Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
- Messages
- 8,970
- Reaction score
- 6,456
For whatever it's worth {not much I feel}, Phil Steele's "method" is founded on a personal system of rating athletes as they come out of high school. Somehow he believes that these early ratings of potential translate pretty strongly into future on-field performance, even after a year or two in college should cue him to downgrading that more than he apparently does.
This is why we were always over-rated by Steele during the down years; our star-ratings were high enough that he {just like US, by the way} couldn't believe that they wouldn't show up better on the field. This tells us that his system doesn't evaluate the quality of the coaching staffs sufficiently. As examples of this: athletes like Filer or Stockton would overinflate Steele's ratings of Notre Dame, while his inability to see the difference between Weis and Kelly would further skew them.
As to USC: Steele sees those big ratings all over the field, does not take Kiffen into full account, nor the low depth in several areas. Steele is basically a numbers man more than a subtle football man, in my view.
This is why we were always over-rated by Steele during the down years; our star-ratings were high enough that he {just like US, by the way} couldn't believe that they wouldn't show up better on the field. This tells us that his system doesn't evaluate the quality of the coaching staffs sufficiently. As examples of this: athletes like Filer or Stockton would overinflate Steele's ratings of Notre Dame, while his inability to see the difference between Weis and Kelly would further skew them.
As to USC: Steele sees those big ratings all over the field, does not take Kiffen into full account, nor the low depth in several areas. Steele is basically a numbers man more than a subtle football man, in my view.
