|
Replies: 10
| visibility 4
|
CU Guru [1189]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Athlon - Ranking rosters heading into 2018. This doesn’t even make sense...
Feb 22, 2018, 2:47 PM
|
|
They rank rosters heading into 2018, but it’s based on an average class ranking from 2014-2018 and even lists records over the past five seasons.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but generally, a college football player has four years of eligibility (not counting grad transfers and medical redshirts). How can you deduce that what happened in 2014 has any bearing on 2018 from recruiting rankings? Or that wins or losses in 2014 have anything to do with the talent of a roster in 2018? Who played in 2014 that will still be playing (again, excluding grad transfers and medical redshirts)?
I don’t care that Clemson is ranked at 8, but the logic makes zero sense. The author doesn’t offer caveats other than the omission of attrition. He doesn’t even take into account player development.
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-college-footballs-rosters-2018?amp
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Clemson Legend [107495]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
RS Seniors, 5 years to play 4?***
Feb 22, 2018, 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1189]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
But, I did ask who played in 2014 that will play in 2018
Feb 22, 2018, 2:52 PM
|
|
Excluding grad or medical redshirts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [107495]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
You say it's based on avg. class ranking, so they use 2014
Feb 22, 2018, 2:53 PM
|
|
in that formula.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1189]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
So that small fraction of players still in the game
Feb 22, 2018, 2:55 PM
|
|
Should drive a statement such as “most talented rosters?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [107495]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
Yes, if you're being inclusive. Some played and were
Feb 22, 2018, 2:58 PM
|
|
part of that year's wins/losses and certainly all of them practiced unless they were hurt.
They are all part n parcel of that 2014 team, even if redshirted.
You can see from the image Clemson has quite a few going into the 2018 season.
I don't get any angst associated with it, everyone is being treated equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50531]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 31659
Joined: 1999
|
It is quite simple.
Feb 22, 2018, 2:52 PM
|
|
Athlon does it to sell magazines, and asking legitimate questions like this only increases their sales.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1189]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: It is quite simple.
Feb 22, 2018, 2:53 PM
|
|
If this is a sample of their work, I’m less likely to buy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8240]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Athlon - Ranking rosters heading into 2018. This doesn’t even make sense...
Feb 22, 2018, 3:21 PM
|
|
I'm just not buying their rankings for us: 6, 16, 10, 9, & 17. Sorry, they need to rethink their lives and start over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [338]
TigerPulse: 91%
15
|
Re: Athlon - Ranking rosters heading into 2018. This doesn’t even make sense...
Feb 22, 2018, 4:15 PM
|
|
It's not rocket science and it's generally on par with these analyses traditionally. For schools with higher level recruits, their rankings in '14 and even '15 are less relevant because many of those kids will have moved on. By that same token, for schools with lower rated recruits, their rankings in the most recent classes ('17 and '18) are less relevant because those schools tend to redshirt more and get fewer contributions from true and even redshirt freshmen.
If you want one metric by which you measure all teams, this isn't a bad one, but again, not perfect either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2249]
TigerPulse: 97%
32
|
Re: Athlon - Ranking rosters heading into 2018. This doesn’t even make sense...
Feb 22, 2018, 4:17 PM
|
|
Uh did Athlon do any research? I think you lose credibility when one of your little one liner notes is "Every team ranked inside of our top 8 has won a national title since the BCS era in 1998", am I wrong or has Georgia won a National Championship since 1998 or did I blink?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 4
|
|
|
50
