TSIO - Don't Go to Atlanta

Doogles

Doogles

Swaye's Wigwam
Swaye's Wigwam
Founder's Club
https://247sports.com/LongFormArtic...-the-2018-College-Football-Playoff-120651737/

Spoiler: We didn't make the cut.

No. 6 Washington: The Huskies are a very good team. Chris Petersen is among the best coaches in the country, and they’ve got plenty of NFL talent (from the backfield to the offensive line to the secondary). But … the Huskies don’t have a five-star on their active roster (and no, five-star Jacob Eason does not count this season as he's not eligible to play) nor have they reeled in a top 10 class the last four cycles — anther critical indicator historically for championship game participants and playoff teams. It should be stated that Washington did buck that trend in 2016, so it's hard to rule the Huskies completely out. No team since the start of 247Sports' recruiting database has won a title without at least one of those two things, however. Washington could be the first, but it will be tough slogging against the truly elite teams in the country in terms of talent and coaching (see Alabama vs. Washington in the 2016 Peach Bowl).

 
Not a very useful metric if you ask me. The 40 plus 4/5 star 'croots "in progress" (see Clemson in 2017) is a much better one.

We are at 35 for 2018 so we are almost to the bare minimum threshold. BUT we don't have a legit 1st round, Heisman trophy level QB along the lines of Watson, Newton or Mariota which you need if you are only at 35- 40 four stars. 60- 80 four stars in progress enables you to be Ohio State or Bammer and win NT's with less than elite QB play.
 
Who was our composite 5 star in 2016?
Click to expand...

Didn't have one.
Click to expand...

So the article is wrong because we've done it before. I thought maybe Buttah could have been, but then they wouldn't have been calling Kaho Petersens highest recruit.

Whelp, Wheels up, heading to Atlanta boys!
 
Who was our composite 5 star in 2016?
Click to expand...

Didn't have one.
Click to expand...

So the article is wrong because we've done it before[/b]. I thought maybe Buttah could have been, but then they wouldn't have been calling Kaho Petersens highest recruit.

Whelp, Wheels up, heading to Atlanta boys!
Click to expand...

It should be stated that Washington did buck that trend in 2016[/b], so it's hard to rule the Huskies completely out. No team since the start of 247Sports' recruiting database has won a title without at least one of those two things, however. Washington could be the first
 
Who was our composite 5 star in 2016?
Click to expand...

Didn't have one.
Click to expand...

So the article is wrong because we've done it before. I thought maybe Buttah could have been, but then they wouldn't have been calling Kaho Petersens highest recruit.

Whelp, Wheels up, heading to Atlanta boys!
Click to expand...

Shaq was our last one I think? Buttah was a lowely 4 star. But again, why should having, at least, 1 be predictive of anything? We sucked so bad when Shaq was here, we had to use him at running back.
 
Who was our composite 5 star in 2016?
Click to expand...

Didn't have one.
Click to expand...

So the article is wrong because we've done it before[/b]. I thought maybe Buttah could have been, but then they wouldn't have been calling Kaho Petersens highest recruit.

Whelp, Wheels up, heading to Atlanta boys!
Click to expand...

It should be stated that Washington did buck that trend in 2016[/b], so it's hard to rule the Huskies completely out. No team since the start of 247Sports' recruiting database has won a title without at least one of those two things, however. Washington could be the first
Click to expand...

Reading is hard
 
A program must have at least one 247Sports Composite five-star prospect on its roster (Every championship game participant and playoff team the last 16 years has had at least one). [/i][/b]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't recall us having a composite 5-star player since Shaq was on the team. Budda wasn't one, so I'm not sure who they think we had on our team in 2016 that would qualify for this criteria. That's a blatant error before they even started their analysis, which isn't a good sign.

But regardless, this kind of "analysis" is just lazy and faulty. To start, it's being based off of a highly subjective measure (composite rankings, which includes ESPN's recruiting staff, a department that has less funding than Fetters' hot dog budget). And that subjective measure doesn't even look at those rankings holistically. If they were to measure the composite rankings of the entire roster, then their analysis would be a lot more convincing. But arbitrarily setting the cutoff at 5-star recruits is just a bad methodology.

 
nor have they reeled in a top 10 class the last four cycles — anther critical indicator historically for championship game participants and playoff teams.[/b] It should be stated that Washington did buck that trend in 2016, so it's hard to rule the Huskies completely out.

My understanding is THAT refers to not having a top 10 class but making the playoff anyway.

The entire premise of the article is the criteria required to make the playoff and it states not one team has made it without at least 1 composite 5-star.

 
bAwG51H.gif

 
Last edited:
Stars are a leading indicator but not an end all be all ... UW gets good QB play and they are right in the mix
 
Stars are a leading indicator but not an end all be all ... UW gets good QB play and they are right in the mix
Click to expand...

We can make the CFP with "good" QB play. But so far the evidence is skrong that it cannot be won - at our current talent level[/i] - w/o "elite" QB play.
 
Stars are a leading indicator but not an end all be all ... UW gets good QB play and they are right in the mix
Click to expand...

We can make the CFP with "good" QB play. But so far the evidence is skrong that it cannot be won - at our current talent level[/i] - w/o "elite" QB play.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100% ... having elite QB play is one of the few competitive advantages that P12 schools have historically had against SEC schools
 
Matt Leinhart carved up Auburn in his first start and it was at Auburn

We don't have Matt Leinhart though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top