What constitutes a 'bust'

1. What is your definition of a bust?

2. When do you label a player a bust?

3. Who can be a bust? Can a 2 star be a bust?

4. What factors, not controlled by a player, should you factor in for the player (i.e coaching change, position change, injury, etc)

5. Should a player's perceived ceiling really be used as a factor?


Answer these questions and then close with your pick for UM's biggest bust.

Apparently if you are a 5 star out of HS you had better start from day 1 and destroy everyone that lines up against you. So says the folks on this forum.

PS-No exceptions.

1. What is your definition of a bust?  When he leaves the program and doesn't contribute or doesn't contribute to a high degree. When recruiting 4/5 stars, they should be the future stars of the team.

2. When do you label a player a bust?  Once he is no longer with the program.  Transfer/grad/quit.

3. Who can be a bust? Can a 2 star be a bust?  IMO 4 or 5 stars can be busts.  Lower stars are only expected to be cogs in the wheel.  When one out performs their star ranking, that is a bonus.

4. What factors, not controlled by a player, should you factor in for the player (i.e coaching change, position change, injury, etc). Injury.  If you are considered a 4 or 5 star, you should be talented enough to adapt to coaching changes.

5. Should a player's perceived ceiling really be used as a factor? Yes.


Answer these questions and then close with your pick for UM's biggest bust.  This is a tough one, because following recruiting is still relatively new.  But, I would put Kevin Grady, Justin Turner, Boubucar Cissoco.

1. To me a bust is a guy who was highly rated- at least 4 star coming in, and doesn't start or at least be a highly utilized reserve by his 3rd season and/or gets kicked off the team.

2. See above, midway thru his 3rd season or later.

3. See above -4 or 5 stars

4. Agree that injuries are unhappy circumstances but don't make a guy a bust,

5. Perceived ceiling a factor? Yes.

UM's biggest bust-all of fish's picks plus the RB from Portage with the pot issues.

Now my threshold for "disappointments" is a lot lower than that for busts.

'shoes

Well I think most people would agree that a bust is a player that never reaches his expected level of play during his career. IMO a bust should be a player that never reaches his "reasonably" expected level of play. Reasonably being the key word. It differs for everyone.

What is a reasonably expected level of play and how do you go about measuring that level of play?

I think that a point system can be used to calculate a players reasonable expected level of play during his college career.

For instance, the point system would be something like, a composite 2 star would come in with 200 points, a composite 3 star would come in with 300 points and so on.

Any player, regardless of star ranking that is in top 5% (composite) of the first 100 in his position gets another 50 points added to his point total. Any player, regardless of star ranking that is in top 10% (composite) of the first 100 in his position gets another 40 points added to his point total and so on.

Points can be added and subtracted for a number of other things but I don't want to get into all of that because quite frankly I haven't fully thought it out.

Basically the goal is for the player to earn enough points during his college career to cover the point total he had coming out of high school.

But what if a player only plays two or three years of his career? Well that to me can only mean a few things. One he got hurt and could no longer play. If that were the case then you'd take his point system out of high school and divide it by the number of years he played and see if his point totals earned while in college match up. Or it could mean that he left for personal reasons and the same as above would apply. Another would be if he left early for the NFL. Well if that were the case it's a pretty safe bet to say he wouldn't be labeled a bust.

The only reason I'd leave a player's expected score in place is if he was removed from the team for disciplinary reasons, trouble with the law, transferred, etc.

Points can be accumulated for or taken from a player from pretty much EVERY stat you can imagine such as passing yards, completions, INTs, TDs, number of rushes, number of rushing yards, number of catches, number of receiving yards, number of tackles, tackles, number of sacks, sacks allowed per play, punting yards, return yards, field goals, etc, etc, etc. That list is literally a mile long given the number of positions and the stats kept. Plus I would give points for things like earning a varsity letter, number of starts, injuries, red-shirts, coaching changes, etc. Also, big points can also be earned by being drafted.

Just a jumping off point for this point system would take me forever to get together. I admit I don't actually have a point system in place and that it's really just an idea in my head at this time. Plus I'm sure that if/when I did get it together it would be a fairly dynamic point system for the first few years anyways because it would most definitely need tweaking to really dial it in. Basically it wouldn't be anywhere near as solid and perfect right out of the gate as our new universal health care system.         

Then based on that point system you'd have to put a tiered point system, most likely based on a percentage of the total points out of high school, in place to get a fair "label" to assign to a player. For instance if a guy comes in with 500 points but only gets 400 points during his college career then to me that's not a bust. We may be able to label him as "under achiever" but not a bust. Bust would be something more like 200 points or less when 500 was expected. I honestly haven't even given much thought of the levels of "label" either. If I had to guess now, it would be something like Bust, Extreme Under Achiever, Under Achiever, As Expected, Over Achiever, Trey Burke.

Given that a reasonable point system did get put in place, I'd say that it wouldn't be fair to call a player a bust until he is no longer playing for the team or is at a point in a career where it is evident that he is never going to make up the points. Example, Justin Turner and Marcus Slocumb were busts. IMO Will Campbell was not a bust. I'm also pretty confident that Kevin Grady wouldn't be a bust but most likely an 'Extreme Under Achiever".

So if a solid point system were in place to give a reasonable expectancy level from a player and a reasonable label category was in place then I would say that EVERY player can be labeled a bust. I mean, if every player has the ability to earn a label of over achiever then every player can be labeled a bust, even the walk-ons.

I also don't know how you can put a point system on a player's ceiling.

I'd also like to add that this system can only be put in place for a player's time while in college. I realize that could mean that Tom Brady could be labeled average and at the same time be a sure fire ballot hall-of-famer in the NFL.

I really wish I had the time give this topic some serious thought.

Wow eggo, you have put a lot more thought into than I have.

Also, for shoes, I think you are thinking of Kelly Baraka. Yeah, I forgot about him, he was a huge bust.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

Wow eggo, you have put a lot more thought into than I have.  

Also, for shoes, I think you are thinking of Kelly Baraka.  Yeah, I forgot about him, he was a huge bust.

That's the guy fish.