Monday, February 11, 2013

Patsy Ratings - Colgate's Class of 2017

Next up in the Patsy ratings extravaganza is Colgate, who, as you'll see in a moment, seem to have not only embraced scholarship recruiting with the gusto The Bear attacks chicken wings, but also seem to have crafted an incoming class that seems, strangely, to almost be geared towards scoring Patsy Points.

The Committee, after seeing the numbers racked up by Colgate in this area, asked a question.  What is, actually, the highest Patsy Rating ever recorded?  Does this mega-class have what it takes to make it to the pantheon of Patsy Rating heroes?

The answer, surprisingly, is no.

In the limited number of years the Patsy Ratings have been running, there have been at least six classes with higher ratings than Colgate's fine class this season - and at least two classes that never enjoyed a Patriot League Championship, thus giving the rest of the league some hope.

It's no secret that Colgate brought in some good ones - but exactly how good is the class?

If you're the type of person that looks at the number of stars next to your recruits and judge your entire recruiting class on that, you might as well stop looking at the other schools now.  The ratings agencies love the recruits signed by the Mean Red Machine, and as a result the Patsy Points piled up for Dick Biddle and company.  If Lafayette's class made you wonder "where are the scholarships?", Colgate's class might provide an answer.

There is a school of thought, in drafting, that you go for the "best athletes on the board" and don't take into account which areas of need you might have.  Is that what Colgate did here?  While Colgate's offensive juggernaut over the last couple of years has not been remotely a question mark in the last few years, the defense certainly has been, which reflects in the need areas for the Raiders.  Did Colgate shore up that side of the ball much?  It certainly doesn't seem like it when you look at the "needs" category.

QUALITY = 37. A stunning 15/21, or 71%, of Colgate's recruits were present in the major recruiting websites.  More importantly, though, 5 of them (about a quarter for those scoring at home) were 2 star recruits, and two of them "confirmed", meaning they were two star recruits from multiple agencies.  If scholarships can be cashed in for Patsy Points, the Mean Red Machine seems to have figured out the formula on how to do it.

.  21 Recruits.  One more athlete than Lafayette, and an overall class size that seems like it will be the norm with scholarship classes.

DISTRIBUTION = 8.  Every base was touched.

SPEED = 13. Speed information normally is not easy to come by, but that wasn't the case with Colgate's class, where seven different players provided Patsy Points for speed.

TRIGGER = 0.  Two QBs, neither rated.  To be fair, with senior QB Gavin McCarney and two sophomores returning next season, this didn't seem like a major need area for the Raiders.

JUMBO = 5. 4 OL and 5 DL.  3 out of the 4 OL meet the Jumbo criteria, while only 2 out of the 5 DL do.  This is one of the great debates of the Patsy ratings - what's more important, "jumbo", or "quality"?  If you look at "quality points", Colgate has Lafayette beat easily.  If you look at "jumbo points", Lafayette scores a narrow victory.

NEEDS = 7 (of 12):

DL = 3 (of 5): It's likely that future cultural anthropologists will look at this element of the Patsy ratings, and scratch their heads.  Why 3 out of 5 points?  Is there not a 2-star recruit there?  Yes, there is.  Are there not five recruits at this position, providing lots of potential depth in a "need area"?  Yes, there is.  But, the Committee counters, below the starred recruit, who is there?  Not enough, say the Ratings.

LB = 1 (of 4): Only two recruits, and neither were rated by any of the popular rating services.  The Committee was sorely tempted to put 0 here - and it makes you wonder, did the Raiders actually think of this as a need area?  Fans obviously disagree.

OL = 3 (of 3):
While - surprisingly - one of the 2-star recruits did not provide Jumbo points, a whopping 3 of the 4 recruits were of the starred variety, so it's not hard to fathom that this need was met with ease.

COMMITTEE ADJUSTMENT: 0.  The temptation for the Committee is to look at Colgate's rating points in terms of quality, and ask the question, really?  Are all the ratings services right?   Are they that much smarter than us?  Ultimately, though, the Committee, in a split decision, decided to not dock points since by any measure Colgate's star haul is a sight to behold.  And besides, it doesn't take a lot to prove that they are smarter than the Committee.  After all, they're not coming up with Patsy Ratings.


No comments :

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...