Miles Fleming Commits to Gophers!

Donate To GopherHole
bemidjigopher said:
Yet they won eight plus games three times and went to a new year's day bowl. also Jerry and co did a great job of keeping the top in state talent home, hopefully PJ can rebuild that wall with more success. Games are played on the field, not on recruiting sites. With that being said I like the pieces Fleck is putting on the chess board. Out state recruiting has improved and is better than ever, talent needs to mature and take the next step

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oops, just realized you were talking Kill and Claeys. My bad!
 
Last edited:

Goldteam said:
Oops, just realized you were talking Kill and Claeys. My bad!
Click to expand...

So 2013-2014 and 2016 don’t count because...? Your first line only works if you only count regular season. Your second line is flat wrong.
 

Jeshurun said:
So 2013-2014 and 2016 don’t count because...? Your first line only works if you only count regular season. Your second line is flat wrong.
Click to expand...

That's because I thought he was only talking when Kill coached. So yes, my second line was flat out wrong.
 

bemidjigopher said:
Yet they won eight plus games three times and went to a new year's day bowl. also Jerry and co did a great job of keeping the top in state talent home, hopefully PJ can rebuild that wall with more success. Games are played on the field, not on recruiting sites. With that being said I like the pieces Fleck is putting on the chess board. Out state recruiting has improved and is better than ever, talent needs to mature and take the next step

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree with the bold above. If your going to critique PJ for missing on a big in state recruits like Bryce Bernhart, you have to review the outcome. Instead of getting Bryce, he lands ZA and through that influences and lands Faalele and Dunlap. Right now it looks to me like ZA + DF + CD > BB. IMO he landed the most important Minnesota recruit last year.

The whole keeping your home state kids discussion is only relevant when the program is so bad that kids that would like to go here, choose to go elsewhere, I feel like we have turned the corner on that starting with Kill and continuing with PJ. Kids that just want to go somewhere else are walking straight through whatever fence you think you have around the state.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
That's not what I did at all previously. More lies from you.
Click to expand...

You are correct - more lies....

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Again, 247s team talent is based on recruiting rankings, something you refuse to acknowledge. Picking the 20-50 range is cherry picking. The Gophers were ranked 48 and played 6 teams in that range this year, meaning they played 7 outside of that range. Why eliminate 7 games?

<b>Of those 6 teams they played in the 20-50 range, 5 of them were ranked higher than the Gophers. What was our record? 1-4. </b>The other team was Georgia Tech ranked at 50, who we easily beat. No correlation there though right?
Click to expand...

Honestly, it gets old watching you pivot, deny, and make false accusations.

Maybe you can tell us again why concession sales shouldn’t be included in a ticket sales/profit analysis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Spoofin said:
You are correct - more lies....



Honestly, it gets old watching you pivot, deny, and make false accusations.

Maybe you can tell us again why concession sales shouldn’t be included in a ticket sales/profit analysis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why don't you post that thread for context? Because you're again trying to cherry pick one post to prove a point you never had. Here's the actual thread: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?86617-Can-Gophs-recruiting-stay-in-top-40-Iowa-moving-past-Gophers-Indiana-next/page12

And here's again my rebuttal to that post:

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I picked one team because it took me 30 seconds to do. I've done the entire B1G overall for 3 seasons here, head to head, less talent vs more talent: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?78881-Why-Talent-Recruiting-Rankings-Matter

As far as removing the biggest flaws? What? That players leave or don't make the roster? That happens to every team, every year. The aggregate 4-5 year recruiting class rankings is unlikely to significantly differ from the talent rankings. Don't believe it? Then do the analysis.

But head to head record doesn't involve wins or losses now, is that what you're trying to say? Which made up metric would you like to use to try and prove a point you don't have?
Click to expand...

Then you actually did a little analysis and basically agreed that the talent rankings and recruiting rankings are strongly correlated.

Honestly, it gets old watching you pivot, deny, and make false accusations.
 

LakerFan said:
I agree with the bold above. If your going to critique PJ for missing on a big in state recruits like Bryce Bernhart, you have to review the outcome. Instead of getting Bryce, he lands ZA and through that influences and lands Faalele and Dunlap. Right now it looks to me like ZA + DF + CD > BB. IMO he landed the most important Minnesota recruit last year.

The whole keeping your home state kids discussion is only relevant when the program is so bad that kids that would like to go here, choose to go elsewhere, I feel like we have turned the corner on that starting with Kill and continuing with PJ. Kids that just want to go somewhere else are walking straight through whatever fence you think you have around the state.
Click to expand...

Thanks to both Laker Fan & bemidjigopher. Got me to look more closely at PJ's instate 2018 recruiting and retention. Yes, #1 (BB) did not work for various reasons but Gophers did get #2 (Spann-Ford), #3 (Sapp), #5 (Aune), and #6 (Boe) along with the ZA + DF + CD combo mentioned. Overall looks like a very good and thorough in state recruiting effort. All are still on the team. The out of state recruits haven't stuck around as well. Five are no longer Gophers (Viramontes, Riegelsperger, Edmonds, York, and Norton).
 
Last edited:

LakerFan said:
I agree with the bold above. If your going to critique PJ for missing on a big in state recruits like Bryce Bernhart, you have to review the outcome. Instead of getting Bryce, he lands ZA and through that influences and lands Faalele and Dunlap. Right now it looks to me like ZA + DF + CD > BB. IMO he landed the most important Minnesota recruit last year.

The whole keeping your home state kids discussion is only relevant when the program is so bad that kids that would like to go here, choose to go elsewhere, I feel like we have turned the corner on that starting with Kill and continuing with PJ. Kids that just want to go somewhere else are walking straight through whatever fence you think you have around the state.
Click to expand...

Great post. There is a reason they are taking Fleming now...I believe it’s because he’s way better than the “rankings”, a la Cedric Thompson.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Why don't you post that thread for context? Because you're again trying to cherry pick one post to prove a point you never had. Here's the actual thread: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?86617-Can-Gophs-recruiting-stay-in-top-40-Iowa-moving-past-Gophers-Indiana-next/page12

And here's again my rebuttal to that post:



Then you actually did a little analysis and basically agreed that the talent rankings and recruiting rankings are strongly correlated.

Honestly, it gets old watching you pivot, deny, and make false accusations.
Click to expand...

My last post on this as I think you have sufficiently once again exposed yourself.

What context GWG? Your exact claim was that taking one team in one year and using talent rankings was “not at all what you did”, but clearly it is exactly what you did. I posted proof - and you just did again (with “context” I guess).

I then did analysis on the BIG over 2-years and you threw it out as limited data / cherry picking. Also in your “context” above. You really can’t make it up.

More lies - I absolutely did not confirm or agree talent rankings were strongly correlated to rankings. I said that in both years I evaluated that talent rankings changed the order of teams from recruiting rankings - which is further proof that giving stats on head-to-head matchups using talent rankings is not the same as using recruiting rankings.

Concession profit counts too even tho not everyone has to buy food.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Spoofin said:
My last post on this as I think you have sufficiently once again exposed yourself.

What context GWG? Your exact claim was that taking one team in one year and using talent rankings was “not at all what you did”, but clearly it is exactly what you did. I posted proof - and you just did again (with “context” I guess).

I then did analysis on the BIG over 2-years and you threw it out as limited data / cherry picking. Also in your “context” above. You really can’t make it up.

More lies - I absolutely did not confirm or agree talent rankings were strongly correlated to rankings. I said that in both years I evaluated that talent rankings changed the order of teams from recruiting rankings - which is further proof that giving stats on head-to-head matchups using talent rankings is not the same as using recruiting rankings.

Concession profit counts too even tho not everyone has to buy food.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Once again you completely contradict yourself in one post. It's ok, you don't understand how statistics and probabilities work, and you never will.


Spoofin said:
After spending some time researching the definition of "100% wrong", I had another thought.Although there was no correlation between recruiting rankings and head-to-head games in the B1G during the past 2-years for those in the 20-50 ranking range (see post #194), maybe it still had a correlation on their overall B1G record? Tougher to evaluate as it isn't all common opponents, but worth a look.
View attachment 5974

The data seems to suggest that the overall B1G record also had no correlation to the recruiting ranking for these teams “in the middle”. At least not over the past 2-years. I’ll keep searching for some correlation.

Finally, per request, I added a column to the table that shows the “Talent Ranking” versus the 5-Year Average Recruiting Ranking. I will admit that with the exception of MD that the numbers don’t change a lot. However, in both years sampled it would change the order of the teams evaluated and therefore one would have to conclude that it is not valid to use Talent Rankings in a debate revolving around Recruiting Rankings and the win % of higher vs lower ranked teams.
Click to expand...

Fleck's recruiting rankings have risen to around the levels of Wisconsin and Iowa, which is only on average 5-15 spots higher than where Kill was recruiting. Yet even in this thread you say that the talent is noticeably better on the field under Fleck. Yet somehow you will argue that small of a jump has no correlation to better talent or more wins.
 






dpodoll68 said:
Well, he couldn't recruit worth a sh1t, so what did he know?
Click to expand...

I can't believe he only managed to go 14-21 in the B1G and never won a bowl game with all that talent he brought in. Must not have had much coaching ability.
 

Can’t we all just agree that recruiting rankings are generally a good predictor of success, they aren’t the end all be all, and that recruiting rankings on the 30s-40s is better than rankings in the 50s-60s?
 

Jeshurun said:
Can’t we all just agree that recruiting rankings are generally a good predictor of success, they aren’t the end all be all, and that recruiting rankings on the 30s-40s is better than rankings in the 50s-60s?
Click to expand...

Low 40s probabbly are a big break point, but like even a top 25 team ranking the quality at the higher end can vary wildly.


Get into those 50s and 60s too often and yeah I'd say you're in another area.
 

A portion of the rating is due to which schools are interested in you and/or where you sign with, as well. His rating could change now that he’s with a P5.
 

Jeshurun said:
Can’t we all just agree that recruiting rankings are generally a good predictor of success, they aren’t the end all be all, and that recruiting rankings on the 30s-40s is better than rankings in the 50s-60s?
Click to expand...

Most would agree with this take I think.
 

Jeshurun said:
Can’t we all just agree that recruiting rankings are generally a good predictor of success, they aren’t the end all be all, and that recruiting rankings on the 30s-40s is better than rankings in the 50s-60s?
Click to expand...

I did some research earlier this year and in head to head matchups between B1G teams with average 5-year recruiting rankings between 20-50 in 2017, the higher ranked team was 3-3.
In 2018, the higher ranked team was 2-4.

Someone else used 4-year ranking average and a larger data set (2013-2018) and found the higher ranked B1G team won 58% of the time.

IMO, some subset (~25-50) is basically a flip of the coin based on rankings. At that point I would put much more confidence in how well of a recruiter and coach you have - not only in identifying talent, but identifying fit, ability to succeed in school, etc. In other words, I’d take a PJ class ranked 45 over a Brewster class ranked 27. But, I don’t understand statistics so.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
I did some research earlier this year and in head to head matchups between B1G teams with average 5-year recruiting rankings between 20-50 in 2017, the higher ranked team was 3-3.
In 2018, the higher ranked team was 2-4.

Someone else used 4-year ranking average and a larger data set (2013-2018) and found the higher ranked B1G team won 58% of the time.

IMO, some subset (~25-50) is basically a flip of the coin based on rankings. At that point I would put much more confidence in how well of a recruiter and coach you have - not only in identifying talent, but identifying fit, ability to succeed in school, etc. In other words, I’d take a PJ class ranked 45 over a Brewster class ranked 27.
Click to expand...

The problem in trying to “prove” any of this stuff is that the teams that win most of the games are the teams that get the highest rated classes. Or is it the other way around??? Chicken and egg. There’s never really a way to separate the two variables.
 

Spoofin said:
I did some research earlier this year and in head to head matchups between B1G teams with average 5-year recruiting rankings between 20-50 in 2017, the higher ranked team was 3-3.
In 2018, the higher ranked team was 2-4.

Someone else used 4-year ranking average and a larger data set (2013-2018) and found the higher ranked B1G team won 58% of the time.

IMO, some subset (~25-50) is basically a flip of the coin based on rankings. At that point I would put much more confidence in how well of a recruiter and coach you have - not only in identifying talent, but identifying fit, ability to succeed in school, etc. In other words, I’d take a PJ class ranked 45 over a Brewster class ranked 27. But, I don’t understand statistics so.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Interesting. By that metric I would have to say I think PJ knows how to identify talent on the offensive end of the ball and I have great confidence in his recruiting on that end regardless of ranking. I would have said the same about Kill/Claeys when it came to the defensive side of the ball. I guess the next few years will tell us whether PJ can identify and recruit D players well enough for the program to turn a corner.
 

The best way you could try to prove it would be to find the instances where there was a big change in recruiting ratings of a class that didn’t immediately follow a change in wins.

For example, a team that didn’t win a bunch usually that suddenly has a great class. You look just at those instances, and see if you can reason that the surge in class rating, which couldn’t be linked to an immediately preceding wins surge, had some kind of lasting positive impact on the wins total.

A program that might fit the bill, off the top of my head, would be U of Buffalo.
 



dpodoll68 said:
A data point of one can't be an outlier.
Click to expand...

Why is it a data point of one?

Compare it to the entire Kill/Claeys regime. Compare it to what the Class of 2017 was going to be if Claeys wasn't fired.

Certainly as you say, an outlier can't be evidence of anything. But, when compared to the entirety of the Kill/Claeys tenure and where the 2017 Claeys class was headed???

2012 - #59
2013 - #67
2014 - #57
2015 - #63
2016 - #46
2017 - ranked in 70s prior to Claeys firing

2017 - #59 (Fleck, arriving in Jan)
2018 - #38 (Fleck)
2019 - #45 (Fleck)
 
Last edited:

tjgopher said:
Why is it a data point of one?

Compare it to the entire Kill/Claeys regime. Compare it to what the Class of 2017 was going to be if Claeys wasn't fired.

Certainly as you say, an outlier can't be evidence of anything. But, when compared to the entirety of the Kill/Claeys tenure and where the 2017 Claeys class was headed???

2012 - #59
2013 - #67
2014 - #57
2015 - #63
2016 - #46
2017 - ranked in 70s prior to Claeys firing

2017 - #59 (Fleck)
2018 - #38 (Fleck)
2019 - #45 (Fleck)
Click to expand...

Claeys and Kill are two entirely different human beings. Claeys signed one recruiting class as a head coach. That's why it's a data point of one.

And you have zero idea where the 2017 class would've ended up had Claeys remained as head coach.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Claeys and Kill are two entirely different human beings. Claeys signed one recruiting class as a head coach. That's why it's a data point of one.

And you have zero idea where the 2017 class would've ended up had Claeys remained as head coach.
Click to expand...

It wasn't going to be good. Period. Coaches were very concerned. You can believe what you want.
 
Last edited:

tjgopher said:
It wasn't going to be good. Period. Coaches were very concerned. You can believe what you want.
Click to expand...

You can pretend to know the future and believe in magic and unicorns, but I'll live in reality where the future can't be predicted.

Oh, and your concession is noted in trying to lump Kill and Claeys together.
 

dpodoll68 said:
You can pretend to know the future and believe in magic and unicorns, but I'll live in reality where the future can't be predicted.

Oh, and your concession is noted in trying to lump Kill and Claeys together.
Click to expand...

Who is the one looking for magic and unicorns in this discussion? I'm basing off of some hard facts and some easy projection.

Speaking of data points, can you find me a data point where a Big Ten school ranked last in the conference and #72 in the nation in recruiting rankings on Jan 1 comes back to have a Top 50 or even Top 60 class five weeks later? PJ was able to get it to Top 60 thanks to the WMU influx and a few guys walking away.

I suppose your correct, maybe Tracy was stashing 11 or 12 highly ranked recruits to pull in in that final stretch.
 

tjgopher said:
Who is the one looking for magic and unicorns in this discussion? I'm basing off of some hard facts and some easy projection.

Speaking of data points, can you find me a data point where a Big Ten school ranked last in the conference and #72 in the nation in recruiting rankings on Jan 1 comes back to have a Top 50 or even Top 60 class five weeks later? PJ was able to get it to Top 60 thanks to the WMU influx and<b> a few guys walking away.</b>

I suppose your correct, maybe Tracy was stashing 11 or 12 highly ranked recruits to pull in in that final stretch.
Click to expand...

You think that’s what happened? IIRC, virtually every non-MN kid who was committed “walked away”.

Also, to do it right, you need to give all 2016 credit to CC45, not Kill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom