Oregon has 55 four and five star recruits on their Titanic
(no message)
Replies to: Oregon has 55 four and five star recruits on their Titanic
Saban did similar with the JUCO route. a Route ND never allowed due to academics. ND is very NCclose
(no message)
Cig is using the moneyball Brey approach the rest of the country is befuddled
(no message)
“Brey”?
(no message)
Can you “Dig” it?
(no message)
Nd mens basketball 🏀 coach would combat the one and done model with 23 year olds with less talent
Forming a cohesive team with little to no NBA talent He did this many years...now the excuse is cignettis team is damn near as old as the bears. Think matt Ferrell bonzie colson Luke harangody Jon mooney
“Get old and stay old”.
(no message)
Who is "Cig"?
(no message)
Curt cignetti.
(no message)
Why do you call him "Cig"? Do you know him? Emotional attachment? Do you call MarcusFreeman "Free"?
He's another teams coach. Do you have positive affectionate names for other coaches ("Harbs"? "Sab"? "Kellymeister"?)
Moneyball. Good point.
(no message)
In this day and age stars are worthless. So many services are just selling stars left and right.
It's easier to say a 5* was a bust than to do deeper analysis on players.
Not true, just a theory by you. Recruiting talent is the best way to build a program for more than
one year. I believe it is happening with Freeman. Development of course has to be done no matter what your star status is and that is also being done by Freeman.
You're basically saying the same thing. Building programs take time and development which has
nothing to do with signing as many 5* as possible and you will instantly be good. Oregon vs. Indiana is a recent but prime example. The Yankees in the early 2000s were better when they had less "star" power than they are today when they are loaded with stars. The same for the Boston Red Sox and Oakland A's turnarounds. That's literally how they did it. Find the overlooked and underloved value. Guys no one wanted. The non-5* types.
Do 5*'s tend to have more "talent" with less required evaluation? Sure. Just because you get a group of 5*, will you instantly be good or guaranteed wins? No. Sports history is littered with teams full of talent that underperformed and teams with little talent that worked well as a *team* to win more than expected.
Yes, there is a balance, but what I'm pointing out is the fallacy that all you need to do is get the best players possible to win. That is more of the motto today. Specifically on this board, there is constant moaning about lack of 5* and not being able to win because of it. Cignetti has taken the losingest school in college football history (I believe that's what they said before the game) and turned it into an instant winner without five stars. There are a lot of ways to go about winning, but having a proven plan is the best one. Processes don't tend to hinge on stars.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves…
(no message)
Consent Management