Kristofic is Irish!!!!

[Wolfman2610]

Just came across the 247 press release....

Given his relationship with Jurkovec, I think we kind of expected this would happen. But, it's one less thing to worry about now.

Quinn Carroll still needs to be given the hard sell.....This is a deep OL class, so even though we already have two good ones, I want to keep pushing for more.

Kristofic may only be a 3-star rated composite player, but he had all of the big boys after him. Therefore, I am very happy with this addition to the Blue & Gold.

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame/Article/OL-Andrew-Kristofic-commits-to-Notre-Dame-Fighting-Irish-117088153

 

[NDIRISH53]

Freaking GREAT film. Just like Julian Love coming out of high school, it's a sin he isn't a consensus top 200 player.

 

[scubastevefl]

“Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, Ohio State,” If those schools are interested I’m glad ND picked him up!

 

[FriedmanIP]

Freaking GREAT film. Just like Julian Love coming out of high school, it's a sin he isn't a consensus top 200 player.

“Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, Ohio State,” If those schools are interested I’m glad ND picked him up!

Agreed.

Ohio State and Clemson were after him HARD up until the very end.

And those are some of the premier programs for recruiting spread/read-option talent on offense. Big time land.

Honestly, he may be the best OL we land in this class, and I say that expecting to land Quinn Carroll (R100), John Olmstead (R100), and Zeke Correll (R250).

Stud.

 

[zonairish]

Agreed.

Ohio State and Clemson were after him HARD up until the very end.

And those are some of the premier programs for recruiting spread/read-option talent on offense. Big time land.

Honestly, he may be the best OL we land in this class, and I say that expecting to land Quinn Carroll (R100), John Olmstead (R100), and Zeke Correll (R250).

Stud.

yea but not a shiny 5* kid. Some posters will say we cannot get the 5* kid oh the horror. I am very happy about this pickup. We have a very good offensive line class

 

[FriedmanIP]

yea but not a shiny 5* kid. Some posters will say we cannot get the 5* kid oh the horror. I am very happy about this pickup. We have a very good offensive line class

Yep!
But he has 5* style upside as a true LT prospect in 2-3 years.

We need to lock down Quinn Carroll and Zeke Correll and then this will be a fantastic OL class.

Plus, that will let us go and chase for 1 more
“Long shot OL”.
Personally, I’m hoping to add Saleem Wormley to those prospects mentioned above. Like Kristofic, he’s a criminally underrated 3* prospect.

 

[SIhoosier26]

Agreed.

Ohio State and Clemson were after him HARD up until the very end.

And those are some of the premier programs for recruiting spread/read-option talent on offense. Big time land.

Honestly, he may be the best OL we land in this class, and I say that expecting to land Quinn Carroll (R100), John Olmstead (R100), and Zeke Correll (R250).

Stud.

The funny thing about it is he's ranked almost exactly where Zach Martin was out of high school. Now he's a 4 time pro bowler. This kid looks like he may has more upside based on his size, offer list, and position.

 

[Wolfman2610]

I know what the crystal ball is saying, but has anyone heard anything about how things are going with Harry Miller?

The idea of having a consistent guy in the pivot has always been a priority to me. I am guessing this is pretty because my earliest introductions to football were the 1990 Giants and Bart Oates

 

[chaseball]

3 star kids who have acceptable/actionable offers this early in the cycle, at a position group of strength tells me one thing: this kid was ranked very highly on NDs board.

it's the 3 star recruits late in the cycle where ND missed out on their plan A, B, C, and even Ds in some cases, and start taking average 3 stars at major positions of need for #s reasons, that tell a different story. This was happening a lot more often several years ago than it is now.

still, ND is in desperate need of the top flight top 100/ top 50/ top 25 athletes in order to level the talent gap with the premiere modern powers in collegiate football.

 

[echowaker]

3 star kids who have acceptable/actionable offers this early in the cycle, at a position group of strength tells me one thing: this kid was ranked very highly on NDs board.

it's the 3 star recruits late in the cycle where ND missed out on their plan A, B, C, and even Ds in some cases, and start taking average 3 stars at major positions of need for #s reasons, that tell a different story. This was happening a lot more often several years ago than it is now.

still, ND is in desperate need of the top flight top 100/ top 50/ top 25 athletes in order to level the talent gap with the premiere modern powers in collegiate football.

yawn.......get a new routine. the current one is old and flawed.

 

[FriedmanIP]

3 star kids who have acceptable/actionable offers this early in the cycle, at a position group of strength tells me one thing: this kid was ranked very highly on NDs board.

it's the 3 star recruits late in the cycle where ND missed out on their plan A, B, C, and even Ds in some cases, and start taking average 3 stars at major positions of need for #s reasons, that tell a different story. This was happening a lot more often several years ago than it is now.

still, ND is in desperate need of the top flight top 100/ top 50/ top 25 athletes in order to level the talent gap with the premiere modern powers in collegiate football.

Wrong.
This is were your recruiting rants are sooo ignorant.

Ohio State and Clemson were after this kid HARD. They wanted him badly because he’s an elite prospect at the OT position.

All ND needs to help “close the talent gap” with the top 2-3 programs is elite talents, regardless of their meaningless star ranking. And this kids obviously fits that bill.

This is where you continue to show your ignorance.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

Wrong.
This is were your recruiting rants are sooo ignorant.

Ohio State and Clemson were after this kid HARD. They wanted him badly because he’s an elite prospect at the OT position.

All ND needs to help “close the talent gap” with the top 2-3 programs is elite talents, regardless of their meaningless star ranking. And this kids obviously fits that bill.

This is where you continue to show your ignorance.

Lol. You didnt even read what he said. He differentiated between the two scenarios.

 

[zonairish]

3 star kids who have acceptable/actionable offers this early in the cycle, at a position group of strength tells me one thing: this kid was ranked very highly on NDs board.

it's the 3 star recruits late in the cycle where ND missed out on their plan A, B, C, and even Ds in some cases, and start taking average 3 stars at major positions of need for #s reasons, that tell a different story. This was happening a lot more often several years ago than it is now.

still, ND is in desperate need of the top flight top 100/ top 50/ top 25 athletes in order to level the talent gap with the premiere modern powers in collegiate football.

there you go again. He is not shiny of an object for you to like. I guess the fact that Clemson, Ohio State and other big name programs were trying to close on him does not make you believe this 3* kid was not ranked properly. The only reason he is not at least a 4* or a 5* is because of his weight. However, his frame can surely be at 300lbs by the first full season with the Irish. He is too light and the reason for that is he is a star basketball player and needs to be lighter to play better. his athletism and quickness can be seen in the tape.

 

[FriedmanIP]

Lol. You didnt even read what he said. He differentiated between the two scenarios.

I read it completely.

Initially, he differentiated between the timing of landing a three star recruit… But then he went on to say that Notre Dame Maslan top 50 recruits in order to close the talent gap.

Both of those statements show complete ignorance to the recruiting process and recruiting a valuations, and a perfect illustrations of someone who has no idea what they’re talking about running their mouth.

Notre Dame simply needs top and talents, regardless of their recruiting ranking. That is what @chaseball is never able to understand.

He can choose the concept of “when discussing a hypothetical unknown three star and a hypothetical unknown five star, I would prefer the five star” with actual evaluations of known players...where their recruiting rankings are one of the least important pieces of information there is for their evaluation.

That’s true regardless of the timing, and regardless of the ranking.

Kristofic is one of the many perfect examples of why @chaseball is such an idiot.

 

[SIhoosier26]

Wrong.
This is were your recruiting rants are sooo ignorant.

Ohio State and Clemson were after this kid HARD. They wanted him badly because he’s an elite prospect at the OT position.

All ND needs to help “close the talent gap” with the top 2-3 programs is elite talents, regardless of their meaningless star ranking. And this kids obviously fits that bill.

This is where you continue to show your ignorance.

You're wasting your time, he can't see past the stars. One thing is for sure I'm glad he isn't coaching, Notre Dame would only send out 10 offers a year.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

I mean you reading of his post fits your agenda so that is good I guess. To reduce his comments about Kristofic down to 3* aren't good but the timing of this one is ok is a bit of a stray man. I think we can all agree that the timing of Kristofic's commitment, the pursuit ND had of him compared to other higher rated stars and the pursuit of other big programs shows that Kristofic is (a) rated very highly on ND's board and (b) is probably under valued by the services.

As are as recruit rankings, if you think that is one of the least important pieces of information for evaluation what is it that you value you then? Not all of us are football film pros that can break down highlight tapes and say "Player A has better hips then Player B" or "QB 1 has a better throwing mechanic then QB 2." The recruiting services are an aggregate system of people who there job is to evaluate players, they have an economic incentive to be good at this job because the closer their rankings are to reality the more subs they get for premium content, hence why people flock to Rivals and 247 over Scout and ESPN. If you have the time and skill to do all your own evaluations that awesome but for those of us that don't the empirical evidence is sufficient that even despite the flaws the recruiting systems get it right more often then they get it wrong.

 

[FriedmanIP]

I mean you reading of his post fits your agenda so that is good I guess. To reduce his comments about Kristofic down to 3* aren't good but the timing of this one is ok is a bit of a stray man. I think we can all agree that the timing of Kristofic's commitment, the pursuit ND had of him compared to other higher rated stars and the pursuit of other big programs shows that Kristofic is (a) rated very highly on ND's board and (b) is probably under valued by the services.

As are as recruit rankings, if you think that is one of the least important pieces of information for evaluation what is it that you value you then? Not all of us are football film pros that can break down highlight tapes and say "Player A has better hips then Player B" or "QB 1 has a better throwing mechanic then QB 2." The recruiting services are an aggregate system of people who there job is to evaluate players, they have an economic incentive to be good at this job because the closer their rankings are to reality the more subs they get for premium content, hence why people flock to Rivals and 247 over Scout and ESPN. If you have the time and skill to do all your own evaluations that awesome but for those of us that don't the empirical evidence is sufficient that even despite the flaws the recruiting systems get it right more often then they get it wrong.

Again, this is largely wrong.

I simply responded to exactly what he said, I didn’t twisted into an agenda. @chaseball Has a clear and established agenda, so what he says is typically going to lead to the same discussion… Over, over, and over again.

But that doesn’t change reality, and his recruiting rants are simply uninformed, ignorant, and obviously biased.



As for recruiting evaluations:

Recruiting services have incentive to market, and nothing else. The most highly valuable recruiting service is ESPN… Despite the fact that it’s rankings are by far the worst.

The people doing the recruiting rankings are primarily, inexperienced and unqualified to actually evaluate player quality. That is why they have never worked as a coach or analyst for any D1 or NFL program, and I laughed at by coaches and scouts at those levels.

Thus, when comparing to know when recruits, they recruiting rankings are among the most useless pieces of information that there are. There’s only one speaking in hypotheticals, and discussing unknown recruits who cannot be evaluated individually, the recruiting rankings become an actually useful piece of information that are statistically correlated (the loosely) with on field success.

When evaluating a known recruit, film is obviously the best tool for evaluation. If you know what you’re looking for, there’s nothing else like it… And almost nothing else is needed. Clearly the gold standard.

Another very helpful tool is closely following the trend of the players recruitment. In today’s age “offer lists” have a diluted meaning, and can’t be trusted. Closely following the recruitment allows you to know if elite programs or programs who have proven success at the position in question are making the recruit in question a major priority. That is obviously a very telling sign.

Other good tools are “secondhand analysis“ from sources but you can trust at that position, region, or school. Some sites have moderators who are decent and less and can provide this information about the prospects that school is recruiting or prospects that come from their region.
This Notre Dame site has an analyst like that, who can provide useful information about Notre Dame prospects.

Only after all of those things are evaluated, synthesize, and prioritize, should a Nona recruits ranking be factored into an a valuation… As a very minor aspect of that evaluation.

 

[Telx1]

3 star kids who have acceptable/actionable offers this early in the cycle, at a position group of strength tells me one thing: this kid was ranked very highly on NDs board.

it's the 3 star recruits late in the cycle where ND missed out on their plan A, B, C, and even Ds in some cases, and start taking average 3 stars at major positions of need for #s reasons, that tell a different story. This was happening a lot more often several years ago than it is now.

still, ND is in desperate need of the top flight top 100/ top 50/ top 25 athletes in order to level the talent gap with the premiere modern powers in collegiate football.

Chase, I actually mostly agree with you on this, for a change. Glad to see you acknowledge the difference between a highly recruited three star early in the process versus a three star plan C guy a month before signing date. Plan A guys matter regardless of the number of stars because they are the ones intimately evaluated and highly sought after by our staff. All of our Plan A guys are highly talented, and the more we close on them, the better, regardless of star rating. This kid is a stud and a great get, period.

 

[echowaker]

I mean you reading of his post fits your agenda so that is good I guess. To reduce his comments about Kristofic down to 3* aren't good but the timing of this one is ok is a bit of a stray man. I think we can all agree that the timing of Kristofic's commitment, the pursuit ND had of him compared to other higher rated stars and the pursuit of other big programs shows that Kristofic is (a) rated very highly on ND's board and (b) is probably under valued by the services.

As are as recruit rankings, if you think that is one of the least important pieces of information for evaluation what is it that you value you then? Not all of us are football film pros that can break down highlight tapes and say "Player A has better hips then Player B" or "QB 1 has a better throwing mechanic then QB 2." The recruiting services are an aggregate system of people who there job is to evaluate players, they have an economic incentive to be good at this job because the closer their rankings are to reality the more subs they get for premium content, hence why people flock to Rivals and 247 over Scout and ESPN. If you have the time and skill to do all your own evaluations that awesome but for those of us that don't the empirical evidence is sufficient that even despite the flaws the recruiting systems get it right more often then they get it wrong.

first and foremost the recruiting sites are for profit entities. that in itself make their opinions totally subjective. they know where their bread is buttered and play to that as they should. my problem is folks like chase taking their word as gospel and not being able to understand it. how many high school players do you think they actually evaluate ? not nearly as many as you might think. 24/7 gives these kids grades and subjectively determine stars when they have kids separated by hundreths of a point in their own rating system. i guarantee they can't explain the difference either. i'll take how any college coaching staff has evaluated a high school player over any internet site any day.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

Again, this is largely wrong.

I simply responded to exactly what he said, I didn’t twisted into an agenda. @chaseball Has a clear and established agenda, so what he says is typically going to lead to the same discussion… Over, over, and over again.

But that doesn’t change reality, and his recruiting rants are simply uninformed, ignorant, and obviously biased.



As for recruiting evaluations:

Recruiting services have incentive to market, and nothing else. The most highly valuable recruiting service is ESPN… Despite the fact that it’s rankings are by far the worst.

The people doing the recruiting rankings are primarily, inexperienced and unqualified to actually evaluate player quality. That is why they have never worked as a coach or analyst for any D1 or NFL program, and I laughed at by coaches and scouts at those levels.

Thus, when comparing to know when recruits, they recruiting rankings are among the most useless pieces of information that there are. There’s only one speaking in hypotheticals, and discussing unknown recruits who cannot be evaluated individually, the recruiting rankings become an actually useful piece of information that are statistically correlated (the loosely) with on field success.

When evaluating a known recruit, film is obviously the best tool for evaluation. If you know what you’re looking for, there’s nothing else like it… And almost nothing else is needed. Clearly the gold standard.

Another very helpful tool is closely following the trend of the players recruitment. In today’s age “offer lists” have a diluted meaning, and can’t be trusted. Closely following the recruitment allows you to know if elite programs or programs who have proven success at the position in question are making the recruit in question a major priority. That is obviously a very telling sign.

Other good tools are “secondhand analysis“ from sources but you can trust at that position, region, or school. Some sites have moderators who are decent and less and can provide this information about the prospects that school is recruiting or prospects that come from their region.
This Notre Dame site has an analyst like that, who can provide useful information about Notre Dame prospects.

Only after all of those things are evaluated, synthesize, and prioritize, should a Nona recruits ranking be factored into an a valuation… As a very minor aspect of that evaluation.

He said he liked the Kristofic commitment and you are making it seem like he trashed the kid.

As far as your take on rankings... there is evidence out there saying the services get it right way more then they get it wrong. Not sure how or what your basis is for ESPN being the most highly valuable service but ESPN is not monetized at the level of Rivals and/or 247. Getting the rankings right is critical to how they market, also the variance between rankings and output performance would have a significantly larger gap if the services were as meaningless/off as many represent her.

Rankings don't account for a number of variables so it limits their value post signing day but it provides the best indicator that normal everyday people have of (1) program health, (2) program trajectory, and (3) likely performance on the field in the future. If you want to ignore basic facts whatever man have fun.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

Chase, I actually mostly agree with you on this, for a change. Glad to see you acknowledge the difference between a highly recruited three star early in the process versus a three star plan C guy a month before signing date. Plan A guys matter regardless of the number of stars because they are the ones intimately evaluated and highly sought after by our staff. All of our Plan A guys are highly talented, and the more we close on them, the better, regardless of star rating. This kid is a stud and a great get, period.

Thank you Telx1... I thought this was a very mild post from Chase and thought I must have just read it wrong based on the reaction.

 

[FriedmanIP]

Chase, I actually mostly agree with you on this, for a change. Glad to see you acknowledge the difference between a highly recruited three star early in the process versus a three star plan C guy a month before signing date. Plan A guys matter regardless of the number of stars because they are the ones intimately evaluated and highly sought after by our staff. All of our Plan A guys are highly talented, and the more we close on them, the better, regardless of star rating. This kid is a stud and a great get, period.

This preclude the possibility of “late bloomers” who didn’t come across as planned a talents prior to their senior season, but do after their senior season or even later in the process.

Recent examples include Malik Langham from the 2018, a DE from Alabama Who we didn’t offer until December… But who then suddenly blew up, getting offers for most of the nation, and ultimately signing with Alabama.
How would that “late 3* offer” fit into this?

A recent example that ND was able to sign is MTA. He spent most of his high school career playing outside linebacker, but projected as either a SDE or a DT in college, So it was unclear what type of prospect he was going to be until later in his career, as more film was available and his body develops further.bjt then ND and USC both offered, and it’s clear what a talent he is just from his Frosh season at ND.

There are many, many more examples of players like these.

This is why the type of analysis being suggested by you @chaseball Just doesn’t work. Recruits need to be evaluated individually, not based on star ranking, timing of their recruitment, or anything else.

Anything less is foolish.

 

[echowaker]

He said he liked the Kristofic commitment and you are making it seem like he trashed the kid.

As far as your take on rankings... there is evidence out there saying the services get it right way more then they get it wrong. Not sure how or what your basis is for ESPN being the most highly valuable service but ESPN is not monetized at the level of Rivals and/or 247. Getting the rankings right is critical to how they market, also the variance between rankings and output performance would have a significantly larger gap if the services were as meaningless/off as many represent her.

Rankings don't account for a number of variables so it limits their value post signing day but it provides the best indicator that normal everyday people have of (1) program health, (2) program trajectory, and (3) likely performance on the field in the future. If you want to ignore basic facts whatever man have fun.

they play to the markets that generate them the most money. period. i can evaluate every kid in my area and guarantee i'd be more right than wrong. these sites speak to high school coaches way more than they do honest evaluations. i know it for a fact as i've taken those calls many times over the years. my point is their evaluations should never be taken as gospel.

 

[Telx1]

Thank you Telx1... I thought this was a very mild post from Chase and thought I must have just read it wrong based on the reaction.

Well, given Chase’ history of damn near indiscriminately trashing all theee star signings make him an easy knee jerk reaction target. I agree with you, this was one of his more balanced posts.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

first and foremost the recruiting sites are for profit entities. that in itself make their opinions totally subjective. they know where their bread is buttered and play to that as they should. my problem is folks like chase taking their word as gospel and not being able to understand it. how many high school players do you think they actually evaluate ? not nearly as many as you might think. 24/7 gives these kids grades and subjectively determine stars when they have kids separated by hundreths of a point in their own rating system. i guarantee they can't explain the difference either. i'll take how any college coaching staff has evaluated a high school player over any internet site any day.

Being for profit doesn't change whether or no their evaluation of a kid's potential would be subjective. Outside of measurables (which is flawed in itself) there is no way to evaluate whether or not a player is good/will be good in the future without being subjective. The fact that they are for profit entities gives them more incentive to be right because the market dictates (at least in theory) that consumers will purchase and gravitate to correct information more then wrong information.

I have already addressed the 247 and hundreths issue with you. No helping you there if you don't want to read about the difference/meaning of their system that is on the site. Additionally it is intellectually dishonest to focus on the "hundereths" aspect of the ranking and take that out of context of the entire system.

A college staff taking a kid represents to the outside world that they believe that kid is good enough to play on their team, it does not represent to the public how they evaluate that player vs. players in the class that they couldn't get.

 

[FriedmanIP]

He said he liked the Kristofic commitment and you are making it seem like he trashed the kid.

As far as your take on rankings... there is evidence out there saying the services get it right way more then they get it wrong. Not sure how or what your basis is for ESPN being the most highly valuable service but ESPN is not monetized at the level of Rivals and/or 247. Getting the rankings right is critical to how they market, also the variance between rankings and output performance would have a significantly larger gap if the services were as meaningless/off as many represent her.

Rankings don't account for a number of variables so it limits their value post signing day but it provides the best indicator that normal everyday people have of (1) program health, (2) program trajectory, and (3) likely performance on the field in the future. If you want to ignore basic facts whatever man have fun.

You’re making the same foolish mistake that @chaseball makes.

Your comments about “program health” And “program trajectory” make it clear that you can’t understand the difference between using recruiting rankings to evaluate an individual known prospect (mainly useless) and using recruiting rankings to evaluate hypothetical, unknown prospects and especially large numbers of such hypothetical unknown prospects (useful, statistically)

If you get these basic concepts confuse, then you’re not really worth talking to Regarding these topics any further. There’s a minimum level of sophistication needed to have a meaningful conversation here.

 

[FriedmanIP]

they play to the markets that generate them the most money. period. i can evaluate every kid in my area and guarantee i'd be more right than wrong. these sites speak to high school coaches way more than they do honest evaluations. i know it for a fact as i've taken those calls many times over the years. my point is their evaluations should never be taken as gospel.

Correct.

Not sure how people like @chaseball , @SALittleGiant513 , or anyone else misses these types of obvious basics.

 

[FriedmanIP]

Well, given Chase’ history of damn near indiscriminately trashing all theee star signings make him an easy knee jerk reaction target. I agree with you, this was one of his more balanced posts.

Posts aren’t in your jerk reaction, but rather a response based on information, experience, and logic to exactly what he stated.

I can see that most of this board doesn’t really follow recruiting, and certainly doesn’t understand it at anything beyond a “he’s a three star“ or a “he has offers from X, Y, and Z“ level.

Perhaps actual discussion of Notre Dame recruiting just shouldn’t happen on this board, given the apparent lack of sophistication and knowledge.

 

[Telx1]

This preclude the possibility of “late bloomers” who didn’t come across as planned a talents prior to their senior season, but do after their senior season or even later in the process.

Recent examples include Malik Langham from the 2018, a DE from Alabama Who we didn’t offer until December… But who then suddenly blew up, getting offers for most of the nation, and ultimately signing with Alabama.
How would that “late 3* offer” fit into this?

A recent example that ND was able to sign is MTA. He spent most of his high school career playing outside linebacker, but projected as either a SDE or a DT in college, So it was unclear what type of prospect he was going to be until later in his career, as more film was available and his body develops further.bjt then ND and USC both offered, and it’s clear what a talent he is just from his Frosh season at ND.

There are many, many more examples of players like these.

This is why the type of analysis being suggested by you @chaseball Just doesn’t work. Recruits need to be evaluated individually, not based on star ranking, timing of their recruitment, or anything else.

Anything less is foolish.

This doesn’t preclude anybody. Sure, there are a few late bloomers who surprise and excel their senior year, and there are the high potential raw guys as well. You can’t run an elite program banking on either. It’s great when one of these guys falls into your net late in the process as needs dictate, but I much prefer successfully executing to our Plan A recruiting targets.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

This preclude the possibility of “late bloomers” who didn’t come across as planned a talents prior to their senior season, but do after their senior season or even later in the process.

Recent examples include Malik Langham from the 2018, a DE from Alabama Who we didn’t offer until December… But who then suddenly blew up, getting offers for most of the nation, and ultimately signing with Alabama.
How would that “late 3* offer” fit into this?

A recent example that ND was able to sign is MTA. He spent most of his high school career playing outside linebacker, but projected as either a SDE or a DT in college, So it was unclear what type of prospect he was going to be until later in his career, as more film was available and his body develops further.bjt then ND and USC both offered, and it’s clear what a talent he is just from his Frosh season at ND.

There are many, many more examples of players like these.

This is why the type of analysis being suggested by you @chaseball Just doesn’t work. Recruits need to be evaluated individually, not based on star ranking, timing of their recruitment, or anything else.

Anything less is foolish.

Chase wasn't talking about recruits who fit into those examples though. He clearly states he is talking about instances when the team whiffs on their top options and even their secondary options (Langham and MTA would be in this category because they weren't a top option due to their late blooming) and ends up with a kid that they are only taking to fill a hole on the roster and minimal hope that he becomes a difference maker.

 

[FriedmanIP]

This doesn’t preclude anybody. Sure, there are a few late bloomers who surprise and excel their senior year, and there are the high potential raw guys as well. You can’t run an elite program banking on either. It’s great when one of these guys falls into your net late in the process as needs dictate, but I much prefer successfully executing to our Plan A recruiting targets.

Considering that it’s in a valuation method and not a recruiting strategy, yes it does preclude accurately evaluating the type of late blooming prospects we just talked about.

How people outside the program evaluate recruits in no way affects what recruits are pursued by the program, sign, and ultimately comprise the team.

Yes, the foolish strategy forwarded by @chaseball and supported by @SALittleGiant513 and yourself Precludes accurately evaluating these very important and relatively common prospects. That’s one of the things that makes it so foolish and useless.

I honestly don’t understand how these basic concepts are going so far over peoples heads on this board.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

You’re making the same foolish mistake that @chaseball makes.

Your comments about “program health” And “program trajectory” make it clear that you can’t understand the difference between using recruiting rankings to evaluate an individual known prospect (mainly useless) and using recruiting rankings to evaluate hypothetical, unknown prospects and especially large numbers of such hypothetical unknown prospects (useful, statistically)

If you get these basic concepts confuse, then you’re not really worth talking to Regarding these topics any further. There’s a minimum level of sophistication needed to have a meaningful conversation here.

Ok chief.

 

[SALittleGiant513]

Posts aren’t in your jerk reaction, but rather a response based on information, experience, and logic to exactly what he stated.

I can see that most of this board doesn’t really follow recruiting, and certainly doesn’t understand it at anything beyond a “he’s a three star“ or a “he has offers from X, Y, and Z“ level.

Perhaps actual discussion of Notre Dame recruiting just shouldn’t happen on this board, given the apparent lack of sophistication and knowledge.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL... what a clown.

 

[FriedmanIP]

Chase wasn't talking about recruits who fit into those examples though. He clearly states he is talking about instances when the team whiffs on their top options and even their secondary options (Langham and MTA would be in this category because they weren't a top option due to their late blooming) and ends up with a kid that they are only taking to fill a hole on the roster and minimal hope that he becomes a difference maker.

They fit perfectly into what he was talking about, what delusional fantasy world are you living in?

Notre Dame missed on its top targets at DE in 2018, and on its back ups as well. They then moved onto Milik Langham, because he was a late blooming prospect who they were now excited about.

According to you, @chaseball, and @Telx1 this would mean that Malik Langham Was a bad 3* recruit because we move to him late in the process after whiffing on our top options and initial back ups at his position.

However, in reality he was a national level recruit who would’ve been a major land at the position, he just was a late bloomer so he wasn’t targeted until late in the process… And obviously the recruiting services had him as a 3* then too.

This is the point!
Which no one recruit needs to be evaluated individually, using their film, what is known about the recruitment and priority to elite coaching staff’s in the area, and not relying significantly on recruiting rankings.

Again, I have no idea how these basics are going over the heads of so many on this board.

 

[FriedmanIP]

Ok chief.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL... what a clown.

About the responses I would expect from someone who is out of his depth and no longer able to handle the conversation.

Just admit your we’re wrong, had no idea what your were talking about, and try to learn more in the future before you run your mouth.

Now run along.

 

[Telx1]

Considering that it’s in a valuation method and not a recruiting strategy, yes it does preclude accurately evaluating the type of late blooming prospects we just talked about.

How people outside the program evaluate recruits in no way affects what recruits are pursued by the program, sign, and ultimately comprise the team.

Yes, the foolish strategy forwarded by @chaseball and supported by @SALittleGiant513 and yourself Precludes accurately evaluating these very important and relatively common prospects. That’s one of the things that makes it so foolish and useless.

I honestly don’t understand how these basic concepts are going so far over peoples heads on this board.

Perhaps you’re working too hard to find fault and something to argue about. Don’t see how calling folks here stupid and ignorant and foolish adds to the discussion, especially when all agree here that Kristofic is a great commitment and that his three star rating is irrelevant.

 

[Telx1]

Considering that it’s in a valuation method and not a recruiting strategy, yes it does preclude accurately evaluating the type of late blooming prospects we just talked about.

How people outside the program evaluate recruits in no way affects what recruits are pursued by the program, sign, and ultimately comprise the team.

Yes, the foolish strategy forwarded by @chaseball and supported by @SALittleGiant513 and yourself Precludes accurately evaluating these very important and relatively common prospects. That’s one of the things that makes it so foolish and useless.

I honestly don’t understand how these basic concepts are going so far over peoples heads on this board.

Perhaps you’re working too hard to find fault and something to argue about. Don’t see how calling folks here stupid and ignorant and foolish adds to the discussion, especially when all agree here that Kristofic is a great commitment and that his three star rating is irrelevant.

 

[FriedmanIP]

Perhaps you’re working too hard to find fault and something to argue about. Don’t see how calling folks here stupid and ignorant and foolish adds to the discussion, especially when all agree here that Kristofic is a great commitment and that his three star rating is irrelevant.

It’s the evaluation method that has been forwarded by @chaseball and supported by yourself and @SALittleGiant513 that is both stupid and foolish, and therefore belies your ignorance on recruiting and recruit evaluations.

I call a spade a spade, especially when people continue to push back without actually providing any reasonable basis for doing so.

The evaluation process you are forwarding/supporting is isgnirsnt and foolish, regardless of whether you admit Kristofic is a high quality prospect.

 

[Telx1]

It’s the evaluation method that has been forwarded by @chaseball and supported by yourself and @SALittleGiant513 that is both stupid and foolish, and therefore belies your ignorance on recruiting and recruit evaluations.

I call a spade a spade, especially when people continue to push back without actually providing any reasonable basis for doing so.

The evaluation process you are forwarding/supporting is isgnirsnt and foolish, regardless of whether you admit Kristofic is a high quality prospect.

What evaluation method have we collectively forwarded? Chase and I almost never agree on the importance of star ratings for example. He puts great weight into these so called independent rating services, and I put great weight into our coaches evaluations of talent.

 

[FriedmanIP]

What evaluation method have we collectively forwarded? Chase and I almost never agree on the importance of star ratings for example. He puts great weight into these so called independent rating services, and I put great weight into our coaches evaluations of talent.

You just agreed that 3* who are pursued and landed early may be good or “underrated” while 3* who are pursued and landed late are not.

That is foolish for all the reasons I’ve pointed out and discussed above, and precludes the possibility of evaluating a “late three star” as a high-level prospect who was simply a late bloomer, or even someone that the staff didn’t feel they would be able to recruit (academically) or land over another program until late in the process. There are numerous other reasons a three star may not be Pursued until late in the process but still be a high-level prospect as well.

These attempts to make recruiting ranking a major factor in evaluating an individual known prospect are foolish and bely ignorance. That’s still the case when you do the same thing but also consider the time of year that you personally became aware of the recruitment, or that the recruitment became public.

This is just another method forwarded by @chaseball Beth has virtually no value and belies ignorance and foolishness. However, this time yourself and @SALittleGiant513 Have actively supported the foolish and ignorant process that he forwarded, and us signed yourself onto his foolishness and ignorance.