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

You quote me:

quote:

---

Once a non-Top 250 kid has signed a LOI and starts his career, he is just as likely to be drafted in the 1st round as any 5-star from the total pool of LOI signers (elaborated on below). And this is true every year; the year cited is not anomalous.

---

Conveniently omitting the elaboration referred to in the quote, you comment:

quote:

---

This is completely wrong. Take a basic statistics course. There are only 30-35 5 star players and using your number over 250 non ranked players. if 4 from each pool make it that means and there are 35 5*'s, each 5 star has a 11.4% chance of being a first rounder. If 4 of the pool of 250 make it, they have a 1.6% chance of making.

---

Your condescension has already been forgiven. If you knew half as much about statistics as this quote would have me believe, you'd know that statistics can be used to make almost any case for any agenda. And how one looks at them is a matter of choice.

Case in point:

The pools you choose to use no longer exist in a sense and wholly arbitrary. The evaluations are made of prospects. Once they sign that LOI and begin their careers, they stop being prospects, they become players They are in a class of ~3,000 players and that is the pool they are actually in, the pool from which the pros will draft them, not a Rivals concoction. By chance the probability of any 1 from that 3,000 player pool becoming 1st rounders is 32 in ~3,000. The historical record -- the one you suggest is uninformative -- establishes the likelihood that 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 players will have been 5* prospects and 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 will have been 2*. On average -- with little variance -- the likelihood for both is the same, 4 of ~3,000.

The 250-prospect mental construct you use in your calculations plays no role in the 1st round drafting process because it does not exist. The only pool that exists is the players' ~3,000 pool. There have been players drafted in the 1st round who were not even in the Rivals database -- no ranking at all. So the numbers derived from your using a Top 250 recruiting service opinion is completely a choice you made that has nothing whatsoever to do with the real drafting of the 1st round. You choose to look at it that way, but that view has nothing to do with the reality of drafting the 1st round. The probabilities derived from an irrelevant mental construct imposed on the real world has no actual significance -- except what you arbitrarily choose to give it. That choice does not obligate anyone else to follow suit, though those who choose to view it as you do will follow that path of interpreting reality. My chemically accessed gods advise me that reality is an interpretation and perception underlies both. My perception drives me to identify the pool from which the 1st round is drafted as the ~3,000 players, not a four year old opinion of once-prospects and that incidentally 4 of the 32 of ~3,000 will have been gauged 5* and 4 of the 32 will have been 2*. The likelihood is the same -- regardless of any prior irrelevant evaluations that have no connection with the pool from which the 1st round is actually drafted. The fact that there were once ~2,750 2* prospects has nothing to do with the likelihood that the number of 2*'s and 5*'s in that 32 will be the same; they both have a 4 in ~3,000 likelihood of being in that 32..

quote:

---

Basing it on the # of first round picks is simply wrong.

---

This entire discussion is centered on 1st round picks and how well the services predict them by their 5* evaluations. The # is 4 of 32 (hopefully, it has meaning for you now). Neither the number nor its use is wrong; it's just pathetic and so you don't want to accept/use it. My belief is that our staff has the competence to compile a much better list. So when CLM's staff offers a kid the services do not rank highly, my tendency is to have faith in the staff. It does not embarrass me to admit to worshiping at the alter of the Almighty Tiger Program. It enjoys my faith and confidence. Star Gazers seem to worship at a different alter, which they have a right to do, but it strikes me as disingenuous when they deny it.

quote:

---

The coach staff recruits mostly higher ranked players. They do not wait for Rivals or 247 to publish their rankings and then go off of that. both have basically the same film to watch and can all see the same things.

---

They watch the same film, but they certainly do not see the same things. If they did, they'd all have the same rankings. All phases of the staff's evaluation process employ eyes that see differently than the services, more discerning, more sensitive to subtlety, more aware of concerns unconsidered by the services, concerns specific to our program. That's my belief. When posters complain of the staff's decision to offer a kid, it is apparent to me that they have a different belief, serve at a different alter.