Virginia Tech should be in this race until the end.
Time to narrow down to 5, here you go
#GoPackGo #wolfpack #HokieNation #TheU
#TerpNation #BBN #Canes #Hokies pic.twitter.com/QehGda5jTW— The Gifted (@Eric_Kumah11) June 14, 2015
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Blake Lively will always get a leg from me.
Let me know when we're in his Top 1.
You know you must have a good receiving corps when you end up having God's Gift and The Gifted on the line of scrimmage
Lawson posted this shortly after Kumah's reply. Looks like no matter how he does at quarterback here, he will be one hell of a recruiter!
So, so much to love about this. Lawson is already a leader without being a jerk about it. He is already an ambassador for the school and a recruiting asset. But it has to be said...
*you're
He needs to be cut. Well, not cut cut, like not on the team.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think we've been over this many threads ago. As I understand, its considered "cool" to have bad grammar via twitter for the younger generations. The neglect shows a sense of digital "attitude" similar to that of sagging pants in the 90s.
Not sure about the "cool" of it but I agree it's not a big deal. For me I don't view Twitter as something that needs to be a bastion of proper grammar. I respect Joe's rules on grammar here and I go back to fix errors in my posts when I see them, but I also have never seen the need to point out someone else's poor grammar. (nothing against anyone that does and not trying to spotlight IllinoisHokie because I know he's partly making a joke) There are usually only three instances where I will correct another person's grammar.
a) my 3 year old daughter. Believe me she needs it. Absolute mess that one.
b) In my company's reports and documents, or staff if they ask me to.
c) If someone is being a douche and using poor grammar because they should be smacked the phuck down.
But otherwise I've always felt it was something an individual should strive for and maintain themselves, not for me to do for them.
That's just me. For Twitter, it's an on the go medium. Hell so is TKP. I am currently writing this walking down a street to my home after dinner. Therefore it's fairly possible that mistakes can be made while you're doing other things.
Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming
That seems reasonable. Alot more so then some of the other posts I've seen on hear about it.
if I wasn't at work, I'd post a gif of someone twitching here...
My philosophy is, we need to let it slide for players and recruits. It's really all about the football. Preferably winning football.
I dislike improper English as much as the next guy, but...
I'm typically not critical of players or recruits. I'm just twitching because of 'Alot', 'then', and 'hear'
I'll be honest. I'm one of the worst of the grammar police, internally, anyway. I wasn't responding to anyone particularly.
I just wanted to throw that creepy gif in here somewhere. It's what I do.
I will admit that misspelling and obvious grammatical mistakes can make me cringe, but really, if I can understand what the person is saying, I feel like I should just let it go.
I've always been of the belief that on the internet, your grammar is one of the few ways you represent yourself, and as such it should be important for you.
When you're talking to someone in person there's a lot of additional information you can gather about a person, such as how well spoken they are, how clear they are in saying something, etc. On the internet there's only the point you're trying to make and the method in which you make it (e.g., grammar).
Not saying everyone has to have perfect grammar, but on an impersonal medium such as the internet, I believe if you want to be taken seriously and viewed as having something intelligent to say, you should make an effort to say it properly.
So sometimes I do this:
I don't disagree. I think you are 100% right but the catch 22 is because it's an impersonal medium you can't ever know the context in which it was written. Take for example Lawson's tweet. Perhaps he was shopping with his hands full. Or helping ducklings cross a road.. Or maybe the Saminal was staring at him and he was rightfully nervous. The salient point, as IllinoisHokie described, is seeing the opportunity to make an example as a leader. (Not saying you are using Lawson as your example, because I know you aren't) There are just too many variables in an impersonal medium to understand if the reason why poor grammar is used is because the individual is actually poor at grammar or the situation they were in affected their grammat. Unless it is a consistent trend for an indivdual (eg. bendering) it is really dubious to make judgements of someone based on said impersonal mediums.
Funny, I saw Dwayne around B-Burg hanging these up the other day:
Maybe it's his way to make Joshua Jackson feel at home?
I pretty much agree with both of you here (I know, way to go out on a ledge). For me personally, if I am going to type something, I am going to try my best to adhere to basic rules of written language. Too often the messenger's grammar becomes the focus instead of the message (usually not on TKP, thankfully), so I try to be clear and concise. I will sometime point things out if the errors sound funny, but not to be a critical grammarian. It's not like I'm Stannis Baratheon dropping "Fewer" everywhere.
Twitter is an entirely different animal due to the character limit. In that case, you get used to getting your point across with the fewest characters possible. So even when unnecessary, words get shortened and grammar gets tossed out the window. It is just the nature of the medium.
I also try to avoid criticizing recruits, teenagers, and players in general. They check stuff out on themselves on the internet and the last thing they need to see is a VT fan ridiculing their grammar, spelling, appearance, etc.
preach! I always cringe when I see something offensive towards a player or recruit. I don't have an issue with poking fun at entire organizations but when you single someone out destructively that's not cool.
My advice to those who struggle differentiating between 'you're' and 'your' is to use 'ur'
Unfortunately, I don't have any quick-tips for 'their', 'there', 'they're'..ya'll are on your own with those
thur
wow...it was right in front of me
Thursday?
My question for all the grammar people out there is: Do they give you a wired or wireless keyboard after graduating Grammar Police Academy?
Wireless, duh. What are we, animals?
We are his #1
Probably won't be much longer.
What is he rated?
#1 on our WR board
I believe Tino Ellis is our number 1, but he is very close behind!
Landing Ellis and Kumah is my dream. But I honestly believe it can happen. Opportunity plus excellent recruiting from both coaches and players.
Grant Holloway as well, along with maybe even one more (Jalen Elliot). Pretty good chance we land all of them, but still a long way to go...
To answer the question, Kumah is a 3*, #17 VA player by 247 (rating of 88), and a 3*, #21 VA player by Rivals.
I think they like Elliott on D as a first choice. He is flirting with UGA big time but hopefully he comes back to his senses and VT.
seems like grant will come down to if he wants to do football or track as his #1 priority. he'd be the #1 WR on my board but ellis and kumah are right there as well.
Agreed - Ellis is #1 on board. MD is pushing him big time. Need to get him back to VT asap. 50/50 at best at the moment imo.
Yeah, he's good.
Our coaches don't go for ratings or stars they go for good fits in our program. This kid can catch! Love his highlights!
Ratings aren't for the coaches. Ratings are for the fans.
However, they aren't mutually exclusive.
But the correlation isn't nearly as strong as many fans think it is or should be.
It kinda is though. A higher percentage of 5* recruits get drafted than 4*. And a higher percentage of 4* recruits get drafted than 3* recruits. It is always hard to judge talent when talking about 17 year old kids that are still growing, but the people rating them know what they are doing. Sure, coaches know what to look for, but for the most part, a 5* kid is always preferable to a 3* kid just because they are for the most part better.
But the vast majority of players in the NFL were not 4/5 start talents out of high school. There are very few of them. Most of the league is made up of 3 stars or less.
Right, but I'm talking about percentages here, not totals. There are way less 5* recruits each year than 3* recruits.
It kinda isn't.
The vast majority of both 3* AND 4* will NOT be drafted and a majority of both will probably be marginal contributors at best.
About 6 out of every 7 four star recruits will not be drafted; about 6.5 of every 7 three star recruits will not get drafted. If you take the high 4* and the low 3* out of the equation, the differences are negligible.
Most fans don't realize this; most coaches probably do.
By virtues of reciprocal math, you have just stated: 1/7 four-star recruits will be drafted and 1/14 three-star recruits will be drafted. Thus, four-star recruits are drafted at double the rate. Double is pretty big difference.
You just made my original point. Fans view it through the prism of the exception as though it is the norm. Coaches know what is the norm.
Again the vast majority of 3* and 4* (especially the non-top 100) do NOT get drafted and a large number of both end up marginal contributors at best. 3* only have about a 5% to 10% greater chance of NOT being drafted -- and that includes the top 100 high 4* who are more like 5* than the low 4* they get lumped in with AND the low 3* who are more like 2* than the high 3* they lumped in with. When you get into the area where 3/4 of 3* and 4* players live, the differences are negligible.
Coaches understand that, so they don't have the irrational exuberance over 3* vs 4* star ratings that fans do.
using the same words to describe the amount of 3 and 4 *s that do not get drafted isn't accurate. I'm not saying the star ratings are the end all be all by any means, but there is a reason that teams winning national titles are averaging being in the top 5 classes over a 4 year stretch prior to their titles.
Why isn't it accurate?
look at the post below. there is a substantial difference between the two. And again there is a difference in the rounds being drafted for the higher rated players.
top 10 picks from this year's draft. 5*:1, 4*: 5, 3*:4. So even though there are nearly 4 times as many 3 stars out there more 4 stars get picked as elite players, but you see no difference? Here is an older article, but still the same argument.
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-H...
Again, why is what I said inaccurate? I'm just looking at the same set of data from a different, i.e. more realistic, perspective.
Second, what does team success have to with the original points...which were 1) that ratings are for fans, not coaches and 2) that fans think there is greater correlation between ratings and individual success than there really is?
The coaches don't have any idea what the star ratings are for the players; I've heard several say as much in person. They factor far more into their decision process on a player than the ratings services do.
That doesn't mean that the recruiting services and coaches can't see a kid the same way - it's not a random process. But fans put far more literal emphasis on an extra star than any coach does. How many times have you read someone say something like "So and So was a 4*...why isn't he getting a chance"...based purely on that extra star (and that extra star is often from just one service)? Most fans also don't recognize that often the difference is maybe 1 or 2 tenths of a star between many 3* and 4* - which is well within the margin of error on any individual player. Yet the 4.1 star is assumed to be superstar in the making, but the 3.9 star is a work in progress.
Coaches do NOT see it that way. That was the original point - and the one that I've been trying support - not that there is no correlation between collective star ratings and team success.
which teams are winning titles? the ones with 3 stars or the ones with 4 and 5 stars? Enough arguing about the situation you are making sweeping generalizations to try to back up your stance, which is not defensible.
AnOSU, 3 star QB Cardale Jones.
supported by how many 4 and 5 stars? It's not a debate. It's a fact that national titles are won by teams that recruit at an elite level over the last decade. There have been other teams that creeped into BCS games with lesser ranked talent (by recruiting services), but every team that has won the NC in that period has been ranked in the top 5 recruiting in the 4 years prior.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/top-ten-s...
Why do you keep talking in non-sequitars about stars and teams? I'm not talking about stars and teams. I'm talking about stars and individual players.
Again, stars are for fans, not coaches. There is a correlation between the two, but it's not as strong as most fans think.
Yeah, and we can see the correlation very clearly ourselves. It's called math. It is you who refuses to acknowledge these statistics and instead swear by personal anecdotes about what you read about a coach saying a long time ago.
agreed. guarantee you there are coaches out there that use these recruiting services as selling points for other potential recruits. "hey come join our top 5 recruiting class, by the way did you know that only teams with top 5 recruiting classes in the last 4 years have gone on to win a national championship?"
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/5/12/5696710/nf...
"For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:
A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A four-star had a one-in-five chance (77 of 395).
A three-star had a one-in-18 chance (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance (71 of 2,434)."
By those numbers, a four-star recruit is about 3.5X more likely to be drafted than a three-star recruit. A five-star recruit is 3X more likely to be drafted than a four-star.
and they generally get drafted earlier, which means they either had a better college career or their measurables are off the chart.
kumah/Holloway/ellis are all either 4 star talents already or have the chance with a solid senior season IMO.
I've seen different numbers, but even by those numbers, a 3* recruit is only ~13% more likely to be NOT drafted. Take out the top100 4* (who are essentially 5* and probably have a 30-40% prob of being drafted) and the bottom 3* (who probably have a 2%) and the difference is very small.
1) 13% is a not insignificant number.
2) You can't arbitrarily delete data that doesn't fit your argument. That's not how this works. Of course the numbers would look closer if you randomly remove the best 4 stars out of the data. However those guys exist and were 4 stars.
But if I remove the '7' from LOLUVA's record last year, they had a perfect season 5-0!
I'd rather you remove the '5'. Somehow that does more accurately portray their value.
If you remove 100 of Brewer's incomplete passes because really they probably weren't his fault he completed nearly 77% of his passes last year. Brewer for Heisman.
I'll bet most fans would think the difference in "failure" rate for 3* vs 4* is much more than 13%...which was one of the original points.
Most fans also think all 4* and all 3* are essentially the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most 4* are closer in talent level and potential to 3* players than they are to top 100 4*, yet they all get lumped together.
Pulling out the outliers is a valid statistical approach - particularly when there is so little variance when the outliers are removed.
"most fans" don't post on TKP. The smart ones do. We know what's up.
It's valid to pull out outliers when they're actually outliers. The really good 4* players aren't outliers. They're 4*. You're taking an already small sample and then eliminating a quarter of the sample for nebulous reasons. You can't really call that 1/4 of a 400-person sample an outlier and discard them. If they were 5* players, they'd be 5*.
The star rating system is arbitrarily a 5 point system. If it was a ten point system or a one hundred point system, you wouldn't think twice about doing so.
Statistically the 75 or so Top 100 four stars have far more in common 5 star players than with the other 250-300 four stars. They greatly pull up the numbers for the rest - which leads to exactly the illusion that I'm trying to point out.
Star rankings aren't even necessarily predictive of talent from year to year. Most of the recruiting services have a set number of 5* players, so being a 5* player doesn't mean that you are better than a 4* from the year before or after at the same point in their development, it just means that the recruiting service saw you as one of the top 30/32/50 (Rivals, 247, and Scout respectively) prospects in the nation that year. So if one year has a particularly deep HS class, the 4* #75 recruit might have been a 5* #20 recruit in a particularly weak year.
This article has excerpts from each of the four major ratings descriptions of how stars are allotted and ESPN is the only one that seems to not have an arbitrary number of 5 stars that they select each year.
http://www.cougcenter.com/wsu-football-recruiting/2013/2/5/3956800/rival...
This just made me twitch. Every research and stat class I ever took, the mantra was "you can't eliminate the outliers." There's statistical methods to downplay the effect outliers have on an average, but you have to incorporate them into the analysis.
I only ever took basic stats, so hopefully someone will correct me here if I'm wrong, but we "eliminated" outliers all the time. But the outlier had to be judged by valid statistical testing, and you can only ever eliminate one outlier per data set. So this discussion of, "if you throw out these guys here and re-interpret these guys there..." is not valid. You can never remove (downplay? re-weight?) more than one point, otherwise you're consistently shifting the range of the data set and you're misinterpreting it by doing so.
Paging Joel...
If the outlier has can be explained for why it doesn't represent normal operational characteristics, you could be justified in eliminating it.
Hypothetical Ex: A five star guy doesn't get drafted at all. Doesn't seem right, does it? He was a blue chip guy. See, not all five star guys get drafted.
But, if we're trying to find out what % of five star guys get drafted and he didn't, why was that? Not all of them pan out, that one guy failed as an athlete.
Turns out it was, maybe, Myron Rolle and he got a Rhodes Scholarship and chose to study to be a doctor instead. Does this mean he didn't pan out as an athlete? Nah, he chose a different path. Toss him out of the data set. Explainable reason. Reframe the hypothesis as all five stars who attempt to become a pro football player instead of just all five stars.
That's not technically eliminating an outlier, though. It's better defining your data set. If you stick with the data set of "5* recruits who did not get drafted," then you must include Rolle in your data. But that would also be an almost worthless statistic because you are allowing for a multitude of variables to affect the binary outcome of drafted/undrafted.
Yeah, it's not perfect. I had a hard time coming up with a scenario that fit the discussion.
I should have left it at 'explainable causes'
Rolle did try to play in the NFL.
Do I have to find Matt Hinton's article showing the correlation between recruiting success and winning percentage?
One thing that might be good to keep in mind that, at least in the past, star ratings are not meant as professional evaluations, but rather college readiness. So a 5* is viewed as more ready to contribute upon arrival than a 3* - be that mentally, physically, or both. Once they get to college, you start all over again with improving, leveling off, or declining.
And this is to everyone going back and forth, not Rocco specifically. I was just here when I thought I'd chime in. I believe that more 5* talent would help VT, and we use the "stars don't matter" crutch because we don't get that many stars. I am also thankful for all the players that join VT, regardless of star ranking.
Incorrect. They're meant as both.
Not sure it's just me or anything but I don't remember seeing so many players on the team help out in the recruiting of other players. It's nice to see.
Perhaps because the communication forums are more public and plentiful than they were even 6-8 yrs ago. We don't know what kids were doing via text or email or telephone 10 years ago (and we still don't).
I have a friend who is selling a house to Kumah's parents so he gets a weekly update on his recruitment. Eric will be a Hokie.
#Sources.
U jus sold youre friend out bro. No more updates for you
Is your friend Daniel L. Crandall? Is he selling them the house for $50 under market value?
Nice job taking that joke to the next level. Made me laugh.
You better be right.
I would love to see Ellis and Kumah join the good guys. Having Lawson recruit WRs is a big tool.
It is also nice to Lawson actually speaks English in his tweets unlike a lot of these kids who you have decipher their posts
Wait just a minute! Did you just refer to Lawson as "a big tool'?
Announcing tomorrow at 5 PM EST.
Looks like he took UK off his top 5 and only has a top 4 now. Still thinking its MD.
Why does anyone want to go to Maryland? The area is awful, the stadium is mediocre, and worst of all, the fans refer to UMD as a "basketball school". It vexes me.
I sure as hell wouldn't, but then again I wanted to get away from home (NOVA) for college and some people like being near their families.
I, for one, am incredibly glad they're out of the ACC.
I think their membership into the B1G is going to make (if not already) all the difference in their recruiting. Coaches can pitch that they will play against historical powerhouses (UMich, Nebraska, OSU), new powerhouses (MSU, Wisc), and Rose Bowl Bids. I mean, look at how excited as VT fans we are about getting to play B1G teams (well maybe not Purdue...).
Touting you get to play against B1G teams has helped Indiana, Purdue, and Northwestern so well...
If Maryland thought they could just show up in the B1G and then football would suddenly fix itself, they're in for a very rude awakening.
Why are you always so negative about other programs?
Sayin it as I see it
Apologies if you're offended by that
Thats the thing...UMD DID think that, and....recruiting has improved, more revenue from the B1G TV contracts, and they MIGHT even convince PSU that they're rivals (UMD has no team that dislikes them as much as they dislike everyone). I know a bunch of non-UMD alums (but MD natives) who decided to buy season tickets JUST to see these B1G teams play there. Also, I'm sure their UA cashcow is loving the expanded area to expose their product.
I haven't seen a downside for UMD yet
It goes both ways. You can bet that big 10 schools would be excited about playing the top half of the ACC as well.
I can tell you that I met a number of folks at the OSU game who were so glad to be playing a "quality" out of conference game as a home game.
I'd be shocked if he didn't pick Tech.
He's a Hokie. Tech has the best upward trajectory and the best chance for him to play immediately. Maybe redshirt or watch 1 year tops, then he's a starter. With 2 legit quarterbacks committed and an Oline on the rise. Not to mention the best D in the country year in and year out
Depending on how much Asante and/or Knowles step up, Kumah could be one injury away from seeing the field as a true freshman. Hell, it might not even take an injury.
True, it might just take graduation.
Kinda OT, but 24/7 says Lyndon Johnson is his primary recruiter from UMD, which gives me an excuse to post this:
That LBJ was one dirty SOB
He intentionally urinated on the leg of a secret service agent while they were shielding him from view and made assistants take dictation while in the bathroom with him while he sat on the toilet. He was just an all around A-Hole IMO.
Edit: added video detailing more about LBJ
He and Samuel Denmark were just as rated 4 stars by ESPN. Expect their 247 Composite Rankings to get a boost as well. Kumah is also rated as seventh in state by ESPN.