Wonder what this would mean for us?

[NovaBull]

1 hour ago, puc86 said:

My bologna has a first name it’s O-s-c-a-r...

My baloney has a second name it’s H-O-M-E-R!

[puc86]

51 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Charlie Strong

If you think this USF team had top three talent in the conference you need to put the glue down

It is not what I say it is what the data says and CCS got fired for mismanaging his talent, just because CJS is doing astonishingly worse does not mean the talent is not on par with the conference from 2016-2019 the talent level is most certainly at the top of the conference and while recruiting rankings are not perfect they do tend to be directionally correct for talent on a team. Our team has lacked coaching, that is why they were replaced, and this current staff needs to make up that deficit as much as they need to do anything else. 

Team	Average of Rank	Average of Avg	Sum of Pts
UCF	2.25	2.6125	4994
South Florida	3.25	2.5725	4560
Memphis	4.25	2.4475	4460
Cincinnati	4.5	2.665	4516
Houston	4.75	2.645	4558
Southern Methodist	6.5	2.3875	3990
East Carolina	7	2.3325	3900
Temple	7.75	2.29	3725
Tulane	7.75	2.2025	3780
Navy	8.5	1.81	3645
Tulsa	9	2.256666667	2790
Connecticut	11	2.096666667	2370
Grand Total	6.217391304	2.367826087	47288

[NewEnglandBull]

6 minutes ago, puc86 said:

It is not what I say it is what the data says and CCS got fired for mismanaging his talent, just because CJS is doing astonishingly worse does not mean the talent is not on par with the conference from 2016-2019 the talent level is most certainly at the top of the conference and while recruiting rankings are not perfect they do tend to be directionally correct for talent on a team. Our team has lacked coaching, that is why they were replaced, and this current staff needs to make up that deficit as much as they need to do anything else. 

Team	Average of Rank	Average of Avg	Sum of Pts
UCF	2.25	2.6125	4994
South Florida	3.25	2.5725	4560
Memphis	4.25	2.4475	4460
Cincinnati	4.5	2.665	4516
Houston	4.75	2.645	4558
Southern Methodist	6.5	2.3875	3990
East Carolina	7	2.3325	3900
Temple	7.75	2.29	3725
Tulane	7.75	2.2025	3780
Navy	8.5	1.81	3645
Tulsa	9	2.256666667	2790
Connecticut	11	2.096666667	2370
Grand Total	6.217391304	2.367826087	47288

Please footnote your sources going forward. I have not seen any ranking where we were top three in the conference in more than 3 years. Please see below:
 

USF AAC Rankings from 24/7

2016: 5th

2017: 5th

2018: 3rd

2019: 6th

No way this team has top 3 talent...no friggin way....

 

 

[Triple B]

12 minutes ago, puc86 said:

It is not what I say it is what the data says and CCS got fired for mismanaging his talent, just because CJS is doing astonishingly worse does not mean the talent is not on par with the conference from 2016-2019 the talent level is most certainly at the top of the conference and while recruiting rankings are not perfect they do tend to be directionally correct for talent on a team. Our team has lacked coaching, that is why they were replaced, and this current staff needs to make up that deficit as much as they need to do anything else. 

Team	Average of Rank	Average of Avg	Sum of Pts
UCF	2.25	2.6125	4994
South Florida	3.25	2.5725	4560
Memphis	4.25	2.4475	4460
Cincinnati	4.5	2.665	4516
Houston	4.75	2.645	4558
Southern Methodist	6.5	2.3875	3990
East Carolina	7	2.3325	3900
Temple	7.75	2.29	3725
Tulane	7.75	2.2025	3780
Navy	8.5	1.81	3645
Tulsa	9	2.256666667	2790
Connecticut	11	2.096666667	2370
Grand Total	6.217391304	2.367826087	47288

So what do those figures represent exactly (btw, 3 decimal places would have been just keen) and how many of those players were available this whole year?

[puc86]

3 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Please footnote your sources going forward. I have not seen any ranking where we were top three in the conference in more than 3 years. Please see below:
 

USF AAC Rankings from 24/7

2016: 5th

2017: 5th

2018: 3rd

2019: 6th

No way this team has top 3 talent...no friggin way....

 

 

A) you just gave an example B) you can be 5th every year and have a blended average of top 3 for the period C) -

Rank	Year	Team	Avg	Pts
1	Rivals 2016	Houston	2.85	1468
2	Rivals 2016	UCF	2.48	1199
3	Rivals 2016	Temple	2.56	1190
4	Rivals 2016	South Florida	2.65	1035
5	Rivals 2016	Memphis	2.32	1020
6	Rivals 2016	Southern Methodist	2.13	1005
7	Rivals 2016	Cincinnati	2.43	990
8	Rivals 2016	East Carolina	2.04	900
9	Rivals 2016	Tulane	1.95	825
9	Rivals 2016	Tulsa	2.05	825
11	Rivals 2016	Navy	1.97	795
12	Rivals 2016	Connecticut	2.25	555
1	Rivals 2017	UCF	2.73	1320
2	Rivals 2017	Cincinnati	2.73	1196
3	Rivals 2017	Memphis	2.5	1175
4	Rivals 2017	South Florida	2.29	1080
5	Rivals 2017	East Carolina	2.5	1065
6	Rivals 2017	Houston	2.53	990
6	Rivals 2017	Navy	1.53	990
8	Rivals 2017	Tulsa	2.36	975
9	Rivals 2017	Southern Methodist	2.44	915
10	Rivals 2017	Connecticut	1.96	870
11	Rivals 2017	Tulane	2.04	855
12	Rivals 2017	Temple	2.19	645
1	Rivals 2018	Cincinnati	2.91	1445
2	Rivals 2018	South Florida	2.65	1290
3	Rivals 2018	Houston	2.64	1245
4	Rivals 2018	Tulane	2.52	1200
5	Rivals 2018	UCF	2.6	1185
6	Rivals 2018	Temple	2.36	1080
7	Rivals 2018	Memphis	2.4	1050
7	Rivals 2018	Southern Methodist	2.45	1050
9	Rivals 2018	East Carolina	2.43	1005
10	Rivals 2018	Tulsa	2.36	990
11	Rivals 2018	Connecticut	2.08	945
12	Rivals 2018	Navy	1.94	915
1	Rivals 2019	UCF	2.64	1290
2	Rivals 2019	Memphis	2.57	1215
3	Rivals 2019	South Florida	2.7	1155
4	Rivals 2019	Southern Methodist	2.53	1020
5	Rivals 2019	Navy	1.8	945
6	Rivals 2019	East Carolina	2.36	930
7	Rivals 2019	Tulane	2.3	900
8	Rivals 2019	Cincinnati	2.59	885
9	Rivals 2019	Houston	2.56	855
10	Rivals 2019	Temple	2.05	810

[NewEnglandBull]

6 minutes ago, puc86 said:

A) you just gave an example B) you can be 5th every year and have a blended average of top 3 for the period C) -

Rank	Year	Team	Avg	Pts
1	Rivals 2016	Houston	2.85	1468
2	Rivals 2016	UCF	2.48	1199
3	Rivals 2016	Temple	2.56	1190
4	Rivals 2016	South Florida	2.65	1035
5	Rivals 2016	Memphis	2.32	1020
6	Rivals 2016	Southern Methodist	2.13	1005
7	Rivals 2016	Cincinnati	2.43	990
8	Rivals 2016	East Carolina	2.04	900
9	Rivals 2016	Tulane	1.95	825
9	Rivals 2016	Tulsa	2.05	825
11	Rivals 2016	Navy	1.97	795
12	Rivals 2016	Connecticut	2.25	555
1	Rivals 2017	UCF	2.73	1320
2	Rivals 2017	Cincinnati	2.73	1196
3	Rivals 2017	Memphis	2.5	1175
4	Rivals 2017	South Florida	2.29	1080
5	Rivals 2017	East Carolina	2.5	1065
6	Rivals 2017	Houston	2.53	990
6	Rivals 2017	Navy	1.53	990
8	Rivals 2017	Tulsa	2.36	975
9	Rivals 2017	Southern Methodist	2.44	915
10	Rivals 2017	Connecticut	1.96	870
11	Rivals 2017	Tulane	2.04	855
12	Rivals 2017	Temple	2.19	645
1	Rivals 2018	Cincinnati	2.91	1445
2	Rivals 2018	South Florida	2.65	1290
3	Rivals 2018	Houston	2.64	1245
4	Rivals 2018	Tulane	2.52	1200
5	Rivals 2018	UCF	2.6	1185
6	Rivals 2018	Temple	2.36	1080
7	Rivals 2018	Memphis	2.4	1050
7	Rivals 2018	Southern Methodist	2.45	1050
9	Rivals 2018	East Carolina	2.43	1005
10	Rivals 2018	Tulsa	2.36	990
11	Rivals 2018	Connecticut	2.08	945
12	Rivals 2018	Navy	1.94	915
1	Rivals 2019	UCF	2.64	1290
2	Rivals 2019	Memphis	2.57	1215
3	Rivals 2019	South Florida	2.7	1155
4	Rivals 2019	Southern Methodist	2.53	1020
5	Rivals 2019	Navy	1.8	945
6	Rivals 2019	East Carolina	2.36	930
7	Rivals 2019	Tulane	2.3	900
8	Rivals 2019	Cincinnati	2.59	885
9	Rivals 2019	Houston	2.56	855
10	Rivals 2019	Temple	2.05	810

Come on Puc...blended average? Rivals is no longer the best source as the metrics they use are not as complete as 24/7. I can take our overall rank and see we average 5th when compared to the overall conference. The blended part does not work as multiple players have left this team so you would need to subtract their individual ranking out. Further, we had two players who missed a year for injury and some who were not playing at full strength...I could go on and on so you would have to make mathematical corrections for those as well. Bottom line when compared to our peers we are not a top 3. He’ll even a typical eye test by a 10 years old could see this. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by NewEnglandBull

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, Triple B said:

So what do those figures represent exactly (btw, 3 decimal places would have been just keen) and how many of those players were available this whole year?

Rivals rankings by year, player star average and points for the class (btw that is a whole extra step and this already took me like five steps, more data = more better) and I am definitely not doing that in depth analysis because if you do not do it for everyone it is worthless without context ( see saying we ranked 5th in many years and that not mattering if someone came in 1st but also 12th). If for some reason our players were disproportionately not available at a rate far higher than the blended average we probably should do something about that, but I have no reason to believe that is the case. 

[puc86]

Just now, NewEnglandBull said:

Come on Puc...blended average? Rivals is no longer the best source as the heretics they use are not as complete as 24/7. I can take our overall rank and see we average 5th when compared to the overall conference. The blended part does not work as multiple players have left this team so you would need to subtract their individual ranking out. Further, we had two players who missed a year for injury and some who were not playing at full strength...I could go on and on so you would have to make mathematical corrections for those as well. Bottom line when compared to our peers we are not a top 3. He’ll even a typical eye test by a 10 years old could see this. 

I was going to use 24/7 and ESPN too but it wasn't as easy to copy and paste 24/7 so I gave up because reformatting may have taken an extra minute or two. Do you even math Bro? My approach is definitely the right one for comparing classes over a period as there are large swings in rankings which means if you are looking at the mode of just the rankings you would get a skewed picture of the four years when the mean is the truest look at what happened during that period. But sure lets go with your 10 year old math. The mode clearly has us in the top half exactly how many teams did we beat from any of the quartiles? 

[Triple B]

13 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Rivals rankings by year, player star average and points for the class (btw that is a whole extra step and this already took me like five steps, more data = more better) and I am definitely not doing that in depth analysis because if you do not do it for everyone it is worthless without context ( see saying we ranked 5th in many years and that not mattering if someone came in 1st but also 12th). If for some reason our players were disproportionately not available at a rate far higher than the blended average we probably should do something about that, but I have no reason to believe that is the case. 

And the answer to my question about how many from those "high rankings" were available this whole year?

[NewEnglandBull]

5 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I was going to use 24/7 and ESPN too but it wasn't as easy to copy and paste 24/7 so I gave up because reformatting may have taken an extra minute or two. Do you even math Bro? My approach is definitely the right one for comparing classes over a period as there are large swings in rankings which means if you are looking at the mode of just the rankings you would get a skewed picture of the four years when the mean is the truest look at what happened during that period. But sure lets go with your 10 year old math. The mode clearly has us in the top half exactly how many teams did we beat from any of the quartiles? 

Amazing how you use the number to manipulate. Again if you are going to use that model you will need to subtract those players who left as they had no impact. Further, I would be more interested if your numbers produce statistical significance differences (t-test). I suspect they do not so the reality is that this whole process is moot. Talent coming in is not the same as talent that is produced. Still, I am not buying that this team has top three talent as I am sure 99% of the fans will attest to.