SouthernFans.com
TrueGSU.com

Follow GSUFANS.com on
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: Good article on the TO (Army)

  1. #31

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Army would beat any team in the Belt on any field by double digits.
    Too many Urkels on your team that's why your wins low

  2. #32

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by Eskimojoe View Post
    Army would beat any team in the Belt on any field by double digits.

    Dirk E. Sanchez, Overyonder, GA 2001

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    you missed JDC's point.

  3. #33

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by yourmother View Post
    Army's recruiting vs the other teams on their schedule below. At best they are playing their equals talent-wise with several teams more talented on paper, and they win more than they lose. That is a well coached good team. If it's not then 2014 and 2015 GS were not good teams.


    Welp hate you wasted your time on that. The service academies can take as many kids as they want as they dont give scholarships the ratings are low but when you can take 80 yes 80 recruits a cycle like Army did last year you have a better chance of finding the late bloomers or diamonds in the rough. It is not the same not by a long shot.

    If we could sift through 50-80 two and three star recruits every year I am pretty sure we could beat Buffalo as well.

    https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Fo...Conference=IND

    Dirk E. Sanchez, Overyonder, GA 2001

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    you missed JDC's point.

  4. #34

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by JDC325 View Post
    Welp hate you wasted your time on that. The service academies can take as many kids as they want as they dont give scholarships the ratings are low but when you can take 80 yes 80 recruits a cycle like Army did last year you have a better chance of finding the late bloomers or diamonds in the rough. It is not the same not by a long shot.

    If we could sift through 50-80 two and three star recruits every year I am pretty sure we could beat Buffalo as well.

    https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Fo...Conference=IND
    Yeah, everybody knows the service academies have a massive unfair advantage in recruiting. **sarcasm***

    They 'take' 80 'recruits' a cycle because every single player who tries out is counted as a 'recruit'. The vast majority probably have no business on a college football field and get weeded out immediately. It's not like Army has a 320-man roster of studs.

    The funniest part about this is the guy who is constantly railing on how recruiting ratings and stars matter so much doesn't note that Army's got 3 (THREE!) 3-star recruits in that '80-recruit' class. No 4's, no 5's, and just three 3's. The rest are 2's or worse, and almost half aren't even rated.
    Bacardi Bowl Champs - December 1939

  5. #35

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by GATAlac El Dorado View Post
    Yeah, everybody knows the service academies have a massive unfair advantage in recruiting. **sarcasm***

    They 'take' 80 'recruits' a cycle because every single player who tries out is counted as a 'recruit'. The vast majority probably have no business on a college football field and get weeded out immediately. It's not like Army has a 320-man roster of studs.

    The funniest part about this is the guy who is constantly railing on how recruiting ratings and stars matter so much doesn't note that Army's got 3 (THREE!) 3-star recruits in that '80-recruit' class. No 4's, no 5's, and just three 3's. The rest are 2's or worse, and almost half aren't even rated.
    The irony was not lost on me my friend.

    I thought it was RICH.
    Dr. Tredell Dorsey, Esq., Black Belt, and motivational speaker

  6. #36

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by GATAlac El Dorado View Post
    Yeah, everybody knows the service academies have a massive unfair advantage in recruiting. **sarcasm***

    They 'take' 80 'recruits' a cycle because every single player who tries out is counted as a 'recruit'. The vast majority probably have no business on a college football field and get weeded out immediately. It's not like Army has a 320-man roster of studs.

    The funniest part about this is the guy who is constantly railing on how recruiting ratings and stars matter so much doesn't note that Army's got 3 (THREE!) 3-star recruits in that '80-recruit' class. No 4's, no 5's, and just three 3's. The rest are 2's or worse, and almost half aren't even rated.
    Over half are two and three star kids exactly what we get. Now imagine if we could take 80 kids with at least half 50 for Army being legit ranked players and sifting out the best ones, you have to be kidding me if you dont think that helps. Also FYI they have six three stars this year along with 27 other commits which is over what any other team can sign already. Navy has well over 20+ three star kids on the team. This is an advantage and is why they are about the only teams that out perform their rankings. Also you are better than putting words in my mouth. I link articles and back up my opinions with data. I also have never harped on individual rankings for players and focused on macro data. Also side not fyi there is a number assigned to the star ranking and it matters. Navy is the biggest outlier of team in that area, the only other outlier where they are last year was App and they have slid back this year so two teams out of 30+/- yet Navy just special somehow..must be because they run the option....right? Most of Army's schedule is a joke most years and who other than Navy, which is the biggest rivalry on the planet, have they beat of note?

    Dirk E. Sanchez, Overyonder, GA 2001

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    you missed JDC's point.

  7. #37

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by JDC325 View Post
    Over half are two and three star kids exactly what we get. Now imagine if we could take 80 kids with at least half being legit and sifting out the best ones. This is an advantage and is why they are about the only teams that out perform their rankings.
    That's about as misleading a way to state the case as I can imagine. Over half are 2 star kids (is there such a thing as 1 star?) and 4% (FOUR!) are three star kids. The rest aren't even rated!

    Last year, Army would've been 8th in the Sunbelt. 8th out of 11 in the weakest conference in the country.

    I swear it's hilarious to hear you of all people touting the benefits of having a recruiting class 'stacked' half full of 2 stars and half full of 0 stars. Excuse me, half 2 stars, 46% 0 stars, and 4% 3 stars.
    Bacardi Bowl Champs - December 1939

  8. #38

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by GATAlac El Dorado View Post
    That's about as misleading a way to state the case as I can imagine. Over half are 2 star kids (is there such a thing as 1 star?) and 4% (FOUR!) are three star kids. The rest aren't even rated!

    Last year, Army would've been 8th in the Sunbelt. 8th out of 11 in the weakest conference in the country.

    I swear it's hilarious to hear you of all people touting the benefits of having a recruiting class 'stacked' half full of 2 stars and half full of 0 stars. Excuse me, half 2 stars, 46% 0 stars, and 4% 3 stars.
    To get a ranking means you are a legit college player, literally thousands of graduating high schools players cant sniff a ranking. When you can sift through 50-60 of them it is an advantage, NO OTHER teams that get two and low three star talent can do that. That is basically the bottom quarter of the FBS. Give me a break. When you can try out triple or quadruple the amount of players ummm the odds of finding late bloomers and diamonds in the rough probably increases slightly I would imagine. Out of 50+/- two and three star kids I will go out on a limb and say a handful will likely out perform their ranking...good Lord. Most teams find one or two every class just signing 25 versus freaking 80 kids. So basically you are telling me if Navy and Army were limited to taking 25 kids a class versus unlimited they would perform the same....that is hilarious. Yes every team last year in the bottom 25 in team talent but Navy really was a nationally legit team weird......those other 25+/- team should just run the option I guess because that was the only difference other than signing 80 kids.

    This just in they also have feeder schools and JV teams....no advantage there either right?

    Dirk E. Sanchez, Overyonder, GA 2001

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    you missed JDC's point.

  9. #39

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by JDC325 View Post
    To get a ranking means you are a legit college player, literally thousands of graduating high schools players cant sniff a ranking. When you can sift through 50-60 of them it is an advantage, NO OTHER teams that get two and low three star talent can do that. That is basically the bottom quarter of the FBS. Give me a break. When you can try out triple or quadruple the amount of players ummm the odds of finding late bloomers and diamonds in the rough probably increases slightly I would imagine. Out of 50+/- two and three star kids I will go out on a limb and say a handful will likely out perform their ranking...good Lord.
    LOL, you keep saying 50 two and three star kids like that makes them average 2.5 stars. It's 47 and 3. You're killing me.

    Here, I have a bowl with 95 red M&M's and 5 blue M&M's. Would you like some of my 'assorted' M&M's?

    How long do you think the 30+ no stars and the majority of the 2 stars get to display the fact that they are late bloomers or diamonds in the rough before they are no longer a part of the recruiting class? A week? 2 weeks? Like I said, Army ain't dressing out 320 every week. I could MAYBE understand if you got to keep them all on the roster and develop them for 4 years that you might occasionally get an overachiever here and there, but that's not what's happening.

    But no, I'll not take your word for it. I'll go do a couple of Google searches on "Why do the service academies enjoy such an unfair advantage in recruiting" VS. "Why is recruiting so difficult for service academies" and let the college football press confirm that you're right. Surely you're not the only person in America that thinks this is the case?
    Last edited by GATAlac El Dorado; 15th November 2017 at 06:14 PM.
    Bacardi Bowl Champs - December 1939

  10. #40

    Default Re: Good article on the TO (Army)

    Quote Originally Posted by GATAlac El Dorado View Post
    LOL, you keep saying 50 two and three star kids like that makes them average 2.5 stars. It's 47 and 3. You're killing me.

    How long do you think the 30+ no stars and the majority of the 2 stars get to display the fact that they are late bloomers or diamonds in the rough before they are no longer a part of the recruiting class? A week? 2 weeks? Like I said, Army ain't dressing out 320 every week. I could MAYBE understand if you got to keep them all on the roster and develop them for 4 years that you might occasionally get an overachiever here and there, but that's not what's happening.

    But no, I'll not take your word for it. I'll go do a couple of Google searches on "Why do the service academies enjoy such an unfair advantage in recruiting" VS. "Why is recruiting so difficult for service academies" and let the college football press confirm that you're right. Surely you're not the only person in America that thinks this is the case?
    I have not asserted once the two groups were equal. You are killing me when the bottom half of the FBS is mainly made up of teams with two star kids yet sifting through 50 of them every year is not an advantage. Forget 80 and the kids that develop in feeder schols like Kado was at and their JV teams as well I guess. ArkSt's roster is mainly two star kids how is Navy doing so much better?

    The five closest teams in team talent to Navy last year were TXST, North Texas, EMU, ODU above and Kent, App, UNC Charlotte, ULM, GaSt below, yet Navy has just figured something out they have not......OK. I wonder if they would fair better trying out at min TWICE as many kids they normally get much less being complete dumpster fires last year for most of them..hmmm.

    Dirk E. Sanchez, Overyonder, GA 2001

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    you missed JDC's point.

Similar Threads

  1. Good article on concussion
    By GSU08 in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 6th December 2014, 10:35 AM
  2. Good Article
    By TrueBlue7 in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 1st December 2013, 06:16 PM
  3. Good Article out there
    By Eagle_ikon in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19th November 2011, 10:08 PM
  4. Good article on Brown
    By JGEagle7 in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 25th August 2010, 07:45 PM
  5. SMN Article with some Good Info
    By half-n-half in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23rd September 2008, 08:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •