The way things are looking in the 2023 top 25 CFB standings

it appears that we could finish outside looking in. That would be very disappointing. I hate the stinking ratings game that always seems to negatively affect the Hogs. We need some 4*’s to finish

Ratings have never won a game.

Sorry to inform you but there’s a direct correlation between the jimmy’s and joe’s and wins/losses

1 Like

23…isn’t that a year away. Like I’m worried about that now. At my age a year doesn’t mean spit

Not always. You can make that argument and also make an argument they don’t.

Texas and Texas A&M would’ve beaten Arkansas last year hands down based on the rankings from 2018-2021. I would probably say LSU too.

2 Likes

Yeah that is not at all what @bayouhog is saying. At no point did he say that wins and losses were only correlated to recruiting rankings. Of course there are other variables (injuries, officiating, development, transfers).

But to argue that there isn’t a correlation between recruiting rankings and wins and losses, you’re either being obtuse or are ignorant of facts.

1 Like

Reread what I said, I said an argument could be made for both. High rankings don’t always translate to success.

2 Likes

He knows big words but his comprehension skills ain’t caught up yet. Lol

1 Like

But it can’t. Recruiting rankings do correlate to wins and losses. It is a fact. Statistics show this.

Do you know what correlate means? Correlate - have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another.

As the study above shows, rankings correlate to wins and losses. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t single instances when a team with lower rankings beats another, but the higher the recruiting ranking, the more likely you will have more wins than a team with a lower ranking. We now have two decades that prove this correlation.

If you are arguing against the correlation between recruiting rankings and wins and losses, you are arguing against two decades worth of facts.

I’m beginning to realize that there are those on this board that do not know the definition of correlation.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. That is another fact that seems lost on this place.

The Texas and aTm results @RichardDavenport used earlier is an example of this fallacy.

He’s a duck (dang spell check), RD, and he always has been. He would have never given Grant Morgan a chance. He’s the same glass pole that started bumping tired threads a while ago. Just consider the source and move on.

Mercy is this hog2009 talking to himself? The year he was born or what. Sorry hog it’s just - well never mind…

When one is on the losing side of an argument they tend to begin with name calling and belittling instead of the merits of their take. WHS is not immune to this phenomenon.

I’m trying to maintain my composure. I won’t belittle you and you’re not going to belittle me.

1 Like

We are all brothers here! Let’s agree to disagree about some things, just don’t resort to name-calling. Please. The world is jacked-up enough, too much turmoil everywhere- let’s maintain the forums as our happy places…

I’m not attempting to belittle you. I just think you’re confused with correlation and causation. It is a very common misconception and one that I often make. But arguing there is no correlation between recruiting rankings and wins and losses is akin to arguing the sky is green.

1 Like

But if you can’t agree on basic facts, that should be addressed.

How is anyone supposed to take a recruiting expert seriously if they don’t agree with a fact that there is a correlation between recruiting rankings and wins and losses?