Husker Psycho
Special Teams Player
More fairy tale thinking.Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").You don't know what you're talking about.However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.
For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).
If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.
Reality... fact.
And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!
None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.
Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.
Last edited by a moderator: