|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 2, 2017 12:21:02 GMT -6
How the fuck did we get out-recruited so badly by Maryland? WTF, Badgers?
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerfowl on Feb 2, 2017 12:42:35 GMT -6
I wouldn't worry about it. Our class is very small this year. Class rankings are about size more than quality. If you worry about recruiting rankings in football/basketball you will be disappointed annually. Good thing is that it means nothing. Winning on the field is all that matters. And yes I know, a select few get all the talent but we won't ever be part of that. No sense in caring.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 2, 2017 12:46:48 GMT -6
I get all that, but DAMN!!!! Maryland? This wasn't basketball we're talking about here. It was refreshing to see some good wide receiver and D-back recruits on the list. I am happy about that and the RB from NJ, we all know how those have worked out for us in the past...  |
|
|
|
Post by badgerfowl on Feb 2, 2017 12:50:53 GMT -6
This is actually one of our better classes. Hopefully get a few contributors at the skill positions.
I'm not sure what rankings you were looking at but I'll use Rivals as an example.
Maryland at #17 and UW at #35. That's based on total number of points. Star ranking (or the point rank the recruit is given) * #recruits.
If you rank them by the average star ranking. UW is only 4 spots behind Maryland. Bigger classes get the benefit which is stupid. UW has 18 commits and Maryland has 28.
And yes, no idea how Maryland pulled 7 4*'s.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 2, 2017 13:11:06 GMT -6
What I don't get are all these kids willing to commit to the "Big 5" recruiting schools that grayshirt and sit out for a year, just so they can be redshirted for another year in the hopes that the school doesn't recruit someone better that will play ahead of them in the 2 years they are riding the pine? Makes no sense when you could likely play right away somewhere else and still be in a pretty "elite" program. When you look at how many players each school puts in the pros(numbers are from '05-'15), sure the big name teams like USC(74), OSU(57) and 'Bama(60) are the best of the best at giving you a shot at the NFL, but what the record doesn't show is how many of those schools' recruits fall off the face of the earth or end up transferring due to lack of playing time anyway. Given schools like WI(44) and IA(42) produce a good amount of NFL caliber talent in their own rights with WAY less upfront talent than the other schools start out with, you would think these kids would look at those choices a bit harder than just jumping on the bandwagon and potentially ending up in obscurity.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoBuckChaser on Feb 2, 2017 13:43:18 GMT -6
What I don't get are all these kids willing to commit to the "Big 5" recruiting schools that grayshirt and sit out for a year, just so they can be redshirted for another year in the hopes that the school doesn't recruit someone better that will play ahead of them in the 2 years they are riding the pine? Makes no sense when you could likely play right away somewhere else and still be in a pretty "elite" program. When you look at how many players each school puts in the pros(numbers are from '05-'15), sure the big name teams like USC(74), OSU(57) and 'Bama(60) are the best of the best at giving you a shot at the NFL, but what the record doesn't show is how many of those schools' recruits fall off the face of the earth or end up transferring due to lack of playing time anyway. Given schools like WI(44) and IA(42) produce a good amount of NFL caliber talent in their own rights with WAY less upfront talent than the other schools start out with, you would think these kids would look at those choices a bit harder than just jumping on the bandwagon and potentially ending up in obscurity. You have to remember these are kids that are making these decisions. My son, instead of going to a D-I or 1AA school went to a D-II thinking he would move right in and play after his red shirt year. Would have been great, if he didn't break a wrist and both ankles. 5 min of playing time in 5 years......Ouch! |
|
|
|
Post by MoBuckChaser on Feb 2, 2017 13:49:04 GMT -6
Man I miss those days of watching the kid fire the ball down the field! ! |
|
|
|
Post by badgerfowl on Feb 2, 2017 14:56:51 GMT -6
Hopefully he never tried this on you Mo.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoBuckChaser on Feb 2, 2017 15:38:17 GMT -6
Hopefully he never tried this on you Mo. Video says restricted |
|
|
|
Post by badgerfowl on Feb 2, 2017 15:55:06 GMT -6
Hopefully he never tried this on you Mo. Video says restricted Hmm. Plays for me fine. Just googled it and found it. |
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 2, 2017 15:57:05 GMT -6
Played for me right on the site as well? Mo you using your phone?
|
|
|
|
Post by MoBuckChaser on Feb 2, 2017 15:59:52 GMT -6
This is what shows on my screen  |
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 2, 2017 16:14:27 GMT -6
Essentially, your "porn" filter is turned on. Since he says the f-word, you can't view it without turning "Restricted Mode" off. Google "turning of restricted mode in youtube videos" For some reason it thinks you're under 18?
|
|
|
|
Post by MoBuckChaser on Feb 2, 2017 16:26:53 GMT -6
Essentially, your "porn" filter is turned on. Since he says the f-word, you can't view it without turning "Restricted Mode" off. Google "turning of restricted mode in youtube videos" For some reason it thinks you're under 18? Wonder how the hell that happened? We watch some good porn almost every night on this thing...... |
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 2, 2017 16:33:28 GMT -6
Not on the YouTube site though............it is only on the Youtube site, not your computer. Somehow YouTube thinks your underage or something of that nature, not sure if you can just go into your YouTube profile and update your date of birth?
|
|
