Nebraska as the ONLY team left standing. It's unfortunate Brigham Young didn't play Nebraska. If they had, it's a safe bet Brigham Young would be given sole proprietorship over the Belt, having beaten U.C.L.A preceding the Natty in 1983. So the best I (or anyone else) can do is give them a co-championship distinction. Probably just as well, really under the circumstances. Iowa shares in the Natty. Together they are 96% of a NC. Pretty close I'd say to my method.

 

[RTR...USN (ret)]

View attachment 5507

For those that like to argue I spose that this belt/relative proficiency crap is good for babbling over. Actually in a previous post of this belt lover where a math formula was added kinda made sense in that way of looking at it. I say that because as an engineer I understand the math part. But, as I have mentioned to cfb a coupla times, I posted the trophy that is handed out on the field after the game is what matters.

This meme makes as much sense as his nonsensical babbling....

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

This meme makes as much sense as his nonsensical babbling....
View attachment 5508

I think I said many if the things people seem to feel are so tantamount to a program's success are internal factors. That's actually mostly true. It isn't a slant against the so-called my power brokers. More typically than not those things ARE important. Like, say internal strife. But nearly all are evident through the result of the contest, itself. Making keeping a tally mostly unnecessary.
Meaning I probably won't have to ratify my metric to make it serviceable. Certainly such matters matter. But if said team lacks motivation, or hasn't much interest, thats clearly an internal affair. I shouldn't have to monitor every Tom and Harry Dick to assess whether or not each is playing to his full potential. Or even absent. Those are irregularities, obviously. But it's ridiculous to have to account for practically any. Louisville some time ago was absent Bridgewater. BFD. I'm supposed to believe each time he was absent that trumps the result? Actually it's kind of funny people bring it up. Given that as a consolation prize (if you buy into that nonsense) they were forced to play Florida. A team expected to win handily. The result went contrary to the prediction. That's why it's essential to count EVERY win. EVERY time. Championship teams make adjustments. Nobody thought Louisville was exceptional. But they were talented and deep. Might they have won every game with Bridgewater? Makes no difference to me.
They were as good as their record. Which is why I'm against any expanded playoff. In fact I'd rather we never initiated one at all.

 

[Tenn"cock]

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

If you don't mind I'd like input as to what part of my outline isn't making sense? I just went back and discovered a proper rendering of my metric with respect to 1984 (arguably the most controversial season ever played, although 2017 also ranks high in that respect, as well, proving to me that lightning can in fact strike in the same place twice, contrary to popular opinion). Iowa's NC is LEGIT. It's sad really people keep questioning me. What do I have to gain? Nothing. The Belt is legitimate. 2017 to the same measure of 1984 demonstrates why it's imperative to unite them together in some fashion. Otherwise there WILL be controversy!

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Big year for them. They had a disappointing year on the field and on the recruiting trail.

I don't think they were especially disappointing. Success is sort of a relative term. My proficiency rating actually had them ranked appropriately and even during the stretch they weren't winning demonstrated some meaningful measures. It's hard to convey success when the record indicates decline. Admittedly it was disappointing. Some people might argue UCF fell off the map, last year with George O'Leary. Admittedly 0-12 isn't something to write home about. But those are cycles and they are healthy. What ISN'T healthy, and I've seen evidence of it here, in certain circles, is an obsession with sustained exemplary behavior.
It actually is impractical. Michigan was only able to sustain (BCS era) a measure of credibility only found within the SEC Conference. 70% comparability. Which is exemplary. But nobody else really ought to be expected to. It's too stringent.
It's unhealthy to demand sustained success at the highest measure (100%). Which parallels being undefeated. Nobody ought to be held to that standard. But as far as Penn State went they were respectable even with the losses. Surprisingly so. Many teams would kill to be in that situation. In 1984 at 6-5 Penn State was still very much involved in the national championship. It might be hard to fathom but success is a relative term. I haven't had much success in my life. It isn't all about being ranked #1. Clearly the standard is higher at a place like Penn State.
But only one team will ever claim a championship. I think we need to reassess what we think success is. It has to be getting to the moon? What about John Glenn. He's an afterthought for simply orbiting the Earth? Why is it always only the person who takes home the trophy so decorated? Why can't it be the equipment manager? Why can't it include the person who drove the bus?

 

[OldDevilDawg]

Some people might argue UCF fell off the map, last year with George O'Leary.

Wait, wut? George O'Leary hasn't had anything to do with UCF in 6 years. Nevermind....you be you. That's why I like you.

 

[Duckboy33]

I don't think they were especially disappointing. Success is sort of a relative term. My proficiency rating actually had them ranked appropriately and even during the stretch they weren't winning demonstrated some meaningful measures. It's hard to convey success when the record indicates decline. Admittedly it was disappointing. Some people might argue UCF fell off the map, last year with George O'Leary. Admittedly 0-12 isn't something to write home about. But those are cycles and they are healthy. What ISN'T healthy, and I've seen evidence of it here, in certain circles, is an obsession with sustained exemplary behavior.
It actually is impractical. Michigan was only able to sustain (BCS era) a measure of credibility only found within the SEC Conference. 70% comparability. Which is exemplary. But nobody else really ought to be expected to. It's too stringent.
It's unhealthy to demand sustained success at the highest measure (100%). Which parallels being undefeated. Nobody ought to be held to that standard. But as far as Penn State went they were respectable even with the losses. Surprisingly so. Many teams would kill to be in that situation. In 1984 at 6-5 Penn State was still very much involved in the national championship. It might be hard to fathom but success is a relative term. I haven't had much success in my life. It isn't all about being ranked #1. Clearly the standard is higher at a place like Penn State.
But only one team will ever claim a championship. I think we need to reassess what we think success is. It has to be getting to the moon? What about John Glenn. He's an afterthought for simply orbiting the Earth? Why is it always only the person who takes home the trophy so decorated? Why can't it be the equipment manager? Why can't it include the person who drove the bus?

I live in PA and know some Penn State people. Going 4-5 was definitely a disappointment. Finishing outside the top 20 in recruiting and 6th in the Big Ten was also disappointing. Not many people are giving up on Franklin and they are doing well on the 2022 trail so I think they will be fine. But if you ask the Penn State fanbase, they will tell you that last year didn't go well.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Wait, wut? George O'Leary hasn't had anything to do with UCF in 6 years. Nevermind....you be you. That's why I like you.

I like you too. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean anything by it.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

I live in PA and know some Penn State people. Going 4-5 was definitely a disappointment. Finishing outside the top 20 in recruiting and 6th in the Big Ten was also disappointing. Not many people are giving up on Franklin and they are doing well on the 2022 trail so I think they will be fine. But if you ask the Penn State fanbase, they will tell you that last year didn't go well.

My point wasn't directed at Penn State necessarily. I guess I'm not the best at making salient points. I was saying it's better to have adversity to life's miseries, of which I can personally attest to, than nothing. I'm sorry I'm not better at exposition. Alex Smith is a prime example.
Some thoght he might die. I'm not sure, exactly what the problem was. But it was serious enough to consider amputation.
To save his life! I watched him play, I'm always curious about things like that.
In my opinion he might have been destined to fail. He's frail, at least physically.
It would seem he looked adversity in the eye and to paraphrase a line I'm stealing from a movie with Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigel, telling it to 'f. Off!'. That is the point I'm making. That's my observation.
I guess it would be nice if all that was required was to show up and claim a title.
But that isn't reality. At least not MY reality.
It's good in some respect teams like Alabama, Oklahoma, Penn State, Michigan, Oregon, and whichever others you want to include take competition seriously. That's why I think the method should include the Belt. There's nothing more selective.
People might point to a problematic year like 2017 (and there are many others, besides) as evidence it's a flawed metric to employ.
But taking it at face value it would seem Miami, FL might have been looking past Pittsburgh. Ahead to the ACC Championship. A game they could conceivably win. And advance, as a result. After losing to Pittsburgh, NC hopes were dashed. I chalk that up to the efficacy of the Belt as a qualifying metric. Pittsburgh obviously wasn't a serious title contender.
A longshot at best. But as proprietor to the Belt, something they clearly earned, even if say were 0-11 before beating Miami, FL suddenly have name recognition. Clout.
That's all I'm doing. I know not everyone is sold on the idea. But let's say Pittsburgh advanced to the ACC Championship after beating Miami, FL. Suddenly that game takes on new life. Pittsburgh might upset Clemson, in which case they might advance to the CFP Championship. Why wouldn't they? They'd still necessarily need to beat Alabama, and I assume, Georgia. In which case I reckon they might earn a national title. Despite having lost seven games.
Why are people so afraid of the Belt?