tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8059884704776101239.post392340541070175368..comments2023-06-27T04:30:25.783-04:00Comments on Burgeoning Wolverine Star: Is there less competition for pro-style QB recruits?Chris Gaerighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11199782156789895674noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8059884704776101239.post-68526255904540976382011-01-20T20:25:18.437-05:002011-01-20T20:25:18.437-05:00Brian says “more pocket guys are available”. Usin...Brian says “more pocket guys are available”. Using rivals rankings as evidence, you yourself note “The number of recruits has increased significantly” and your data shows this is true for pro-style QBs. You could probably just stop there and say he is right.<br /><br />It is an interesting discussion - do QBs run more now than they did 5 or 10 years ago? Its seems so, but wheres the evidence?<br /><br />You seem to be arguing …well, I’m not sure what you’re arguing happened to the QB supply and demand. The section with the chart is so badly organized and communicated that its borderline incoherent. <br /><br />You attribute the increase in listed/ranked 3-star+ QBs to: recruiting becoming a “mainstream process.” I have no idea what that means. To me, it seems that Rivals is just handing out 3 stars to more people and/or just increasing the size of their database.<br /><br />Regardless of why, your assumption is that somehow, supply of QBs has gone up. This is logically dubious. Did parents start producing more QBs? Did the number of QBs per school increase? Did the number of schools increase. The answer to each is no.<br /><br />The problem with your approach here is that you take rivals rankings and classifications as representative of the total population of potential recruits, even though the data says its probably not (the US had no demographic or social changes that would increase production of QBs). Rivals can increase its number of 3 star recruits all it wants and it has no impact on supply or demand of college QBs. <br /><br />You take Rivals rankings to mean more supply (even though there is no logical explanation for this.) You then take the increase in supply and assume an increase in demand (even though things don’t generally work this way – I suspect you didn’t major in Econ).<br /><br />“we can likely conclude that the demand for pro-style quarterbacks has not decreased”<br />No, we can't.<br /><br />I think a better metric would be to look at all the ATHs and figure out what percent of them became QBs…but even that approach would be flawed.<br /><br />You could probably just look at carries by QBs and see that QBs run a lot more.<br /><br />I also don’t see why demand would ebb and flow from year to year. <br /><br />This is a poor analysis and utterly unconvincing.<br /><br />You can do(and have done) much better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8059884704776101239.post-28662979257983631552011-01-20T13:08:49.536-05:002011-01-20T13:08:49.536-05:00Jivas,
Good thought. When I was initially pulling...Jivas,<br /><br />Good thought. When I was initially pulling data, I was writing down recruits, their rankings, and the schools they attended. A quick spot check showed that most of the highly ranked players were still attending the big-time schools, but a more thorough fisking may be in order. I'll try and get something up later today or tomorrow.<br /><br />Also, the graph posted above may not be entirely helpful. I think it is, but I did it late last night when my mind was giving out on me, and I'm having second doubts about it now. I have another graph that shows a more direct correlation between the amount of prospects and the amount of schools receiving commitments.<br /><br />I'll try and get something up later today to fill out the study a little better.Chris Gaerighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11199782156789895674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8059884704776101239.post-20644514561355366402011-01-20T12:49:47.989-05:002011-01-20T12:49:47.989-05:00Chris - I appreciate the analytical bent, but I th...Chris - I appreciate the analytical bent, but I think the devil here is in the details. The real question isn't the *total* number of school taking commits from pro-style QB, but *which* schools. The possibility exists that more and more top-level BCS conference schools are switching to spread offenses and that competition for the best pro-style QBs **among those schools** has decreased.<br /><br />Of course most of the FBS-quality pro-style QBs will find homes somewhere or another - as your charts show - but what may be happening is that some of them end up settling for lower-rated programs, which wouldn't be evident in these charts. So Brian's supposition may be correct, in that there may be less competition among top-tier BCS schools for top-tier pro-style QBs.Jivasnoreply@blogger.com