ESPN Is Funny Sometimes.

gkIrish

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
They showed WWE highlights on sportscenter tonight so that's all you really need to know.
 
no.1IrishFan

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
Sitting here watching the replay of the Kovalev v Pascal 2 fight. I still can't believe Kellerman took the gig on ESPN. He's one of the best in the biz when it comes to boxing, now he's trying to be another funny guy on that one show with those other people.
 
House16

House16

Active member
Messages
449
Reaction score
148
Can someone spell this one out for me? Seems like an interesting stat/article, no bias that I see. Obviously we aren't included because 14-16 we haven't had a top 6 class. What am I missing?
 
TDHeysus

TDHeysus

FLOOR(RAND()*(N-D+1))+D;
Messages
3,315
Reaction score
355
House16 said:
Can someone spell this one out for me? Seems like an interesting stat/article, no bias that I see. Obviously we aren't included because 14-16 we haven't had a top 6 class. What am I missing?
Click to expand...


sounds like you full understand the stat (or data trend, analytic).

it appears ESPN looked at every champion back to 2006. Every one of those teams had at least 1 top-6 recruiting class in (at least) 1 of the 3 previous years leading up to the year that team won.

Auburn won in 2010, their previous recruiting ranks were #4 in 2010, #25 in 2009, #19 in 2008 (according to linked graphic)
 
Last edited:
phork

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
House16 said:
Can someone spell this one out for me? Seems like an interesting stat/article, no bias that I see. Obviously we aren't included because 14-16 we haven't had a top 6 class. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

The obvious point of emphasis if you drill down far enough is that you could probably eliminate at least 6 of those teams. Including Michigan, USC, Florida, TexasA&M, OSU etc.

Basing the theory on these classes is neglecting a lot of information. While it is easy to throw a claim like this out there do you really think that Michigan has a chance to win a NC? Just because ND didn't rate a top class means ND suddenly sucks? ND was one game from the playoff last year and basically on life support by year end.

You are right in suggesting there is no team bias. The bias I assert is based in sheer stupidity.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
House16 said:
Can someone spell this one out for me? Seems like an interesting stat/article, no bias that I see. Obviously we aren't included because 14-16 we haven't had a top 6 class. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

IMO, it's a silly cherry-picked stat for a couple reasons. First, they're using their rankings... not 247 composite... which don't use any sort of formula or concrete methodology. So if the metric is baseless, then you're talking correlation not causation. For example, until 2013/2014, the champion was always from the SEC... so they could've run a similar piece leading up to the 2013 season that read "the past seven champions have been from the SEC, so don't even bother watching other college football, and you winner will be (list all SEC teams)"... or "your winner will be from one of three states"... or even more absurdly, they could run a piece this year that says "every winner but Ohio State is from a state that touches the Gulf of Mexico, so if your state doesn't touch the Gulf of Mexico then your team sucks."

Second, the premise is flawed because considering the ranking of the class that are true freshmen obviously has less impact than who are your freaking seniors on the team... and the ranking of that class is completely left out! Why? Because cherry picking it the way they did allows them to write this piece. Consider that LSU and Auburn got little-to-no production from true freshmen in their only "top 6" classes in the years they won the title... though Auburn did get a lot out of Michael Dyer, I'm fairly certain they didn't include JUCO transfer Cam Newton in their recruiting ranking but some with Insider will have to verify that for me.

Is any of this a big deal? No. But it's just ESPN being dumb to drum up the importance of where they rank your class tomorrow, and if you finish below THIS SPOT you cannot win a championship.
 
House16

House16

Active member
Messages
449
Reaction score
148
IrishLax said:
IMO, it's a silly cherry-picked stat for a couple reasons. First, they're using their rankings... not 247 composite... which don't use any sort of formula or concrete methodology. So if the metric is baseless, then you're talking correlation not causation. For example, until 2013/2014, the champion was always from the SEC... so they could've run a similar piece leading up to the 2013 season that read "the past seven champions have been from the SEC, so don't even bother watching other college football, and you winner will be (list all SEC teams)"... or "your winner will be from one of three states"... or even more absurdly, they could run a piece this year that says "every winner but Ohio State is from a state that touches the Gulf of Mexico, so if your state doesn't touch the Gulf of Mexico then your team sucks."

Second, the premise is flawed because considering the ranking of the class that are true freshmen obviously has less impact than who are your freaking seniors on the team... and the ranking of that class is completely left out! Why? Because cherry picking it the way they did allows them to write this piece. Consider that LSU and Auburn got little-to-no production from true freshmen in their only "top 6" classes in the years they won the title... though Auburn did get a lot out of Michael Dyer, I'm fairly certain they didn't include JUCO transfer Cam Newton in their recruiting ranking but some with Insider will have to verify that for me.

Is any of this a big deal? No. But it's just ESPN being dumb to drum up the importance of where they rank your class tomorrow, and if you finish below THIS SPOT you cannot win a championship.
Click to expand...

Now I gotcha. Maybe I'm just a sucker for pointless recruiting rankings, but I thought it was an interesting trend to point out, even if it isn't the end all be all of national championships.
 
T Town Tommy

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
IrishLax said:
IMO, it's a silly cherry-picked stat for a couple reasons. First, they're using their rankings... not 247 composite... which don't use any sort of formula or concrete methodology. So if the metric is baseless, then you're talking correlation not causation. For example, until 2013/2014, the champion was always from the SEC... so they could've run a similar piece leading up to the 2013 season that read "the past seven champions have been from the SEC, so don't even bother watching other college football, and you winner will be (list all SEC teams)"... or "your winner will be from one of three states"... or even more absurdly, they could run a piece this year that says "every winner but Ohio State is from a state that touches the Gulf of Mexico, so if your state doesn't touch the Gulf of Mexico then your team sucks."

Second, the premise is flawed because considering the ranking of the class that are true freshmen obviously has less impact than who are your freaking seniors on the team... and the ranking of that class is completely left out! Why? Because cherry picking it the way they did allows them to write this piece. Consider that LSU and Auburn got little-to-no production from true freshmen in their only "top 6" classes in the years they won the title... though Auburn did get a lot out of Michael Dyer, I'm fairly certain they didn't include JUCO transfer Cam Newton in their recruiting ranking but some with Insider will have to verify that for me.

Is any of this a big deal? No. But it's just ESPN being dumb to drum up the importance of where they rank your class tomorrow, and if you finish below THIS SPOT you cannot win a championship.
Click to expand...


And to increase their NSD ratings.

ESPN ratings to me have always been the worst of the rating services. And making any conclusion about having one class in the top six is why one wins a NC is ridiculous. Give me two or three top 10 classes in a row and then let's talk about how ranking affects the ability to win titles.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
T Town Tommy said:
And to increase their NSD ratings.

ESPN ratings to me have always been the worst of the rating services. And making any conclusion about having one class in the top six is why one wins a NC is ridiculous. Give me two or three top 10 classes in a row and then let's talk about how ranking affects the ability to win titles.
Click to expand...

I almost extended my post to talk about what truly gets teams to "championship caliber" with the model of Bama. ESPN's post was pointless because a more accurate story about recruiting mattering is "Bama has dominated college football for 7 years, winning four championships... they continually sign top 3 classes, which is why they're so consistent."

The only other schools to break through in that time are FSU (who had consecutive #1 and #2 ranked classes prior to their championship, including a top QB) and Ohio State (who had consistent top 10 classes, and backdoored their way into the playoffs) and Auburn (who bought a generational talent at QB).

So signing a singular "top six" class is pointless... the real headline is "to win a championship you have to go through Bama, which means you must have an equivocally talented roster or truly dynamic QB (or both) to have a chance."

They way its written, they imply and outright state that people should be paying attention to the likes of Ole Miss and Texas A&M over instead of a team like Baylor and Stanford... which is just beyond dumb.
 
T Town Tommy

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
IrishLax said:
I almost extended my post to talk about what truly gets teams to "championship caliber" with the model of Bama. ESPN's post was pointless because a more accurate story about recruiting mattering is "Bama has dominated college football for 7 years, winning four championships... they continually sign top 3 classes, which is why they're so consistent."

The only other schools to break through in that time are FSU (who had consecutive #1 and #2 ranked classes prior to their championship, including a top QB) and Ohio State (who had consistent top 10 classes, and backdoored their way into the playoffs) and Auburn (who bought a generational talent at QB).

So signing a singular "top six" class is pointless... the real headline is "to win a championship you have to go through Bama, which means you must have an equivocally talented roster or truly dynamic QB (or both) to have a chance."

They way its written, they imply and outright state that people should be paying attention to the likes of Ole Miss and Texas A&M over instead of a team like Baylor and Stanford... which is just beyond dumb.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
L

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
The SEC must have some rationalizations for so many of their teams finishing in the top ten in recruiting rankings and then coming in behind so many other teams with lesser team rankings.

Auburn generally finishes in the top 6-8 in team rankings, but that is often fourth in the SEC.

It's all about filling your needs and developing players.
 
T Town Tommy

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
Legacy said:
The SEC must have some rationalizations for so many of their teams finishing in the top ten in recruiting rankings and then coming in behind so many other teams with lesser team rankings.

Auburn generally finishes in the top 6-8 in team rankings, but that is often fourth in the SEC.

It's all about filling your needs and developing players.
Click to expand...

You actually answered your own question. Auburn generally fields some solid recruiting classes. But they also have to play those three to four teams in the SEC that finish as high or higher in recruiting rankings. The rich eat the rich.

And Auburn may not be a great example anyway. They are typically feast or famine. Their coaching problems are a byproduct of their inability to actually handle success. They get a little bit and then self implode.
 
MacIrish75

MacIrish75

The New Logo is a Jinx
Messages
9,197
Reaction score
17,750
E6A519A4-02D8-41A7-838B-9B5EEDD11E96.jpeg

Absolute bloodbath at ESPN today. Look at all the names on that list. Crazy.
 
ACamp1900

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,948
Reaction score
11,230
Wow,… I’m at a loss for words at the moment
 
R

Reaper97

Banned
Messages
3,109
Reaction score
4,226
I don’t have an opinion on her, either way, but Suzy Kolber has been there since 93 & was the original anchor when ESPN2 launched.
 
Plankton

Plankton

Well-known member
Messages
909
Reaction score
1,988
Reaper97 said:
I don’t have an opinion on her, either way, but Suzy Kolber has been there since 93 & was the original anchor when ESPN2 launched.
Click to expand...
Kolber had a stint at Fox Sports in the late 90s before going back to ESPN in the early 2000s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top