That is a dishonest accusation

Jan 16, 2014
10:02:55am

concolor couguar

but our recruiting looks fairly consistent. Other than the celebrated year when we cracked the top 25 we have been somewhere around 40-60. I don't think you can make that big a deal between the #40 and #60 recruiting class. In that range you are hoping for players like Hoff.

There is no data available for the 80's and 90's so it is pretty pointless to debate your impression of the the 80s and 90s recruiting classes. We could look at # of NFL players who recruited during that time period but that would be an indirect measure and would have the variable of coach's ability to develop talent. Your thinking that one cant make that big of a deal about the difference between a #40 ranked class and a #60 rank class has no bearing on the discussion. That is your opinion and an attempt to excuse the claim you made that recruiting is now better.

The average of the first 10 classes we have record of was 46.67. The average of the last 3 classes is 63. For fun I actually ran a 2 tailed ttest to see if the difference is significant. I didnt think that it would be based on the low sample size but even with the low sample size the difference was in fact statistically significant. (p-value of .039 (.05 is significant)). Your claim is that there is no practical difference between 40 and 60 and you might be right but you offer no evidence.

I am absolutely correct about missions. With returning missionaries we only have 15 scholarships available this year or something like that. Missions (and returning early) are what kept us from getting Star and Murphy for a couple of recent examples. It is hard to have a top recruiting class when you have 10 less scholarships than everyone else.

I specifically included the number of commitments because this argument was bound to come up. Go back and look at the numbers. BYU has had a class ranked 46th with only 14 commits 2013 was 63rd with 28!

Non skill players make up over 1/2 of the players on the field - so having them account for less than 1/2 in the rankings kind of proves my point.

Let's actually make sure we are referring to the same thing when we say skill players. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_position I think it would be accurate to include TE's and FB's as skill players but not LB's. So 4 players on most defenses are skill players and 6 players on offense are skill players. So 10 of the 22 are skill players. (45%) Using that definition lets revise the numbers I used earlier.

2014 13/20 are skill players

2013 11/20 are skill players

2012 9/20 are skill players

2011 6/20 are skill players

Total 39/80 48%

So skill players are over represented by 3%. Your point is not proven by a 3% difference.

The truth is I don't put a ton of stock in the recruiting numbers because it is a inaccurate science. If they meant as much as some people want to believe then teams like ND and Michigan would never have bad seasons. One thing that I think is true is that BYU is thrilled to get a top player - but when he doesn't pan our like Heaps or Olsen it is hard to find a replacement. A team like Alabama has a quality replacement sitting on the bench. In essence I think the rankings have more to do with depth at every position than skill of the starters.

Ironic how much you mock JKampana for using "feelings and opinions" when you are in fact using them all the time. It is fair to say you dont trust recruiting rankings but unless you have a better source of evidence I will rely on it rather than trust your opinion of recruiting.

Finally - why did you use Rivals instead of Scout as your evidence? It smacks of Yewtishness to use the recruiting service that gives BYU the worst rankings. At least Jkamp showed both

You are just making stuff up now. I never used a single point of data from Rivals in this post or the last. Where did you come up with the idea I used Rivals? Seriously you have no evidence to base that accusation on but do it anyway in attempt to discredit the evidence. That is dishonest. Also, even if I had used Rivals (which I did not) as long as I was comparing like to like it shouldnt have been a problem unless you think Rivals has only recently discriminated against BYU players.

Sources of data

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=88&yr=2011

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=88&yr=2012

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=88&yr=2013

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=88&yr=2014

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2014

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2013

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2012

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2011

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2010

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2009

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2008