(WE) Marshall fans believe we should be contending with the top of the G5 right???

[riflearm2]

Lack of development at QB is what’s staggering more than anything. Fun fact, in every single FBS conf title we’ve won since ‘97, our QB has never been lower than 2nd in their conference in passer efficiency rating. The highest season we’ve had for passer efficiency rating since Cato was Litton finishing 6th. QB play just has to improve.

Nothing to worry about there. The QB Marshall signed in this class doesn't have a single other offer from an FBS or FCS school, much like his fellow classmates, so we should expect big seasons coming up.

I don't understand why everyone puts so much trust into the 'star rating' system. Most of our biggest contributors over the last 10 years were 2 star recruits, or even walk-ons.

The real problem is that most of our highest rated recruits either never played a single down for the Herd, or didn't make it past their freshman year.

If the stars don't matter, then the fact that our highest rated recruits never played wouldn't really matter, right?

 

[The Real SamC]

Why is being picked 11th in a preseason basketball poll when the season hasn't even been played yet a dismal ranking, but having the 11th ranked football recruiting class before all the other recruits come in February is an ok ranking?

Well, I really don’t put much stock in these recruiting ranking deals, but as Josh has explained, MU will be just fine in recruiting class rankings when its all done. Being picked 11th pre-season in a league that does not even have 11 schools that make a serious effort at the sport is sickening.

 

[i am herdman]

Stars don't matter other than the top teams in the country have a bunch of 4 and 5 star guys.

 

[ucfMike]

You'll have to explain that one.

For many years, Doc had the conference's top recruiting class year after year. Yet he was only able to win the conference once with all of those top classes. Now that he is getting classes ranked in the middle of the conference or lower, do you expect the staff to be able to develop less talent to a higher level than they were able to develop high talent?

Me neither.

Is it possible? Yeah. Teams like both of ours, and the Boise's of the world, have shown that they can take a recruiting class loaded with 2 and 3 star athletes that fit their scheme and develop them into impact players. Of course, the diamond mining business doesn't always pan out with these 'diamond in the rough' types. So, is it always enough to beat every other team in the conference? Nah.

But to your question, there's just too many variables to say. Coaching staffs change, other teams recruit better some years, players get hurt, and $hit just happens some times. Plus, keep in mind that recruiting rankings are definitely not an exact science, so who's to say that the ranking order is right or not (which was the main point I was trying to make).

Anyway, I suppose it all comes down to how you're labeling a football season a success. By most people's measurement, a 10 win season is reasonably considered successful. As I pointed out, you guys have either got to that threshold or been darn close with the players you recruited and the coaches that developed them.

The unfortunate reality for both of our teams is that so much of what we try to achieve each year swings on whether or not we are conference champions. We don't have the luxury of teams like Alabama (2017), Ohio State (2015), or Oklahoma (2019) who can still reach their goals without having to win every game, or even their conference in some cases.

I do know this though, come Monday at 2:30PM I'm gonna sit down, drink myself a nice beer, and enjoy watching these young men play one last time before they shut it down.

 

[riflearm2]

But to your question, there's just too many variables to say. Coaching staffs change, other teams recruit better some years, players get hurt, and $hit just happens some times. Plus, keep in mind that recruiting rankings are definitely not an exact science, so who's to say that the ranking order is right or not (which was the main point I was trying to make).

That's foolish. The opportunity to succeed with better talent is far greater than the opportunity to succeed with lower talent. If not, you'd see the top programs chasing after all 2* and 3* kids as much as they do 4* and 5* kids.

And who's to say that the ranking order is right or wrong? Sure, you can find exceptions on both ends, but the rankings are correct more than not. All you have to do is look at the players drafted in the first round each year, look at their high school star rankings. You'd have to understand that there are far more 2* kids than 3* kids, far more 3* kids than 4* kids, far more 4* kids than 5* kids, and see how the draft breaks down.

Upon doing so, you'll see that even though there are about 10X more 2* and 3* kids than 4* and 5* kids in a high school class, 4* and 5* star kids make up about 36% of the draft . . . again, even though they only account for about 10% of rated kids in high school.

Another way to look at it is to look at what percentage of 5*, 4*, 3*, and 2* kids get drafted.

5* kids get drafted at about a 66% clip. 4* kids go at a 23% rate. 3* kids go at 5%. 2* kids go at less than 2%.

So clearly, the star ratings are very good at determining the talent of a player. As a result, you have a far greater chance of developing the higher rated kids into great talents than you do with the 2* and 3* kids.

 

[ucfMike]

That's foolish. The opportunity to succeed with better talent is far greater than the opportunity to succeed with lower talent. If not, you'd see the top programs chasing after all 2* and 3* kids as much as they do 4* and 5* kids.

And who's to say that the ranking order is right or wrong? Sure, you can find exceptions on both ends, but the rankings are correct more than not. All you have to do is look at the players drafted in the first round each year, look at their high school star rankings. You'd have to understand that there are far more 2* kids than 3* kids, far more 3* kids than 4* kids, far more 4* kids than 5* kids, and see how the draft breaks down.

Upon doing so, you'll see that even though there are about 10X more 2* and 3* kids than 4* and 5* kids in a high school class, 4* and 5* star kids make up about 36% of the draft . . . again, even though they only account for about 10% of rated kids in high school.

Another way to look at it is to look at what percentage of 5*, 4*, 3*, and 2* kids get drafted.

5* kids get drafted at about a 66% clip. 4* kids go at a 23% rate. 3* kids go at 5%. 2* kids go at less than 2%.

So clearly, the star ratings are very good at determining the talent of a player. As a result, you have a far greater chance of developing the higher rated kids into great talents than you do with the 2* and 3* kids.

....and water is wet.

I'm certainly not saying that a 2*, on average, is going to outperform a 5*. In fact, that's not even remotely the point I have been attempting to make. Do more 5*, on average, make it to the NFL over the average number of 2* kids? Yes, but college coaches are not there to recruit for the NFL. They're out looking for kids that work well for their system.

How many 4*s did Marshall have when you guys went 33-8 between 2013 and 2015? +/- 3? Even still, I would have taken you over >90% of all teams in college football in 2014. (By the way, why am I the one - between the two of us - who's advocating for your players and your coaches? Anyway....)

I'd need to go back and count, but when UCF went on its 25 game win streak over the 2017 and 2018 seasons we had maybe four or five 4*s (at most!) on the entire roster. That's about ~94% of an 85 man roster made up of 2 and 3* kids. Plus, we've never had a recruiting classes above a top 40 ranking, yet we were ranked during that time.

Now to your point, of course getting higher rated athletes that fit your model would be best, but that's not to say that you can't still have success even without those types.

UCF finally came out of the stone-age with former coach George O'leary's smash mouth style of football and are now running an up-tempo RPO scheme where speed takes a prescient. Would a 4* Pro-Style QB who runs a 4.95 40 find success there? Chances are a 2 or 3* dual-threat QB with better mobility would be given the priority by our coaches. So what if that 4* goes on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals. His star ratings were irrelevant to the program.

Anyway, recruiting is the Forrest Gump of college football.....you never know what you're going get.

 

[i am herdman]

Is it possible? Yeah. Teams like both of ours, and the Boise's of the world, have shown that they can take a recruiting class loaded with 2 and 3 star athletes that fit their scheme and develop them into impact players. Of course, the diamond mining business doesn't always pan out with these 'diamond in the rough' types. So, is it always enough to beat every other team in the conference? Nah.

But to your question, there's just too many variables to say. Coaching staffs change, other teams recruit better some years, players get hurt, and $hit just happens some times. Plus, keep in mind that recruiting rankings are definitely not an exact science, so who's to say that the ranking order is right or not (which was the main point I was trying to make).

Anyway, I suppose it all comes down to how you're labeling a football season a success. By most people's measurement, a 10 win season is reasonably considered successful. As I pointed out, you guys have either got to that threshold or been darn close with the players you recruited and the coaches that developed them.

The unfortunate reality for both of our teams is that so much of what we try to achieve each year swings on whether or not we are conference champions. We don't have the luxury of teams like Alabama (2017), Ohio State (2015), or Oklahoma (2019) who can still reach their goals without having to win every game, or even their conference in some cases.

I do know this though, come Monday at 2:30PM I'm gonna sit down, drink myself a nice beer, and enjoy watching these young men play one last time before they shut it down.

That makes no sense. Doc can't win with superior recruiting classes and has yet to show a propensity to develop talent. Now that his recruiting is dropping off further, what makes you think he will do better? Every coach wants more talent. I look at some of the recent recruits and we are beating out Fordham, UTC, and Campbell. Good luck. Coaches with mediocre ability(or worse) and like Doc need superior talent to win. And even, given more talent, that is not a a given.

 

[ucfMike]

That makes no sense. Doc can't win with superior recruiting classes and has yet to show a propensity to develop talent. Now that his recruiting is dropping off further, what makes you think he will do better? Every coach wants more talent. I look at some of the recent recruits and we are beating out Fordham, UTC, and Campbell. Good luck. Coaches with mediocre ability(or worse) and like Doc need superior talent to win. And even, given more talent, that is not a a given.

The conversation, at least from my end, has been about recruiting rankings and fit, not coaching.

 

[riflearm2]

....and water is wet.

I'm certainly not saying that a 2*, on average, is going to outperform a 5*. In fact, that's not even remotely the point I have been attempting to make. Do more 5*, on average, make it to the NFL over the average number of 2* kids? Yes, but college coaches are not there to recruit for the NFL. They're out looking for kids that work well for their system.

How many 4*s did Marshall have when you guys went 33-8 between 2013 and 2015? +/- 3? Even still, I would have taken you over >90% of all teams in college football in 2014. (By the way, why am I the one - between the two of us - who's advocating for your players and your coaches? Anyway....)

I'd need to go back and count, but when UCF went on its 25 game win streak over the 2017 and 2018 seasons we had maybe four or five 4*s (at most!) on the entire roster. That's about ~94% of an 85 man roster made up of 2 and 3* kids. Plus, we've never had a recruiting classes above a top 40 ranking, yet we were ranked during that time.

Now to your point, of course getting higher rated athletes that fit your model would be best, but that's not to say that you can't still have success even without those types.

UCF finally came out of the stone-age with former coach George O'leary's smash mouth style of football and are now running an up-tempo RPO scheme where speed takes a prescient. Would a 4* Pro-Style QB who runs a 4.95 40 find success there? Chances are a 2 or 3* dual-threat QB with better mobility would be given the priority by our coaches. So what if that 4* goes on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals. His star ratings were irrelevant to the program.

Anyway, recruiting is the Forrest Gump of college football.....you never know what you're going get.

If you agree with what I said, then you're contradicting your earlier point about recruiting rankings not necessarily being correct.

Star ratings (thus recruiting rankings) do a good job of evaluating talent and potential. Sure, coaching is a huge aspect, as are other things (injuries, etc.), but there is a big reason why the top teams also seem to have most of the top recruiting rankings.

My question was if you'd expect the Marshall staff (or any staff) to be able to better develop worse talent into being better than better talent into being better. You said that it depended on a bunch of variables, which is absurd.

If Marshall's staff (or any staff) could sign 20 4* and 5* kids or sign 20 2* and 3* kids, every single staff would select the former. Why? Because the ratings are more right than they are wrong (shown by this example and the draft example I posted).

 

[riflearm2]

.


How many 4*s did Marshall have when you guys went 33-8 between 2013 and 2015? +/- 3?
.

How many teams with a ton of 4* kids did Marshall beat during those years? Exactly.

Marshall was beating a bunch of teams that were brand new to either football overall, FBS, or were pathetic programs in the Sun Belt that recently moved up to what was, at that time, a better conference.

Marshall had better talent than just about every team thanks to the disappearance of the best teams from the conference.