Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Continuing my crusade!!!!!)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
I just can’t fathom how close minded so many of you are to this discussion
You’d think we were Alabama and trying. To cling to the old at of things that had brought us so many titles
This change is GREAT for us - we have our crap together when it comes to the portal so far if we can improve our record we could really take off
You’d think we were Alabama and trying. To cling to the old at of things that had brought us so many titles
This change is GREAT for us - we have our crap together when it comes to the portal so far if we can improve our record we could really take off
Ketch great analysis- why do we as Texas fans get so hyped up on some of the commits we are going in this class - if they aren’t truly elite difference makers? Like im
Starting to not see why people get so amped about a top 300/400 type player committing ?
Starting to not see why people get so amped about a top 300/400 type player committing ?
a. It's fun and exciting. Like new toys when you're 7.
b. Dreaming about the future is always better than hanging on to a shitty past.
c. Not everyone understands the historical failure rates of recruiting.
There’s a famous saying that goes “f*ck them kids.” Except insert brain dead Pollyanna OBs for kids. Keep slinging the facts.
Objective truth isn't popular if it interferes with folks cognitive dissonance. But, I'd be surprised if the three stars with multiple tier one commitabe offers don't have a higher success rate.I'd do some research on that, but if the data doesn't change much, people are going to yell at me if I reveal it.
I feel like tier one offers already make three stars into four stars based on confirmation bias of which teams are after them
I’m thinking the data can pretty well predict what the odds are for the group of players. Any individual player may indeed break out, but the reality is that most of the 5.7, 5.8 guys we sweat out in recruiting don’t have a large impact on the program.
they've developed well. showed more patience. Had better coaching.
I don't think anyone minds your takes and percentages/numbers of history. Personally I think they are interesting. The annoying thing is when you do it in commitment threads of said three stars. If we can't even have that thread to enjoy a kids commitment without you forcing numbers on people where can we?
There's been times where you've tried to force the numbers on people just because they don't share this same take. I appreciate the passion but you've also started doing this in 4 star commitments also and not just three stars.
There's been times where you've tried to force the numbers on people just because they don't share this same take. I appreciate the passion but you've also started doing this in 4 star commitments also and not just three stars.
OMG, Ketch, you were COMPLETELY not giving these kids credit for their contributions!!! Your entire thesis was if they did not get drafted, they were basically a wasted scholly, except for a few exceptions of kids who excelled WAY beyond expectations (Colt McCoy for example). Thus your beating of the drum that our coaches should now only recruit high 4 stars and 5 stars out of high school and get the rest of the team from the portal.
The point is that a 3 Star kid DID HIS PART if he came in and worked his way into eventually becoming a starter at The University of Texas. Don't diminish what those kids accomplished just because they ONLY achieved a level of success commensurate with their 3 Star status - becoming a starter at a DI major program. Anything beyond that is excelling beyond a 3 star expectation, whether that be to become a multi year starter, an all conference kid or the beyond imagination result of making it to the league - whether drafted or not.
So, if as fans we want to bitch because 3 Star kids reaching their EXPECTED level of achievement - becoming a starter in the program at some point - are not as good as we want our starters to be, that is TOTALLY on the coaches for not developing those kids better OR for not recruiting over them for a more talented kid who could keep them from starting in the first place. But the reality is there are 4 star kids and even 5 star kids who bust out completely or get hurt or transfer, so if a dedicated 3 star kid has the drive to reach his core ability of starting, good for him. Don't dismiss him and his achievement because he did what HE was supposed to do, but simply did not get drafted by the NFL.
Last edited:
Yes, they were "hits" from the standpoint that they became starters at UT, which is probably a reasonable expectation for 3 Star recruits, that at some point they are more then special teamers or scout team fodder but actually become regular O and D starters. Anything beyond that is them excelling beyond core expectations.
I agree with you that IF their play as starters is less quality than we as fans and certainly for the coaches expect, then that responsibility falls squarely on the coaches for lack of further development of those players and lack of better recruiting and team player management. But the 3 star was not a bust/bad recruit decision if they were able to develop into a starter - BUT JUST DID NOT GET DRAFTED.
Last edited:
I'm not saying every starter needs to be drafted. That's an unreasonable expectation. However, you can't say the @Ketchum 's analysis was faulty then use a metric that says Tristan Nickelson and Marcus Hutchins were hits. Those guys wouldn't have started for any other Big12 program outside maybe Kansas. They started because there was no one else. Those Texas teams were not good. They weren't meeting the standard. The reason they weren't is because the talent wasn't there to compete. They were relying too often on these types of players. Like you pointed out. 51.8% of the 3 star OL started. That doesn't mean they were quality. That just means they were the least worst option. Do you not see the correlation between Texas not having NFL talent and this era of Texas football?
3 stars are still going to be recruited, but it should be guys like Goosby who have a high ceiling to develop into quality starters. We're talking 5 players a year max.
Bottom line is this. The more NFL talent you have on your roster, the more likely you are to compete for titles. If you're relying too often on 3 stars to develop into those kind of players, you will never compete. That's the whole point of Ketch's analysis.
Probably a lot of validity to the tail wagging the dog theory. At the end of the day with the amount of coverage recruiting gets these days the system is pretty effective at identifying the alpha players. The fact that 3 stars have a much lower success rate than high 4s and 5s really isn't a shocking revelation.
Ketch I’ve appreciated the dose of reality you provide with your numbers and analysis , even if people don’t like to hear the truth of what these commitments mean and how the players are likely to pan out
I guess a segment of the fan base just cannot hear any criticism , ie losing their mind if any analysts downgrade our player rankings
Agree with the thrust of your analysis. Oscar Giles was underrated in the player development category.
Glad the info was appreciated.
REally didn't think there would be this amount of pushback.
He said ...
I'd like to see any kind of proof to that statement if PFF is trash. Any metrics.
sounds like more work than I'm willing to commit to. 😂
PFF is just a data point. It's like the BCS computers or ESPN's Power Index. It's something you look at but it is not and cannot be an end-all singular data point.
For example, my daughter plays select softball. This year she led her team batting average at .600 and on base average at .759. She also led the team in extra base hits and RBIs and tied for first in contact percentage (i.e., she did not strike out much). But when I look at the advanced batting stats in GameChanger, it says she is second in quality at bats on the team. The girl who it says is first was a part-time player who literally went 0 for 9 on the season with 9 strikeouts, however the reason it ranked her first in quality at bats was she walked 17 times on the season and always went deep in counts because she did not swing much. So even when she stuck out (and of course walked) she went deep into the count. GameChanger, in my opinion, overvalues going deep in counts. So, I will consider that GameChanger stat but obviously cannot have it be the only point of information I use to make team decisions.
This supports my point that all statistics, but ESPECIALLY advanced statistics, should be taken as a mere singular data-point that should be considered with ample additional evidence.
The conversation goes like this on the board (I've been involved in a few):
A: We got {3* prospect woohoo!}
B: So what? They rarely pan out!
A: Why are you such a downer? THIS ONE will be special.
B: Maybe...but probably not.
For person A, chill out. If you get excited for EVERYONE, then by default, that means you think no one is really special. Reserve some hype for legitimately exciting prospects.
For person B, just let the As have their fun (speaking to myself here).
A: We got {3* prospect woohoo!}
B: So what? They rarely pan out!
A: Why are you such a downer? THIS ONE will be special.
B: Maybe...but probably not.
For person A, chill out. If you get excited for EVERYONE, then by default, that means you think no one is really special. Reserve some hype for legitimately exciting prospects.
For person B, just let the As have their fun (speaking to myself here).
You can’t portal 20 kids a year to be depth players. There’s no way you could keep a roster filled with your suggestion. Your points here are valid about the lack of nfl talent in the 3 star camp, but a team still needs 70 players or it’s ****ed when injuries happen. The reality is if you take 3-4 high ranked players, then hit on 10% of the lower ranked players, that’s still 6-7 nfl players from every recruiting class. Combine that with 1-2 difference making portal players each year and you have a team pumping out 7-8 draft picks a year, which makes you a top 5 program.
you’re making a lot of bad assumptions in your roster building suggestion here
Ok- so assuming we don’t sign 20% of the top 75 kids each year, then how can you have a full roster if you’re not taking low 4 stars 3 stars and not portaging 20 kids a year?
I think the model in the future will be to take semi-full HS classes every year (20 to 25 or so) and then process the kids that won't work hard or are bad apples. Then use those spots, in addition to other attrition, to fill with portal players. That probably gives you 5 to 10 portal players per year.
That seems like the best bet to me.
Without even knowing it you made Ketch's point. You might want to research the records of the teams who started a bunch of 3*s.
Which is exactly what the staff is currently doing. I’m confused as to what Ketch’s suggestion is. Obviously everyone wishes we could sign 15 5 stars each year- but short of that you have to have a roster
I'm not. People simply don't understand statistics. I see the same things in the debate on climate change. People cite one or two weather events to confirm their bias. Climate is measured in broad swaths of latitude and longitude over time; weather is measured at a single point at a point in time. In this case, you can tell the bias by who cites Colt McCoy. When you need to resort to names, you've lost the statistical argument.
(Posted on page 10 of this thread)
In an 85-man roster, you'd probably hope it looks something like this.
20-25 High level recruits (based on averaging 6-8 per year and knowing that many will leave after three years)
25-30 players acquired in the portal (based on taking 7-10 per year and knowing some are one-year rentals. This number begins to hit this number in 2024. Little too aggressive in the early days of the Portal.)
That's going to leave between 30-40ish prospects to fill out the roster and you're probably taking 10ish per year.
Those 10 prospects per year need to have as little highest risk prospects as possible. At a school like Texas, it's very possible for the overwhelming majority of these prospects be national 250 type guys.
You probably don't need to extend yourself to a three star level tier more than 2-4 times each year.
IF.... IF... IF...
You are recruiting at a true nationally elite level.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Official Football Transfer Portal Thread: Another Horn goes in- Latest: UTLonghornXTR
-
-
