Skip to main content

The 2013 Patsy Ratings

Something new is coming to Lehigh Football Nation, and no, Jerry Lewis has nothing to do with it.

Once upon a time, there was a legendary Lafayette message board poster called carney2, who came up with a way to attempt to rate, in a somewhat unbiased manner, Patriot League recruiting classes.

For years he posted his spreadsheet-based evaluations on the Any Given Saturday message board, and his somewhat dry, humorous description of the methodology and the rating.  For hardcore Patriot League fans, it was an important, must-read part of the offseason.

This year, his Patsy ratings - which don't have to do with real Patsies, incidentally - come to LFN.

All those printouts, formulae, and (hopefully) some of the dry wit now are a part of the website.

In the upcoming weeks, I'll be going through the data and coming up with the rankings.  But before I do, I thought I'd whip up a quick blog posting to describe exactly what it is we're doing here.


Let's start with a modification of the words from the Founder, carney, who put this in such way that has made the Patsy Ratings the cult classic they are.

"For each of the past six years or so a committee - The Committee - evaluates each of the Patriot League recruiting classes and assigns points - Patsy Points - based on a complicated - more complicated that I dare go into here - rating system. It is, The Committee believes, as objective an evaluation system as we can get for this very subjective area. The Patsy Points are then added up and the recruiting classes are ranked. Ergo, the 'Patsy Ratings.'

"How did this start? Frankly some members of The Committee were tired of watching the annual process where alums lined up to pat Coach Terwilliger on the back and tell him, and themselves, what a grand bunch of footballers he had rounded up, when the truth usually was...not so much."

Basically, it's a way to evaluate recruiting classes.  It in no way tries to say that "such-and-such athlete will be a Patriot League first team all-conference for for years" - or, conversely, "such-and-such lineman is fat and slow and won't amount to anything."  It's, as I believe carney himself would say, a blunt instrument that tries to come up with a math-based way to attempt to do what is impossible - evaluate the recruiting classes and see how everyone did.

Does it mean that it's entirely based on math?  No.  There are some subjective elements to it, but it largely is simply a human "reality check" based on the methodology.

Points are given based on the following categories:

Quality: These are given by a recruit's presence in the commonly known ratings agencies and their star ratings (if any).

Class Size: The larger an incoming class, the more points this generates.  This may be less important now, since the Patriot League now allows football scholarships, but this allows the Ratings to cross back to the years before scholarships.  So, it remains for this year.

Distribution: The more positions covered by the class, the more Distribution points a class will get.

Speed: Using the meager data that is out there, players meeting a certain speed threshold get a "point".

Trigger: Acknowledging that the most important player on the field in college football is almost always the quarterback, more points are offered for more quarterbacks in the incoming class, and even more points if they are rated.

Jumbo: Players meeting a certain "size requirement" give extra points.

Needs: Needs for each recruiting class have been determined by a cherry-picked panel of school "superfans" who have a long-term view of the overall needs of a particular year's recruiting class.  This is NOT easy as saying, "senior QB Michael Colvin has graduated, ergo we need a QB" - this also looks at previous classes and looks at the long-term more than a particular year.  Top priority met gets a maximum of 5 points; second priority gets a maximum of 4 points; third priority gets a maximum of 3 points.

Finally, there is a "committee adjustment" - an adjustment to the Patsy ratings which could be a minor adjustment if the "look and smell" test seems to misrepresent the actual overall quality of the class.

Got all that?  Good.  All the Patsy Ratings will be linked here when they are complete, giving you one page to bookmark with all the ratings for this season.

And always remember - from the guy who came up with this in the first place, carney:

"What is the lesson we take from this? Recruit well and you will win. Recruit poorly and you won't."

The Ratings:

COLGATE - 73
FORDHAM - 70 
LEHIGH - 51
BUCKNELL - 51
LAFAYETTE - 49
HOLY CROSS -  34

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How The Ivy League Is Able To Break the NCAA's Scholarship Limits and Still Consider Themselves FCS

By now you've seen the results.  In 2018, the Ivy League has taken the FCS by storm. Perhaps it was Penn's 30-10 defeat of Lehigh a couple of weeks ago .  Or maybe it was Princeton's 50-9 drubbing of another team that made the FCS Playoffs last year, Monmouth.  Or maybe it was Yale's shockingly dominant 35-14 win over nationally-ranked Maine last weekend. The Ivy League has gone an astounding 12-4 so far in out-of-conference play, many of those wins coming against the Patriot League. But it's not just against the Patriot League where the Ivy League has excelled.  Every Ivy League school has at least one out-of-conference victory, which is remarkable since it is only three games into their football season.  The four losses - Rhode Island over Harvard, Holy Cross over Yale, Delaware over Cornell, and Cal Poly over Brown - were either close losses that could have gone either way or expected blowouts of teams picked to be at the bottom of the Ivy League. W

UMass 21, Lafayette 14, halftime

Are you watching this game? UMass had this game under control until about 3 minutes in the second quarter, and then got an interception, converted for a TD. Then the Leopards forced a fumble off the return, and then converted THAT for a TD, making this a game. It's on CN8. You really should be watching this.

Examining A Figure Skating Rivalry: Tonya and Nancy

It must be very hard for a millennial to understand the fuss around the Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding figure skating scandal in the run-up to the 1994 Olympics. If you're of a certain age, though - whether you're a figure skating fan or not, and I am decidedly no fan of figure skating - the Shakespearean story of Harding and Kerrigan still engages, and still grabs peoples' attention, twenty years later. Why, though?  Why, twenty years later, in a sport I care little, does the story still grab me?  Why did I spend time out of my life watching dueling NBC and ESPN documentaries on the subject, and Google multiple stories about Jeff Gilooly , idiot "bodyguards", and the whole sordid affair? I think it's because the story, even twenty years later, is like opium. The addictive story, even now, has everything.  Everything.  The woman that fought for everything, perhaps crossing over to the dark side to get her chance at Olypic Gold, vs. the woman who