Patriot League Recruiting Ratings - Holy Cross

[carney2]

HOLY CROSS = 45

QUALITY = 14: 7 rated recruits (25% of the class) vs. 10 (43%) in 2008 and 2 (7%) in 2007.

CLASS SIZE = 6: 28 recruits

DISTRIBUTION = 8: No K/P.

SPEED = 4: The usual disclaimer: information in this area is scarce.

TRIGGER = 1: One QB recruit who is rated 1 star by Scout.

JUMBO = 4: 4 OLs, 2 @ 270+ and 3 DLs, 2 @ 250+

NEEDS = 8:

DL = 2 (of 5): 3 DL recruits; only one is rated and he is a bit undersized for this position.
RB = 4 (of 4): 6 recruits; 2 rated; 3 are fairly large (FBs?). Gilmore ought to be able to find a serviceable body or two out of a group this size.
OL = 2 (of 3): 4 OL recruits; none rated. Decent size, even though only two were awarded Jumbo points.

THE COMMITTEE’S ADJUSTMENTS = 0

Here’s where we stand:
1. 70 - Lehigh
2. 60 - Lafayette (adjusted twice for verified new recruits)
3. 45 - Holy Cross
3. 35 - Fordham

The Committee has received requests for information about past years. This is the 3rd year for the Patsy Ratings and the following table shows all three years. Teams are listed in descending order of total points awarded for the three years. Missing schools will be added when their 2009 recruiting class is announced.

Lehigh: 212 Total Points (71 per year): 2007 = 68 (#2); 2008 = 74 (#2)
Lafayette: 195 Total Points (65 per year): 2007 = 77 (#1); 2008 = 58 (#6)
Fordham: 166 Total Points (55 per year): 2007 = 60 (#3); 2008 = 71 (#3)
Holy Cross: 133 Total Points (44 per year): 2007 = 22 (#7); 2008 = 66 (#4)

[breezy]

Questions for the Committee:

1. The one rated DL is 6-2, 285. How is this "undersized" for the position?

2. Is the Quality score based on the percentage of rated recruits? HC has 7 rated recruits (I count 9 if Scout and Rivals are combined) and gets 14 points; Lafayette (at initial ranking) has 7 rated recruits (admittedly 3 are ranked at 2-stars) but a smaller class size and gets 29 points.

3. I am unable to retrieve your criteria for speed points (I seem to recall that times at 4.8 or under get points), but Scout.com shows two of the running back recruits at 4.48 and 4.56 in the 40, and Rivals shows one of the wide receiver recruits at 4.4 in the 40. The aforementioned DL is also shown on Scout.com at 4.8 in the 40. Were all of these used in your scoring?

None of this is meant to denigrate your efforts -- just trying to understand why a recruiting class that overall seems quite good (but then I guess everyone can say that) gets a rather poor score using your system.

Thanks.

[carney2]

Questions for the Committee:

1. The one rated DL is 6-2, 285. How is this "undersized" for the position?

2. Is the Quality score based on the percentage of rated recruits? HC has 7 rated recruits (I count 9 if Scout and Rivals are combined) and gets 14 points; Lafayette (at initial ranking) has 7 rated recruits (admittedly 3 are ranked at 2-stars) but a smaller class size and gets 29 points.

3. I am unable to retrieve your criteria for speed points (I seem to recall that times at 4.8 or under get points), but Scout.com shows two of the running back recruits at 4.48 and 4.56 in the 40, and Rivals shows one of the wide receiver recruits at 4.4 in the 40. The aforementioned DL is also shown on Scout.com at 4.8 in the 40. Were all of these used in your scoring?

None of this is meant to denigrate your efforts -- just trying to understand why a recruiting class that overall seems quite good (but then I guess everyone can say that) gets a rather poor score using your system.

Thanks.

Thanks for your feedback. It's nice to know that someone is listening. Replies:

1. The one Holy Cross rated DL recruit is listed at 235 lbs. The 285 lb. DL recruit is not rated by either service.

2. You seem to be asking two separate questions here, so I will address each separately. (1) The awarding of Needs points is purely subjective. Not much more that I can say about that. If you disagree with The Committee's opinions, so be it. (2) The award of Quality points is undoubtedly flawed, but not subjective. In the case of Holy Cross, 7 one-star recruits X 2 points per star = 14 points. One thing that negatively impacted the 'saders' total was the fact that they were totally ignored by Rivals which has an additional category - merely rated, but non-starred - and adds points to players who get that rating - or any Rivals rating with stars. You point to the Lafayette recruiting class as having the same number of rated recruits as Holy Cross, but being awarded approximately twice the Quality points. Each one of the Lafayette recruits was rated by both services, so each picked up that "extra" point from Rivals. In addition, recruits with equal ratings from each service are considered to be "confirmed," and pick up an extra point for that "confirmation." Lafayette recruited 3 2-star players, with two of them being double-doubles and getting the confirmation points. These three 2-star recruits, by themselves, contributed 17 Quality points to the Leopards' total. In addition, one of the double-doubles was a QB, which added another 2 Trigger points. In any event, I suggest that you re-read the post on Methodology which is the 3rd post of the first of these fantasies issued this year:

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56122&page=4

3. You are correct. Speed points are awarded at the rate of one point per second, starting at 4.80. In other words, 1 point for a recruit in the 4.80-4.701 range, 2 points for 4.70 - 4.601, etc. As I've said repeatedly, speed information is hard to come by. Generally, if it isn't listed with the recruit's rating service info, The Committee doesn't have it. We go to the "Search" engine. If the recruit isn't rated, we get no information. As for the specifics on Holy Cross recruits: the one rated WR did not yield a time for the 40; only one of the RB recruits was listed with a time; and, as stated earlier, the 285 lb. DL recruit was not rated and therefore no speed info was given.

You are not unusual in thinking that your school's recruiting class "seems quite good." After all, the coach likes them and he wouldn't lie. After three years of this, I can say that it's a homer curse that affects us all. On the Lafayette board I have been vocal in my opinion that the last two Tavani recruiting efforts have been inadequate. I have been barraged with the Curmudgeon label, and it would be much worse if my alma mater did not go out of its way to produce true ladies and gentlemen.

[breezy]

Well, here's another interesting question.

***

The 6-2, 285 DL was rated at one-star in 2008, when he was a HS senior. His time is shown as 4.8.

Here's the link: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=2921229

He did a post-grad year at Bridgeton Academy in Maine.

Here's a tough question for the Committee: is he a rated recruit this year?

***

With respect to the wide receiver, Rivals lists him as having 4.4 speed.

Here's the link: https://secure.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Pr_Key=70739

***

As for the running backs, here are the links for the speed times:

1. http://bostoncollege.scout.com/a.z?s=165&p=8&c=1&nid=3982161

2. http://navy.scout.com/a.z?s=240&p=8&c=1&nid=3062642 (this recruit's info is also from 2008 as he also did a post-grad year).

Thanks for considering this info.

[Fordham]

Nice class HC!

[carney2]

Well, here's another interesting question.

***

The 6-2, 285 DL was rated at one-star in 2008, when he was a HS senior. His time is shown as 4.8.

Here's the link: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=2921229

He did a post-grad year at Bridgeton Academy in Maine.

Here's a tough question for the Committee: is he a rated recruit this year?

***

With respect to the wide receiver, Rivals lists him as having 4.4 speed.

Here's the link: https://secure.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Pr_Key=70739

***

As for the running backs, here are the links for the speed times:

1. http://bostoncollege.scout.com/a.z?s=165&p=8&c=1&nid=3982161

2. http://navy.scout.com/a.z?s=240&p=8&c=1&nid=3062642 (this recruit's info is also from 2008 as he also did a post-grad year).

Thanks for considering this info.

A dilemma to be sure. The Committee readily admits to being closer to Lafayette and Lehigh information and sources than to the other 5 schools. On the other hand, every effort is made to treat each school's recruiting class the same - i.e., to use exactly the same methodology and search techniques for each. You broach the question, without phrasing it this way and almost certainly without even considering the ramifications before you responded:

Should The Committee consider reputable information supplied by an interested and knowledgeable supporter of one school even though said information is outside the normal information sources and search techniques? Does this type of information bend the "fair and impartial" implications of the rating system in that this type of information may very well be available for many of the other schools, but they may not have a knowledgeable advocate to bring it to The Committee's attention?

The Committee needs to meet and cogitate on this before responding, but I point out that the information sources not used by The Committee are potentially endless - down to and including home town newspapers and even Facebook and other chat room entities. The Committee has no intention of treating this as a full time job. The Committee has pretty well committed the rules and regulations of this exercise to memory and has mastered the search and other techniques thru sheer repetition. Year one (2007) was a nightmare. We have now gotten to the point that, for instance, the Holy Cross recruiting class of 2009 was processed in something between 2 - 2 1/2 hours. We are not looking to expand that kind of time commitment.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It is a good question. carney, you didn't ask my opinion but I fear it could open a can of worms, since I know of at least two Lehigh folks that might get ratings for the same reason (spending a year elsewhere). On the other hand, how many could we realistically be considering across all seven schools? The great majority would come from the "conventional" HS route. I even think it could be narrowed down to two or three such schools (off the top of my head, Hargreave and Valley Forge would apply, and possibly others).

Finally, do you think it would make a huge difference? Maybe just add a few discretionary points for ALL the Hargreave/VF-type players and call it good.

[breezy]

I appreciate the time commitment required for the Committee's analysis.

I point out, however, that the only resource used here is the Scout and Rivals databases that are used in performing the analysis. I submit that if only some of the information in these databases is used while other information is ignored, it adversely affects the overall integrity of the ratings. If the Committee, despite its conscientious effort to collect all pertinent data from the Scout and Rivals databases, misses something, I think there is nothing wrong with calling that to the attention of the Committee.

There are additional sources of information but I suspect they would have different levels of credibility. For example, this looks to be a credible source and confirms the 4.4 time for the wide receiver -- http://rutgers.scout.com/2/738618.html -- however, disregarding such collateral sources would be understandable. I recall a similar instance last year where a listing of high school seniors in Texas showed a Holy Cross DB recruit with 4.7 speed. Who knows how accurate that would be? I can accept a determination not to use such sources.

Carney, thanks again for doing this. It does seem that followers of all the PL schools enjoy your analysis and the postings they bring.

[VT Wildcat Fan53]

[QUOTE=breezy;1317343]Well, here's another interesting question.

***

The 6-2, 285 DL was rated at one-star in 2008, when he was a HS senior. His time is shown as 4.8.

Here's the link: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=2921229

He did a post-grad year at Bridgeton Academy in Maine.

Here's a tough question for the Committee: is he a rated recruit this year?

QUOTE]

The 6-2, 285 lb DL will set the Patriot League on its ear. Playing at Bridgton (No "e" :) ) for a year (after being on U of A lists since his Jr Year) will put him a step above all other HS recruits in the Patriot League. At BA, after recovering from a pre-season injury, he spent the year playing against mostly Ivy League JV teams (along with HC, ...)

He benches 400 lbs already. He runs well and he is nasty off the ball.

Even better, he is a scholar and a gentle "giant" off the field. Check out this link to an interview he did for an on-line Admissions site:

http://www.admissionsquest.com/~BoardingSchoolPodcasts/ShowArticle.cfm/ArticleID/146/ArticleTypeID/13/Topic/A-Bridgton-Academy-PG-Explains-the-Personal-Value-of-the-Post-Graduate-Year

The Cross certainly has a good one!

[carney2]

[QUOTE=breezy;1317343]Well, here's another interesting question.

***

The 6-2, 285 DL was rated at one-star in 2008, when he was a HS senior. His time is shown as 4.8.

Here's the link: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=2921229

He did a post-grad year at Bridgeton Academy in Maine.

Here's a tough question for the Committee: is he a rated recruit this year?

Not so tough - and actually you have two questions.

1. He is a member of the Holy Cross class of 2013. He is therefore a "recruit this year."

2. He was rated in 2008 but not in 2009. He is therefore not a rated recruit this year.

[breezy]

I respectfully disagree with the Committee. In addition to the two recruits rated in 2008 but unrated in 2009 after doing a PG year at a prep school, the Committee has ignored speed information on these two as well as a third recruit. (Even if the 2008 ratings are ignored, why should the speed information be discarded?)

I believe that ignoring the relevant databases (Scout and Rivals) for these recruits severely distorts the Holy Cross rating.

If the ignored information were considered, it would require upward adjustment of the Quality, Speed and Needs rankings. By my calculation, HC's score would be at least 58.

Nevertheless, since I have failed to convince the Committee, I retire from the field with a final word of thanks to the Committee for its consideration.

[carney2]

Your respectful disagreement is noted and appreciated. The Committee has determined that only information in the current year data base "counts." To do more is to open a can of worms without end. To do more would require a paid staff. Since KenZ is the only one who will accept abuse, and only abuse, as proper compensation for his efforts, and since KenZ would be impossible to work with, the Committee is not going in that direction at this time.

[RichH2]

Relax Carney, you now have a break until mid may for GU. Other than a few late pick ups by some of us. I am almost done with tracking class from 3 yrs ago, if economy stays this way i could finish the 3 yrs by the end of the month way way too early