:popcorn: Better watch this one close Ram. :popcorn:

I could not agree with Papa more. Ricky Buckler was the leading rusher in the state. The fact that he is not even an honorable mention would make any sensible person question the selection of all state players. There is NO way it can be justified. That is a fact. What a shame for a really deserving young man.

 

The reality is the big "names" (Collinsworth) and the big name "schools" (Highlands) get the attention and the votes. How can a kid who rushed for less than 1,000 yards be second team all state when a kid who rushed for nearly 3,000 yards and over 40 td's does not even get honorable mention?? The other kid has a recognizable name and is from a more well known and successful school, that's why. Is that fair?? NO!

 

Austin Collinsworth is a heck of a player but all state is not supposed to be based upon potential or who your dad is, it is supposed to be on performance.

An observation and a question ...

 

Observation ... Stats aren't that reliable in evaluating high school running backs because there are too many variables in play. There are usage (25-30 carries a game or 10-15), quality of offensive line and level of competition. These guys are all good players ... of course, they're going to put up good numbers.

 

Question ... To the Buckler supporters, since Austin Collinsworth has been singled out ... is he really a better player than Collinsworth? Or Hayden? Or McShara and the rest?

Edited December 16, 200916 yr by westsider

How's that title?

 

Or how about this for the thread title: " This is a thread to discuss very good football players that didn't make the AP's All State team but we won't denigrate or insult the AP, the football players that were selected to the AP team in the thread or posters with an opinion that the right kids were selected to the team"?

 

Yeah, that's the ticket.

I could not agree with Papa more. Ricky Buckler was the leading rusher in the state. The fact that he is not even an honorable mention would make any sensible person question the selection of all state players. There is NO way it can be justified. That is a fact. What a shame for a really deserving young man.

 

The reality is the big "names" (Collinsworth) and the big name "schools" (Highlands) get the attention and the votes. How can a kid who rushed for less than 1,000 yards be second team all state when a kid who rushed for nearly 3,000 yards and over 40 td's does not even get honorable mention?? The other kid has a recognizable name and is from a more well known and successful school, that's why. Is that fair?? NO!

 

Austin Collinsworth is a heck of a player but all state is not supposed to be based upon potential or who your dad is, it is supposed to be on performance.

 

I supported Buckler being mentioned but I don't support picking on another player that made the team. Please don't try to use Collinsworth as an example. First of all he had well over 1,000 yards on the season and secondly he did it with very few carries. His name has nothing to do with it, if it did he would of been 1st Team. I don't want to get into comparing players because it isn't fair to the kids involved.

An observation and a question ...

 

Observation ... Stats aren't that reliable in evaluating high school running backs because there are too many variables in play. There's usage (25-30 carries a game or 10-15), quality of offensive line and level of competition. These guys are all good players ... of course, they're going to put up good numbers.

 

Question ... To the Buckler supporters, since Austin Collinsworth has been singled out ... is he really a better player than Collinsworth? Or Hayden? Or McShara and the rest?

 

I did not say Buckler is a better player, although I think he is. I am saying he had a better year. I think when a kid rushes for 2,850 yards that is impressive and deserves recognition. I just really don't think enough of the voters do any research at all. They just vote with familiar names of players and schools.

I supported Buckler being mentioned but I don't support picking on another player that made the team. Please don't try to use Collinsworth as an example. First of all he had well over 1,000 yards on the season and secondly he did it with very few carries. His name has nothing to do with it, if it did he would of been 1st Team. I don't want to get into comparing players because it isn't fair to the kids involved.

 

My intention was not to pick on Collinsworth. If that is how it was taken I apologize. I said he is a good player.

 

However, I stand by what I said that I think many voters choose players based upon name recognition. If you took the names out of the equation and listed the stats there is no doubt who would have been chosen all state. I don't think that can be argued.

My intention was not to pick on Collinsworth. If that is how it was taken I apologize. I said he is a good player.

 

However, I stand by what I said that I think many voters choose players based upon name recognition. If you took the names out of the equation and listed the stats there is no doubt who would have been chosen all state. I don't think that can be argued.

This is a valid point, however....at this point in the game it's a bit too late.

 

It would have been interesting to toss up a poll using a random position (preferably RB because the stats are easy to compile), include the stats of the states top 10 RBs and let everyone vote based on stats (and stats alone).

 

I know that strength of schedule should come into play and a variety of items mentioned already, but statistics is one of the first things that a fan looks to when comparing teams, players, and such.

 

Later.

Or how about this for the thread title: " This is a thread to discuss very good football players that didn't make the AP's All State team but we won't denigrate or insult the AP, the football players that were selected to the AP team in the thread or posters with an opinion that the right kids were selected to the team"?

 

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Oddly, I find you title a little wordy.:lol:

:popcorn: Better watch this one close Ram. :popcorn:

Oh, I'm around.:thumb:

I did not say Buckler is a better player, although I think he is. I am saying he had a better year. I think when a kid rushes for 2,850 yards that is impressive and deserves recognition. I just really don't think enough of the voters do any research at all. They just vote with familiar names of players and schools.

You don't think it's possible that people that have seen both players came to the conclusion that Collinsworth was the better player, and therefore gave him their votes?

 

If the two players traded places, I think it's fair to say that Collinsworth's stats at Bellevue would blow Buckler's numbers (at Highlands) out of the water, too.

Oddly, I find you title a little wordy.:lol:

 

Heck, you should have seen the first two draft versions of my suggested title if you think that one is a little wordy.

You don't think it's possible that people that have seen both players came to the conclusion that Collinsworth was the better player, and therefore gave him their votes?

 

If the two players traded places, I think it's fair to say that Collinsworth's stats at Bellevue would blow Buckler's numbers (at Highlands) out of the water, too.

 

I've seen both and I could not disagree more.

As a voter, I'll try to give a little bit of insight here.

 

I honestly have as many problems with the list as most of the people who have posted complaints here. While I feel like the voters themselves did a decent enough job with what they had to work with, I think the process itself is flawed.

 

- To start things off, every AP outlet in the state has a chance to nominate players for the all-state ballot by a certain deadline, which was around the end of the regular season. One problem though, is that if there's no media outlet in an area, one just doesn't report or somebody makes a mistake and forgets a kid, those kids are already left out. If you're not nominated by somebody, you don't even make it on to the ballot to begin with and can't be on the team no matter how good you are. I won't get into specifics, but some big portions of the state were underrepresented or not represented at all. I can't even count how many kids I wanted to vote for who weren't even on the ballot.

 

- When you get to the kids who are on the ballot, there are several more problems. If you cover one team every week like I do, you only see so much football. Glancing back at the schedule, I only saw 13 football teams in person this year. Personally, I'm pretty comfortable with my statewide knowledge because I take an outside interest in it on my own time, but I doubt many other people are doing that.

 

- When it comes to the kids I haven't seen or didn't already know about, you can only track down stats on about half, and then for some positions, stats are misleading or don't really matter anyway. In the absence of stats, I gave a little preference to those who were committed to good schools or were being highly recruited. That covers a few more kids, but after all that and hours of looking things up, you're still making decisions on half your positions with no stats or any point of reference. I think that's how, as somebody mentioned, so many players from state champion and runner-up teams end up on there. Voters just didn't have any information to go on other than "Hey at least this guy's team was good."

 

- Another thing that skews the final list are how media outlets interpret the nomination and voting process. Personally, I'll nominate anybody from my area who is even close because I feel I owe it to the kids to give them a chance. I may not necessarily vote for them when the ballot comes out, but I've at least put it in the hands of all the voters. I'm not 100% on this, but I think any first team vote or two second team votes assure somebody of at least an honorable mention spot. So while some deserving players never even got on the ballot because their local outlet didn't nominate them for whatever reason, if some other outlet wants to be a homer, they can nominate 10 kids from a mediocre team, put them all on the first team and assure them all of being at least honorable mention. Not accusing anybody of doing this, but saying it can be done.

 

- One other thing that I don't know if it affects the final team but is interesting nonetheless, players can only be nominated at one position. I see a lot of people upset about somebody being recognized at RB or QB, but it's really competitive because those positions are the ones most people notice. There may be 30 QBs on the ballot for 2 spots and 40 RBs for 4 spots, but then at DB there may be about 10 kids for 8 spots.

 

 

So that's the process, and in my opinion, what's right or wrong with it. To be honest, I don't even really know what could be done to make it better, but I hope I've at least helped give some people a better understanding of how or why things end up a certain way.

I've seen both and I could not disagree more.

 

My guess is that a lot of the voters didn't see Buckler play at all his team got knocked out in the regional finals. Probably most of them voted primarily for players they were able to see play in state championship games. Is that fair? probably not they should do a little research as to those player nominated from outside their area that didn't make it to state finals.

 

Ram I'm fine with any title.

I've seen both and I could not disagree more.

If Collinsworth was at Bellevue and Buckler was at Highlands, you don't think that Collinsworth's numbers would be much better than Buckler's?