Stanford's "av star" rating...

[Easton Pa ND Fan]

per rostered scholarship player is 2.79+ (Rivals 4 yr
running average). ND's average is 3.64-. The plus
and minus are for the transfer of two ND players.

Rivals team recruiting points awarded for quantity x
quality x need for four years were ND 8429 vs Stan-
ford 2974.

Stanford simply had better productivity from a
smaller talent pool...Tom

 

[phork]

And a coach and system in place for 4 years.

 

[DirtySecret]

And a coach and system in place for 4 years.

You are correct!! It took Jim 5 years to get where he is. So I wouldn't pull the star rating arguement out.. He posted this on that other site and they ripped him for it over there. Hey Easton every game we lose are you going to pull this crap?

 

[Easton Pa ND Fan]

They do prove the point...

They do prove the point...

You are correct!! It took Jim 5 years to get where he is. So I wouldn't pull the star rating arguement out..

Both individual average ratings and team need recruiting
points point to the same conclusion: Stanford had the
greater productivity.

Live with it.

 

[DirtySecret]

All factors considered, Stanford had the greater pro-
ductivity (for whatever reasons).

So whatever you say and get shot down on GH are you going to come over here and repeat it? Those kids have been in a system for 4 years, so executing plays should come second hand to them. I quote publicola

If that was your point, then it was so broad and exceptionally generic as to be meaningless.

 

[irishtrain]

Agree with DirtySecret/Phork, this is precisely why Kelly was hired. To take 2/3/some 4star guys and win football games. Frankly I'm tired and done with the star system for telling me who will produce a good football team. Kelly and Longo with staff will get this right. The star deal is only a way for some guy to make $$$ as you will buy his publication. The integrity of a program does not have a thing to do with high school player rating systems. Furthermore Notre Dames ratings are misjudged as a few 4/5 guys dont make a football team. Look at Teo-he tips your star scale and is out there like the Lone Ranger. He needs a few Tontos.

 

[irishfan]

So whatever you say and get shot down on GH are you going to come over here and repeat it? Those kids have been in a system for 4 years, so executing plays should come second hand to them. I quote publicola

Its an interesting stat. We know we have more talent than Stanford, but I didn't know the average star ratings. He always brings good stats and numbers on here, you don't have to be rude and make him not want to post here anymore. Apparently, you can go to GH if you want to do that.

 

[Easton Pa ND Fan]

Get your facts straight...

Get your facts straight...

So whatever you say and get shot down on GH are you going to come over here and repeat it? Those kids have been in a system for 4 years, so executing plays should come second hand to them. I quote publicola

If you had taken the time to check, you would have seen
this was the FIRST post.

If you can not take a simple truth, you do not shoot the
messenger.

Live with it...Tom

 

[DirtySecret]

If you had taken the time to check, you would have seen
this was the FIRST post.

If you can not take a simple truth, you do not shoot the
messenger.

You posting handle says it all, so I'll make an allowance
for you...Tom

Okay, go back and check all the teams that have won NC title the past 3 or 4 years and tell me again where they were ranked on rivals and scouts. How much star power they had?

The fact is like everyone keeps saying over and over again on this board it's a new offense and defensive scheme. Did you take that into consideration when typing this stat out?

 

[phork]

Lets take a chill pill here folks. Our local message board statistician is welcome here any time as he provides a lot of good info. I think its good, I just don't understand it.

Either way everyone is entitled to their speech. Except NDOM.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I continue to support Easton/Tom as he lets us see small pieces of this complicated subject. Knowledge is useful. To ask him [or anyone] to explain the entirety of Notre Dame success/failure in any single topic post is a standard to which no one should be held. In many ways of interpreting Tom's statistics, they say that our current status of having a good talent foundation to build upon should be looked upon as an optimistic element in our status quo. The relative value of having coaching and systemic stability in place for several years [vs none for us] was not mentioned as it had nothing to do with the information offered. Tom, I hope that you ignore this flak that people throw at you for trying to give us unique added information about football. I am VERY interested in knowledge, and will do my own interpretations of it [without calling the knowledge purveyor names] on my own. Without it, I am poorer and have less opportunity for insight. Keep it coming, ND brother.

 

[Easton Pa ND Fan]

Well said...

Well said...

I continue to support Easton/Tom as he lets us see small pieces of this complicated subject. Knowledge is useful. To ask him [or anyone] to explain the entirety of Notre Dame success/failure in any single topic post is a standard to which no one should be held. In many ways of interpreting Tom's statistics, they say that our current status of having a good talent foundation to build upon should be looked upon as an optimistic element in our status quo. The relative value of having coaching and systemic stability in place for several years [vs none for us] was not mentioned as it had nothing to do with the information offered. Tom, I hope that you ignore this flak that people throw at you for trying to give us unique added information about football. I am VERY interested in knowledge, and will do my own interpretations of it [without calling the knowledge purveyor names] on my own. Without it, I am poorer and have less opportunity for insight. Keep it coming, ND brother.

and thank you. After watching the game a second time
this morning, I believe the Irish will turn it around
this year.

I do not know for sure, but if you add up the playing
time experience of both team's players in the game, you
might find the totals similar. However, experience
favored their quarterback.

The point of this thread was to show the Cardinal sim-
ply outplayed the Irish using a smaller talent pool.
I wish people would just take the post for what it was
worth, not read into it or take offense...Tom

 

[Junkhead]

per rostered scholarship player is 2.79+ (Rivals 4 yr
running average). ND's average is 3.64-. The plus
and minus are for the transfer of two ND players.

Rivals team recruiting points awarded for quantity x
quality x need for four years were ND 8429 vs Stan-
ford 2974.

Stanford simply had better productivity from a
smaller talent pool...Tom

With the difference in time implementing a system, it's meaningless, but interesting. I still appreciate seeing stats like that most of us are too lazy to research.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I think the revolving door of d-coordinators hurt the Irish during the Weis years more than anything else (besides a lack of depth once the Tyme-bomb hit).

Basically, the D had to keep learning new systems instead of working on skills and D and O linemen had to play before they were ready. Combine those two factors and you have a massive development gap. And, while we did all know that, this is a very interesting stat that backs it up. After watching the Stanford game, I'm convinced Harbough is one of the best coaches in college football: his players took care of the details.

Thank you for posting this, no idea why anybody would be an *** about it.

 

[tankjeep]

I think the revolving door of d-coordinators hurt the Irish during the Weis years more than anything else (besides a lack of depth once the Tyme-bomb hit).

Basically, the D had to keep learning new systems instead of working on skills and D and O linemen had to play before they were ready. Combine those two factors and you have a massive development gap. And, while we did all know that, this is a very interesting stat that backs it up. After watching the Stanford game, I'm convinced Harbough is one of the best coaches in college football: his players took care of the details.

Thank you for posting this, no idea why anybody would be an *** about it.

i agree that the change in system does somewhat stunt a college players development, but most of all i think tenuta is just not a good coach. he may have a proven system, but when he was put in a position to develop, he blew chunks.

as people have mentioned. a system and coaching in place four years more than compared to us is gonna breed success regardless of talent pool. familiarity and consitency instills confidence and that's one thing stanford had plenty of in this game.

 

[Jerry]

I totally agree with the argument that Stanford's players have been in Harbaugh's system for years and that is the difference between The Cardinal and the Irish right now.

But ND's offensive line got physically dominated on Saturday. I mean 44 yds rushing? And a good chuck of those yds game in garbage time. The lineman might still have things to learn but being that they supposedly are more talented than Stanford across the board you think they wouldn't be dominated like that??