re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th

quote:

---

If don't understand why 20/20 hindsight is not a viable way to look at these things, then I don't know what to tell you.

---

That's apparent. Evaluating the 5* evaluations after they have panned out, or not, is the best way to assess how accurate those evaluations/predictions of 1st round-worthy talent were. How can you possibly not agree with that 100%?

quote:

---

Why don't you start a site that ranks the classes of 2007 and 2008 now, that would be very informative

---

It would tell you which of the services were more, or less, accurate than the others. If you don't care how predictive the sites have been, then that would not be a site you would frequent; you wouldn't want their historical record to dampen your faith in them.

quote:

---

This is the heart of your problem right here. You don't like the recruiting services so you disparage them and then assume anyone that doesn't share your view "worships" them. Its nonsesnse.

---

Granted, the term "worship" may have been a tad hyperbolic, but in the context of the post, it was mean to suggest another word used in the post,"faith." My problem? Hahaha. You fail to note (or choose to ignore) my concluding remarks which stated my sentiments on the services:

quote:

---

They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).

---

What part of that connotes a dislike? The last part is simply a statement of historical fact, based on retrospective analyses that you open your response by suggesting are not informative. The value of those hindsight analyses is to provide a factual basis for how much confidence, or faith, one can have in those predictive services. They have been consistent over the years. You ignore their historical performance at your own risk. About 1 in 8 of their elites (5*) will end up having 1st round-worthy collegiate careers, actual elites. For me, being wrong 7 out of 8 times does not instill a lot of confidence. You have the right to put a lot of faith in those outcomes and if you don't want to call that "worshiping," fine. Pick your own word to describe that choice.

quote:

---

he vast majority of us understand what the rankings are and that they are by no means guarentees of anything.

---

If you think their past performance is irrelevant or uninformative, as you suggest, then you don't understand what they are. Your earlier statement on guarantees was:

quote:

---

Its not meant as a 100% guaranteed prediction of future success.

---

My objection remains that "not a 100% guarantee" implies it is still a high probability. The actual value is 12.5% and though my major was not statistics, that's not an objectively high probability and nowhere near 100%.

You quoted this from my post:

quote:

---

4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.

---

and commented:

quote:

---

I don't mean this to sound condesending, so i apolgize in advance, without context, this is completely meaningless and just shows you don't understand how to look at it or statistics.

---

Your apology is accepted . Your objection is not clear to me. It seems like you are saying "4 of 32
is pathetic" has no context an is therefore meaningless (to you). If that's the case, let me clarify.

The quote is lifted from this paragraph (the context you seem to say doesn't exist):

quote:

---

You have a better way to evaluate the correctness of 5-star evaluations than the 32 elite players taken in the 1st round of the NFL draft? Hindsight is the best way to assess evaluations. Why you'd disparage that approach is mystifying. The recruiting services are not to be worshiped; 4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.

---

And you quoted whodidthat and my post repeated this quote:

quote:

---

quote from whodidthat: This years draft only had 4 players go in the first round that were ranked as 5 star recruits. 4 others were had 2 star rankings and several other 3 stars players were 1st round picks as well

---

Our exchange begins with you responding to whodidthat's post, which deals with how the recruiting services fared with respect to the 1st round of last year's draft, how their ratings panned out as a matter of fact using the 1st round as the metric. That is what we are discussing.

"4 of 32" refers to the number of 5* prospects who were and have been historically selected in the first round of the NFL draft, deemed elite, stars, having enjoyed 1st round-worthy collegiate careers. In effect the 30 or so 5* prospects is a predictor of the 1st round (we both realize that the number of 5*'s varies from site to site and from within a site fron year to year, but you chose 30 and that's reasonable, even if 50 occurs on one). The 4 of 32 correct predictions of the 1st round made 3, 4, or 5 years earlier is not impressive to me, it strikes me as pathetic -- explicitly stated as an opinion. Star gazers are inclined to view current 5* prospects as "can't miss" 1st rounders. Having that belief -- when only 1 of 8 will achieve that status -- is described figuratively in my post as "worshiping." It was not meant to apply to you specifically, or that a church exists on Highland Rd. called Our Lady of Five Stars, or Sacred Heart of the Divine Prospect.

(continued)