Around SBN: Links to read
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 15, 2009 10:41 AM PST
in General Cougar Athletics
21 comments
Some of the editors at SB Nation collect some of the better links from around the network and then send them out to us via e-mail. There were some good ones today that I wanted to pass along to you guys, since I won't really have the chance to write for another day or two:
- California Golden Blogs (endorsed by CougCenter as one of the best blogs around) had a nice writeup on the state of Pac-10 basketball, both in terms of its disastrous nonconference performance and in terms of what can be done the rest of the year. (I don't want to spoil the surprise, but ain't pretty.)
- Roll Bama Roll looks at Mark Ingram, three-star recruit. Yup, that's right -- the guy who just won the Heisman was the No. 58 rated RB by Scout.com just two years ago.
- Tomahawk Nation examines whether it's a good idea for a head coach to be the playcaller. Answer? Yes -- if he's already a good playcaller. (Go ahead and make jokes about Paul Wulff calling plays ... now!)
By the way, I had no idea Football Outsiders had advanced team statistics for college football. How did I not know this? I have no idea. But I'm going to take a look at them and see what they say about the Cougs. My guess is that they'll still say we suck. But it'll be a new way of evaluating our suckiness, so that might be interesting.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
From the Pac-10 writeup @ Golden Blogs-
“Talk about unremarkable — Wazzu has managed to get 10 games into their schedule without putting a single mark on their résumé. No shame in losing at Gonzaga or Kansas State, but at some point, the NCAA tournament committee does expect at-large teams to beat someone with a pulse.”
And here we all though this team would be erratic with big wins and horrible losses. Actually, its not very different from Bennett’s teams.
Agreed. I was a little annoyed about the blog. I'm getting tired about this 'down year' talk, too
A weak pre-season has been a signature move for the Cougs for a while now. Why do they have diss us now? The pre-season tends to be more vital for teams that have a weak conference. It’s not our fault that the Pac-10 is laying a big egg right now. I feel like we are playing better than most were expecting. And now I shall go on my “who cares about the tourney bids” rant:
(Start playing self-righteous trumpet ballad now) I am personally excited about conference play because it is going to be competitive. Who cares about the tourney this year! We all knew this would be a down year, so let’s just come to terms with a 2-3 bid year. In the meantime, this season will likely yield some good games in the Pac-10. I know it hurts our national image. . .blah, blah, blah. Who cares! The conference will get stronger in the coming years because we won’t be launching players into the NBA like we have in the past few years. So, can we just enjoy some basketball!
also the schedule
was formulated with the idea that road games vs. the Zags and KSU, coupled w/ LSU in Seattle would be tough ones… along with what was thought to be at least one solid opponent in the GA Shootout- maybe two, which due to upsets and the draw, didn’t turn out to be the case. Had WSU been munched by someone up there, we fans might be harping on too many “good losses” early. Take care of biz in the next two and and sweep the Oregons at home and I will take a ‘weak’ 12-2 start w/ all frosh and sophs and one senior. Go Cougs
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Dec 15, 2009 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
The Bama website
Should look at ESPN and Rivals. ESPN had Mark Ingram 108th overall in the ESPN 150, and Rivals had him as a 4 star ATH. Seems like scout.com didn’t have a good scouting report though.
trent told me the pac-10 only had one guy
on the all-american 1st team. Thats pretty weird for a conference with so many good teams.
by spencer peaty on Dec 15, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
I imagine that the Bama Blogger probably chose Scout.com's rating to quote...
because it was so low. Kind of like a ‘we showed them’ sort of response.
Yeah but thats why it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
It’s petty, the guy was very highly touted. He was recruited by ASU, Mich St. Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida. So one recruiting service had him as a 3 star, get over it. Everybody else thought he was great.
I look at it differently
Shows just how much opinions can vary on a guy, and how unreliable scouting services are by nature.
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 15, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
If you read in the comments section on Roll Bama
someone mentioned that Rivals updates scouting rankings AFTER they’re into college. He accuses them of upgrading Ingram to 4*s earlier THIS YEAR. Don’t know if it’s true….
Also, there’s still the issue of not projecting kids to even play the right spot. A 4* ahead of Ingram as RB is playing Safety for Arkansas, etc.
It’s all a crapshoot on an individual basis. Jamaal Kearse was a 4* WR prospect for the UW. He’s had a ho-hum year, and is now a 3* Safety prospect…. So he projects better at S than at WR, but he was a 4* WR and a 3* S? WHAT? In the aggregate, recruiting rankings show you overall talent level, but one a player by player basis… not necessarily.
by TiltingRight on Dec 16, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Cougs had a kid
for the d-line coming from Canada ( I think) and he was a 2-3 on the various sites… he opted last second for USC- right after he did he was a 4 star. Take from that what you will- but I often feel destination has a huge affect after the fact. Go Cougs… sign them all!
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Dec 16, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Back in the infancy of recruiting sites, the ratings were based almost exclusively on who was recruiting you
If USC, Ohio State and Florida State all wanted you, then you were a 4- or 5-star recruit. Period. If only WSU wanted you? You were a 2-star. That’s how it worked.
It’s honestly gotten a lot better with all the video that’s out there, not to mention the combines these various sites now sponsor. But given the sheer number of players and the regional nature of the evaluations, it’s still clearly got a ways to go. Remember, it’s not the same guy evaluating all of these players.
In addition,
the evaluators aren’t necessarily football guys. They may be fans, superfans and the equivalent of sportswriters, where they do know their stuff, but they haven’t ever evaluated a kid for their particular style of play, and then developed them over the course of time on and off the field.
If the evaluators were former college coaches, I’m guessing there would be an improvement, but even then, I don’t know how much.
by TiltingRight on Dec 16, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, that is true
But, what usually happens is an inherent bias still exists. Personally, I am not one to complain about how many stars players get. It is interesting to follow, but that is all. I don’t get worked up too much one way or another.
I guess I should explain how the bias exists. Take Trey Henderson, the Canadian DT who decommited from WSU to go to USC. His film was looked at when he was a WSU recruit and given two stars.
When he changed and committed to USC, his film was evaluated again. The reasoning was that they wanted to see what USC saw in Henderson that the Scout evaluator missed the first time. In looking at the film again, they gave him three stars.
So, it appears that since they know it is a USC recruit, they will look CLOSER at the film trying to find what USC saw in that player, so the rating becomes somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Watching the Scott Van Pelt show on ESPN2
and he was talking about how terrible the Pac10 is this year. Obviously a lot of 1-and-done kids messed it up, but there was a possibility that only one team from the Pac10 would get an invite. I mean, it won’t go down like that, but the fact that you have to pause to think about it sucks.
Also, he kind of recanted a little bit and said something about Klay Thompson being really, really good and that both teams from Washington should make it. Figured Coug Nation would enjoy that.
The ESPN formula is so predictable
Have a guy who can put up a lot of points and get noticed. That’s how it works.
ESPN is crap
It is like an example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Scott Van Pelt praises WSU saying they could make the field and that Klay can score, but then their bracketology that they just put up today does not even have WSU on the list of first four out, next four out or even on the being considered list. Now, i do not think WSU as quit proven yet that they are a tournament team, but I would have to think the are at least being considered……right?
Also, like Nuss said, the ESPN formula is predictable as they love scoring and dunking, plus the guy sitting with Van Pelt on his show said that Portland beating some Pac-10 teams didn’t look that bad until Portland lost to West Virgina by 20. Sorry the loss that made Portland look bad and the Pac-10 teams that lost to them was NOT the West Virgina game, it was the loss to Portland State and Idaho, which just again shows ESPN really does not know to much outside of the East Coast and Los Angeles.
by spokanecougar on Dec 15, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Gottlieb and Katz aren't bad
But that’s about it. I like Van Pelt, but he was just out of his element on this one.
I hate Gottlieb.
But I don’t know if it’s because of his basketball analysis or not. ESPN uses him in way too many formats.
Their CBB coverage is still adequate
but it isn’t the height of awesome that it was when Andy Glockner was in charge there. I think he’s at SI now.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
