Recruiting VCU Recruiting

[2012Ram]

You two make a cute couple

We go together like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance

 

[N Mollen]

We go together like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance

100%

 

[2012Ram]

100%

Ironically; this would also be the same number you'd have rated your conviction that 247's rankings didn't matter because they weren't objective enough (until about a week ago.)

 

[N Mollen]

Ironically; this would also be the same number you'd have rated your conviction that 247's rankings didn't matter because they weren't objective enough (until about a week ago.)

LOL for a young man your memory is frighteningly spotty. You should see someone about that. Maybe Heel can recommend a colleague

 

[2012Ram]

LOL for a young man your memory is frighteningly spotty. You should see someone about that. Maybe Heel can recommend a colleague

You're.... kidding me right? You told me over and over and over that 247s rankings weren't objective so they didn't matter.

What changed?

I mean look, if you changed your opinion because you think Mike is killing it, that's perfectly fine. However, that also means you're gonna need to hop off this high horse you've placed yourself on because it just makes you look like a hypocrite - or the actual one with memory problems, cuz I sure as poop haven't forgotten.

 

[N Mollen]

You're.... kidding me right? You told me over and over and over that 247s rankings weren't objective so they didn't matter.

What changed?

I mean look, if you changed your opinion because you think Mike is killing it, that's perfectly fine. However, that also means you're gonna need to hop off this high horse you've placed yourself on because it just makes you look like a hypocrite - or the actual one with memory problems, cuz I sure as poop haven't forgotten.

I'll go through this very very slowly.

1. "You told me over and over and over that 247s rankings weren't objective" CORRECT! GOLD STAR!! Move to the head of the class. Their ratings are not objective. Or at least mostly not (I suspect the # of P5 offers is an element and would be objective). The ratings were never designed to be objective, and I bet the staff at Rivals and 247 would say so if you asked them. They are informed judgments

2. Because they aren't objective "they didn't matter." I'm sorry. Not even close. The fact that they aren't "objective" doesn't make them irrelevant. Critics say Beethoven and Beyonce and the Beatles are great. Not objective. Not irrelevant if you are trying to get opinions on who is good. I think we are both of the view that offers matter more than ratings, or so I recall. But that doesn't make ratings irrelevant.

3. BTW, Coach opinions aren't objective either. They don't just offer kids because of clock speed or wingspan; otherwise I would have gotten an offer over the likes of Lykes. There are 100 things they consider besides stride length or resting heart rate or even height.

4. 247 and Rivals are staffed by people who watch high school ball ALL THE TIME. I rarely watch highs school games. They have OPINIONS and JUDGMENTS about the kids they see. Those opinions are much better informed than mine could be, so they are relevant to me. Not because they are objective or science but because they are informed judgments.

5. Most of the good players are highly rated because the 247/Rivals types have high OPINIONS of them, so there is a correlation between ratings and quality recruits. Not science; judgments.

6. The ratings also matter in that getting a kid who is highly rated is harder than snagging one who is not. So good on the staff when they snag one who is highly rated.

7. And getting highly rated kids gets us pub, which draws the attention of other good players who might say "hey if X went there maybe I should too."

I think that was plain enough, and is the same exact monotonous song I have been singing FOR YEARS. Somehow, it hasn't penetrated.

 

[2012Ram]

I'll go through this very very slowly.

1. "You told me over and over and over that 247s rankings weren't objective" CORRECT! GOLD STAR!! Move to the head of the class. Their ratings are not objective. Or at least mostly not (I suspect the # of P5 offers is an element and would be objective). The ratings were never designed to be objective, and I bet the staff at Rivals and 247 would say so if you asked them. They are informed judgments

2. Because they aren't objective "they didn't matter." I'm sorry. Not even close. The fact that they aren't "objective" doesn't make them irrelevant. Critics say Beethoven and Beyonce and the Beatles are great. Not objective. Not irrelevant if you are trying to get opinions on who is good. I think we are both of the view that offers matter more than ratings, or so I recall. But that doesn't make ratings irrelevant.

3. BTW, Coach opinions aren't objective either. They don't just offer kids because of clock speed or wingspan; otherwise I would have gotten an offer over the likes of Lykes. There are 100 things they consider besides stride length or resting heart rate or even height.

4. 247 and Rivals are staffed by people who watch high school ball ALL THE TIME. I rarely watch highs school games. They have OPINIONS and JUDGMENTS about the kids they see. Those opinions are much better informed than mine could be, so they are relevant to me. Not because they are objective or science but because they are informed judgments.

5. Most of the good players are highly rated because the 247/Rivals types have high OPINIONS of them, so there is a correlation between ratings and quality recruits. Not science; judgments.

6. The ratings also matter in that getting a kid who is highly rated is harder than snagging one who is not. So good on the staff when they snag one who is highly rated.

7. And getting highly rated kids gets us pub, which draws the attention of other good players who might say "hey if X went there maybe I should too."

I think that was plain enough, and is the same exact monotonous song I have been singing FOR YEARS. Somehow, it hasn't penetrated.

I am sorry, but that's total and utter bullpoop and probably only the story you tell yourself to explain your about face on this issue while being able to remain ignorant of your bias.

When I bitched incessantly about Mike's early classes because they weren't rated very well? You told me it didn't matter. It wasn't objective as it was based off of subjective opinions and therefore the numbers literally didnt matter. You mocked my belief that it did matter with the same smug attitude you've adopted for the exact same issue on the opposite side. You can deny it now, but that'd make you a liar on top of a hypocrite.

Your opinion was Mike was doing great when the clases were rated low and your opinion is that he is doing great when they are rated high. And you want that to be true so I get it.

But for real, keep that smug bullpoop to yourself because the people you are subcommenting like a coward aren't fooled.

 

[N Mollen]

I am sorry, but that's total and utter bullpoop and probably only the story you tell yourself to explain your about face on this issue while being able to remain ignorant of your bias.

When I bitched incessantly about Mike's early classes because they weren't rated very well? You told me it didn't matter. It wasn't objective as it was based off of subjective opinions and therefore the numbers literally didnt matter. You mocked my belief that it did matter with the same smug attitude you've adopted for the exact same issue on the opposite side. You can deny it now, but that'd make you a liar on top of a hypocrite.

Your opinion was Mike was doing great when the clases were rated low and your opinion is that he is doing great when they are rated high. And you want that to be true so I get it.

But for real, keep that smug bullpoop to yourself because the people you are subcommenting like a coward aren't fooled.

Seriously, I sense a cognitive deficit here. I never said anything of the sort. I did mock you, it is true, because you insisted the ratings were science and a kid rated 0.95454 by 247 was better than someone rated 0.95455 because MATH! and mostly because you were absolutely convinced that the class ratings were objective and thus MATH.

But I am really happy to see how happy you are that Mike's classes are now rated highly.

 

[2012Ram]

Seriously, I sense a cognitive deficit here. I never said anything of the sort. I did mock you, it is true, because you insisted the ratings were science and a kid rated 0.95454 by 247 was better than someone rated 0.95455 because MATH! and mostly because you were absolutely convinced that the class ratings were objective and thus MATH.

But I am really happy to see how happy you are that Mike's classes are now rated highly.

So what is different about those numbers now that has you so much less concerned and so much more of their validity?

It is the exact same system it was before. It is still one guy being 0.8700 and one guy being 0.8701 and the team that gets the latter is rated higher. You're cool with that now, but can't see any cognitive dissonance on your part? Literally the exact thing you were and are mocking me for.

However I am really happy you still want to die on a hill that a NUMBER achieved by ADDING other NUMBERS and DIVIDING them is not MATH, as it surely lends credence to the intellectual superiority you've crowned yourself with.

 

[2012Ram]

"I can't believe you would think that a player ranked .9665 is better than one ranked .9664. How ridiculous and worthy of ridicule!

However since we landed the .9665 guy and the team behind us landed the .9664 guy, we are rated higher and it's proof our staff can recruit."

???????????

 

[Mr. X]

Somehow, it hasn't penetrated.

That's what she said.

 

[N Mollen]

"I can't believe you would think that a player ranked .9665 is better than one ranked .9664. How ridiculous and worthy of ridicule!

However since we landed the .9665 guy and the team behind us landed the .9664 guy, we are rated higher and it's proof our staff can recruit."

???????????

Subjective + subjective + subjective/3= objective.

12, I suspect in person you are a pretty decent sort, and some day maybe I will buy you a beer and try, again, to explain the difference between subjective opinions (which can matter, depending on who holds them) and objective measurement, but for now I am done with this. We've burdened the rest of the board too much already. Enjoy this beautiful day.

 

[2012Ram]

Subjective + subjective + subjective/3= objective.

12, I suspect in person you are a pretty decent sort, and some day maybe I will buy you a beer and try, again, to explain the difference between subjective opinions (which can matter, depending on who holds them) and objective measurement, but for now I am done with this. We've burdened the rest of the board too much already. Enjoy this beautiful day.

When we are there I will try to explain the somehow byzantine concept of how adding numbers and dividing them into an average is math in return.

 

[N Mollen]

When we are there I will try to explain the somehow byzantine concept of how adding numbers and dividing them into an average is math in return.

 

[Mr. X]

Subjective + subjective + subjective/3= objective.

12, I suspect in person you are a pretty decent sort, and some day maybe I will buy you a beer and try, again, to explain the difference between subjective opinions (which can matter, depending on who holds them) and objective measurement, but for now I am done with this. We've burdened the rest of the board too much already. Enjoy this beautiful day.

Make sure it's a Pabst. Only the best for 2012.