The Back Alley Archives

A Look back:
-There has been much talk about UF not doing well in-state. While, its clear Miami had the best in-state class (huge year for S.Fla recruits), I'd argue FSU had a worse in-state class and that we had a better out of state class than either of them. If you took the top 30 Floridians in the Composite 350 the breakout of the Big 3 would be:
-----Top 10----Top 20-----Top 30
UM---4----------8----------9
UF---1----------3----------5
FSU--1----------2----------3

UF had 4 top 100 Out of state recruits, Miami had 2, and FSU 1. We also had the highest rated JUCO recruit among the Big 3, Carl Moore. Keep in mind, Miami used 33 slots and FSU 30 to get this amount of top recruits, while we only used 22 slots.

-We all felt the sting when Ramon Buchanan switched back to Miami, but recruiting is best viewed while setting emotions aside (good luck with that). I hate "losing" anyone, especially if its to Miami, but lets take a look at where Buchanan would have fit into the UF roster. I view weak-side linebackers and strong safeties as similar positions depending on the defense and today's strong safety can be tomorrow's weak-side linebacker. Here is who I view in that grouping:
Major Wright
Jerimy Finch
John Jones
Brandon Hicks
AJ Jones
Dee Finley
Lerentee McCray


Before Buchanan decommitted I foresaw a shakeout in the coming years at these positions. No wonder Steve Wilks moved to fullback, he didn't stand a chance against that group. There is simply too much talent of similar size and too few spots to put them in. There may still be an issue, even without Buchanan in the class. In the grand scheme of things, we may end up having only 1 transfer down the road from that group instead of 2 if Buchanan had signed. Pure speculation, but I don't see those names listed likely willing to sit around for any great length of time. The problem could be partially alleviated if someone like Dee Finley puts on some major weight and muscle and can give us some help at strong-side LB down the road. Looking at 09, I don't want anymore WLB/SS types, I'd like 2 MLB/SLB types. 6'3, 230 frames with wheels. Preferably 1 mike and 1 SAM.

-Speaking of Dee Finley, sounds like he is ready to prove some of his naysayers wrong. “I want to prove all those people who are doubting me wrong,” Finley said. “I know Florida is the best place for me to go and I’m going to prove it.“I’ve been hearing about Florida having a safety and signing another great safety — so I guess some people think I’m just suppose to go somewhere else. But my goal is to prove them wrong.”

http://www.oanow.com/oan/sports/high...xt_level/6248/


-Rumor floating around other SEC boards. 4-5 SEC teams turned Alabama in for a variety of violations. Heard this about 2 weeks ago, but probably some of this is based on envy of Bama's class.

-Bama's oversigning
They signed 32, 2 of which enrolled early and will count against last years class. That leaves 30 for 25 allowed spots. That won't be a major issue, they'll get there pretty easily through non-qualifiers and grayshirts. The major issue is that they have 70 returning players. 70+25=95 95-85=10 guys being pushed out the door and this has to get done by August.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...=2008802110316

Greatest 3 year recruiting run in UF history?
Yes, I think it is. At least in terms of each classes standing on Signing Day. Still think last years class is probably the best UF class of all time. The 2006 class is probably top 5.

Greatest 3 year run for the Big 3?
I was leaning to saying yes,but after further review I'll go with the FSU run of 91-93. The 93 FSU class to me is still the best recruiting class of all time, its the class all other classes should be measured against. Our 2008 class is similar to their 92 class, but I've got their 93 class slightly ahead of our 07 class and I've got their 91 class slightly ahead of our 06 class.

A few minor criticisms (you could create a list for every team, every year):
-Waiting so long to replace Bob Lacavita
FSU hired Lacavita on March 5 and we didn't replace him until April 23. While 7 weeks doesn't sound like an inordinate amount of time, when you take into account when that 7 week window took place, I think that's too long and should have happened much quicker. To me the greatest need for the DFO is those first few months after Signing Day in which the DFO has to organize all the recruits that they are recruiting or plan to recruit, setting up the Junior Days/FNL and deciding which recruits will be encouraged to attend which camp/practice/Spring game/Junior Day/FNL and how to communicate this to the recruit and his coach.

-Letting Chancey Aghayere move his visit for the Troy game and then show up w/o Mom
I said it at the time, we should have pushed the visit to the Auburn game (9/29) and he could have bonded with Matt Patchan and Brendan Beal. The Auburn game was a night game, so there wouldn't have been any issues making it into Gainesville in time. At a minimum, if you agree to let him come the weekend of the Troy game, then you have to bring Mom on the trip. He came solo to the Troy game. We should have canceled his visit once his Mom could not make it.

A few things worthy of kudos:
-The Beal/Patchan matching up for the Auburn visit. Patchan never bonded with any of the UM recruits like he did with Beal.

-Securing the 12/15 weekend for the Janoris Jenkins official visit. If he visits for the FSU game and then visits Miami on 12/15, who knows what happens. He played for the state title on 12/8, so a visit on that weekend was not really an option.

-The 1/19 visit weekend set-up with the Ky basketball game and ESPN gameday. Ended up pulling (or holding onto) to William Green, TJ Pridemore and Omar Hunter. Even got Ramon Buchanan to temporarily switch to UF, even though he had very strong Miami feelings.

What if?
-What if We had focused on Etienne Sabino at MLB instead of Brendan Beal or slow-played Beal trying to get Sabino?

Would we have gotten Sabino or lost both? Would getting Sabino and not Beal have hurt our chances with Patchan?

-What if Jonothan Meyers had committed and we didn't go after TJ pridemore? No Hunter?

-What if Eric Smith had been interested in accepting a fullback offer from UF? Would Petey and Ryan Giddens be

committed by now with Eric, Patchan and Torrey Davis at UF? Again, that would mean no Pridemore.

-What if Miami doesn't drop Lerentee McCray? Would there have been a signing day swap, Buchanan for McCray?

-What if Jarred Fayson had decided to transfer after Signing day instead of November and/or if Cornelius Ingram

didn't at least temporarily decide to turn pro, would we have still gotten Carl Moore or was he coming no matter

what due to the girlfriend?

-If the Hunter flirtations started in early November instead of early December would they have taken a commitment

from Byran Jones?

i love what ifs...things happen for a reason...everything is a result of something else occuring...life is one long formula.

A reason I have serious doubts about free will, rad. I mean, really, how much can that "variable" account for in the outcome of things?

if you're serious aa, it's the reason why i'm on that side of the fence with respects to the whole free will/destiny debate...the whole life is one long formula just makes life easier to live...obviously, you try to maximize your potential but in the end, our lives are already written ya know?

I reject that idea outright - that I don't have a hand in determining my future.

this has the making of a great, great thread...

1% or greater of religion in ones life = destinian
0% of religion in ones life = free willer

I reject that idea as well...

I'm by no means a big religious guy, but I think I've got more than 1%, and I'm most certainly a free-willer.

then you're intellect overpowers your faith.

I hate to sound like a cop out but I believe it to be both...ultimately I think there is a plan for us, but that in that plan we need to make decisions, some right and some wrong.

If I were to be fully involved in the religion I would tend more to the line of thinking that God has given us certain qualities that we can/should use to better the lives of those around us, however that may be, not that our whole life's story has been told.

you guys know how uber-competitive i am...if i were 100% destiny, i'd not see the need to compete...if you win, you win because you're supposed to...if you lose, it's because you weren't supposed to win...that type of thing...

guess i'm saying that being a destiny believer makes it convenient to reason away the negative things that have happened in ones life...doesn't matter if it's something that happened by chance or something that happened by your actions (or inactions)...the successes are an opportunity for me to rejoice in that i did good but modestly speaking, i give more credit to a higher authority giving me the chance and opportunity to not only compete but to succeed...

the way i see it jimmy - if i was slanted towards free will the way i am slanted at current towards destiny, i can see me being more stressed, more bitter, more not-at-peace with myself and those around me...

does that make any sense or am i blabbering?

you guys know how uber-competitive i am...if i were 100% destiny, i'd not see the need to compete...if you win, you win because you're supposed to...if you lose, it's because you weren't supposed to win...that type of thing...

guess i'm saying that being a destiny believer makes it convenient to reason away the negative things that have happened in ones life...doesn't matter if it's something that happened by chance or something that happened by your actions (or inactions)...the successes are an opportunity for me to rejoice in that i did good but modestly speaking, i give more credit to a higher authority giving me the chance and opportunity to not only compete but to succeed...

the way i see it jimmy - if i was slanted towards free will the way i am slanted at current towards destiny, i can see me being more stressed, more bitter, more not-at-peace with myself and those around me...

does that make any sense or am i blabbering?

you make sense, rad, but the part I bolded is exactly why I'm not a destiny believer.

why is that?

do you need to reason away why things happen so that you can learn it fully? sort of like wanting to be able to prevent it from happening again? like be preemptively reactive or proactive?

why is that?

do you need to reason away why things happen so that you can learn it fully? sort of like wanting to be able to prevent it from happening again? like be preemptively reactive or proactive?

I don't necessarily have to reason away everything, but I, like you, view that if it was 100% destiny then what is the motivation to be motivated? However, I don't think you can go 50% on this one either. Either it is or it isn't. You can't just say "Oh, well, must've been destiny that I failed" and not destiny when you succeed. I don't see how it can be anything other than a two-way street.

fair point...

i just think if you fail, there's a reason for it...maybe i wasn't prepared as i thought i should have been...maybe there's something greater for me to succeed in...whatever the case may be...i have to believe that in those cases in which i fail, there's a reason...whether it will lead to better, worse, or more of the same, i don't know...it just helps me in dealing with the failure knowing that there's something else in the works for me...

today - i failed in that i got a speeding ticket...as i drive off, i notice a very bad accident several miles ahead...traffic was at a crawl for 20 minutes...yes it's free will that i was driving 85+ in a 65, got stopped by a cop...but was it destiny that this failure prevented me from getting in that car wreck?

so to your point about destiny not accounting in your successes, i think it does...destiny is there...it humbles me knowing that destiny matters...athletes are always thanking god for the blessings and opportunities in their speeches...sickening after a while but it's a modest way to acknowledge your successes...i do it..i just don't verbalize it in front of millions of tv viewers like they do...i think you gotta acknowledge it a lil bit.

My main problem with the idea of free will is that I have yet to hear a coherent explanation (theoretical or practical) of the human causal mechanism. The only way humans could possibly have free will is for ideas to be able to manipulate the physical world. I know that life certainly FEELS like I make decisions that have consequences in the world. I'm just not sure how responsible MY DECISION is for the outcome in the world.

I can't figure out how to determine when my choice matters and when it doesn't, because I think we can agree that there is, at minimum, a spectrum of circumstances which afford us a range of freedom from nearly nil to almost total apparent freedom of choice. Some situations offer us 10 options, some situations offer us 2 options. Sometimes we irrationally limit ourselves. Where does that fit in?

My problem with the assumption that we are always responsible is that it is a very serious thing to accuse a person of causing a particular outcome on a personal level, IMO. I think we should have a better handle on this thing before we start wielding such implicit power in the name of making better people.

^couldn't have said it better myself [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lmao.gif[/img]

My main problem with the idea of free will is that I have yet to hear a coherent explanation (theoretical or practical) of the human causal mechanism. The only way humans could possibly have free will is for ideas to be able to manipulate the physical world.

I disagree. I think we are presented certain circumstances in the world and we have the free will in how to decide how to deal with them or approach them.

I know that life certainly FEELS like I make decisions that have consequences in the world. I'm just not sure how responsible MY DECISION is for the outcome in the world.

on a grand scale, maybe not much, but your decision likely impacts people around all the time (obviously, the more important the decision the more important the impact).

I can't figure out how to determine when my choice matters and when it doesn't,

If there is a choice to be made it always matters, even if it is only to you.

because I think we can agree that there is, at minimum, a spectrum of circumstances which afford us a range of freedom from nearly nil to almost total apparent freedom of choice. Some situations offer us 10 options, some situations offer us 2 options. Sometimes we irrationally limit ourselves. Where does that fit in?

Agreed. It fits in with you having the free will to choose any of the options or the free will to irrationally limit yourself based on whatever factors there may be (of course, then, is it really irrational if it's what you want?)

My problem with the assumption that we are always responsible is that it is a very serious thing to accuse a person of causing a particular outcome on a personal level, IMO. I think we should have a better handle on this thing before we start wielding such implicit power in the name of making better people.

Couldn't disagree more. If someone uses their free will to rape/murder someone, should we not hold them responsible for that personal outcome? Sometimes there are unintended consequences to be sure that are out of our control, and I don't know that we really hold people responsible for things that could not have been foreseen. However, I still don't view that as a destiny occurrence more than just an unforeseen consequence of a free-willed (is that a word?) decision.

I disagree. I think we are presented certain circumstances in the world and we have the free will in how to decide how to deal with them or approach them.

But how does the causal chain out in the world interact with the decision you are making? Are you saying the decision is ours and the entire decision tree leading up to the choice is ours to create as well? Externalities limit us, in the end, I think. We are only exposed to certain ideas. We can only fathom certain options. If all of our choices are limited in such ways, how is our "choice" ever meaningful?

on a grand scale, maybe not much, but your decision likely impacts people around all the time (obviously, the more important the decision the more important the impact).

If decisions don't matter much on a grand scale then why do we care so much on a personal level? Doesn't that seem objectively irrational? It just feels like the wrong path to me if we say...well, it doesn't matter much, but we're going to hold you personally responsible for it regardless. At the very least, it's cold and impersonal. At worst, it's utterly inhumane, IMO.

If there is a choice to be made it always matters, even if it is only to you.

How does a choice matter if it makes no practical difference in the outcome in the world? Are you saying that's not a real choice? More of a meaningless distinction? If so, I'm not sure how to predict where that line falls in any given situation. How do I tell when my choices don't mean anything?

Agreed. It fits in with you having the free will to choose any of the options or the free will to irrationally limit yourself based on whatever factors there may be (of course, then, is it really irrational if it's what you want?)

If something is purely irrational then I don't understand how someone can be responsible for their choice among the irrationally limited options.

Couldn't disagree more. If someone uses their free will to rape/murder someone, should we not hold them responsible for that personal outcome? Sometimes there are unintended consequences to be sure that are out of our control, and I don't know that we really hold people responsible for things that could not have been foreseen. However, I still don't view that as a destiny occurrence more than just an unforeseen consequence of a free-willed (is that a word?) decision.

If we don't understand how a person's free will causes real outcomes in the world (see my first question of this post) I'm not sure how we can assign personal responsibility in any meaningful, responsible way. I at least want an explanation of how an idea inherent in a person (it must be inherent in order to judge them personally, no?) can interact with the physical world in a causal way so that we can logically say the person should be held liable for the actual outcome.

we have 'vapor lock'

I click on a thread about recruiting, only to find you guys are going all Kierkegaard up on a brother. TSIFU!

"Free Will" in the religious sense is a cop out to explain why God lets bad things happen. I'm more of a "cause and effect" type of person.

I click on a thread about recruiting, only to find you guys are going all Kierkegaard up on a brother. TSIFU!

[img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lmao.gif[/img] Sorry, bud. Got a little wasted last night. Mondays can be a bitch.

But how does the causal chain out in the world interact with the decision you are making? Are you saying the decision is ours and the entire decision tree leading up to the choice is ours to create as well? Externalities limit us, in the end, I think. We are only exposed to certain ideas. We can only fathom certain options. If all of our choices are limited in such ways, how is our "choice" ever meaningful?

Who said the choice has to be "meaningful"? The argument, so far as I understand it, is that we have the free-will to make choices that affect the outcome of our day to day life and our life as a whole? I guess in that sense it is meaningful to you, regardless of how much/little it impacts the world as a whole.

If decisions don't matter much on a grand scale then why do we care so much on a personal level? Doesn't that seem objectively irrational? It just feels like the wrong path to me if we say...well, it doesn't matter much, but we're going to hold you personally responsible for it regardless. At the very least, it's cold and impersonal. At worst, it's utterly inhumane, IMO.

I don't think it's inhumane at all. Isn't it more inhumane to not hold people accountable and responsible for their actions? If you hold them responsible they are more likely (in theory) to choose options that will not only benefit them, but at a minimum will at least not hurt the world as a whole if not help it.

How does a choice matter if it makes no practical difference in the outcome in the world? Are you saying that's not a real choice? More of a meaningless distinction? If so, I'm not sure how to predict where that line falls in any given situation. How do I tell when my choices don't mean anything?

I'm saying the choice obviously matters to the person who has to make the choice, otherwise, it would be no real choice. Not every decision the President makes is going to affect the world (for instance, what to have for breakfast), and some will have a greater impact (whether or not to bomb Iran). Either way, a choice is made, and I believe it is a free-will to make either choice.

If something is purely irrational then I don't understand how someone can be responsible for their choice among the irrationally limited options.

You hold them accountable for irrationally limiting their options in the first place, they had the free will to or not to and chose to, thus, you can hold them accountable for a limited choice that they made limited.

If we don't understand how a person's free will causes real outcomes in the world (see my first question of this post) I'm not sure how we can assign personal responsibility in any meaningful, responsible way. I at least want an explanation of how an idea inherent in a person (it must be inherent in order to judge them personally, no?) can interact with the physical world in a causal way so that we can logically say the person should be held liable for the actual outcome.

I'm reading this question to be substantially similar to your first question and will defer to my response to it.

Who said the choice has to be "meaningful"? The argument, so far as I understand it, is that we have the free-will to make choices that affect the outcome of our day to day life and our life as a whole? I guess in that sense it is meaningful to you, regardless of how much/little it impacts the world as a whole.

What confuses me is the logical workings of the process by which your choice, a wholly internal and non-physical action (a thought action), can and does come about? Aren't you going to use personal value judgments in order to arrive at the choice? Where do those personal value judgments come from? If those value judgments are based on our experiential knowledge then they are severely limited, to the point that I doubt that true freedom of choice can exist.

Also, once the supposed free choice occurs, how can a purely thought action then manifest itself as physical action in the world? Thought actions and physical actions seem fundamentally different to me. I'm skeptical about assigning personal responsibility when the causal process is so confounding.

I don't think it's inhumane at all. Isn't it more inhumane to not hold people accountable and responsible for their actions? If you hold them responsible they are more likely (in theory) to choose options that will not only benefit them, but at a minimum will at least not hurt the world as a whole if not help it.

How can a lack of accountability be inhumane? You're saying people have an ethical duty to hold other people responsible for their actions? Does this extend to the personal level or does it apply only to the state?

I'm not sure punishment directly affects later outcomes in the world. It certainly has that ability, as when we kill a murderer or lock up a rapist for life the offender is made physically incapable of making the same choice again. However, I worry quite a bit about the personal devastation that can occur in a person's life as a result of a bad "choice" they made that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm saying the choice obviously matters to the person who has to make the choice, otherwise, it would be no real choice. Not every decision the President makes is going to affect the world (for instance, what to have for breakfast), and some will have a greater impact (whether or not to bomb Iran). Either way, a choice is made, and I believe it is a free-will to make either choice.

As long as we agree that the free-will proposition only makes sense if you believe it on faith, since it apparently cannot be proven logically. After all, assigning personal responsibility requires a belief that some mysterious part inside each person (or a mysterious aggregate of the whole person) is an actual cause of a real world effect. But what brought about the set of circumstances allowing such causation? Causal chains can't pop up out of literally nothing. And even if the choices people make do come from nothing and actually are free, why would we assign responsibility to the person when the choice apparently just occurred. If the person causes the choice, then all of the internal and external circumstances surrounding the person at the time of the choice are set in stone at the time of the choice. They all already exist. If they all already exist, how can any of them be different since they are already here, sitting in front of us blocking certain paths and leaving others open? Since none of the internal or external factors could be different at the time of the choice, how can we rationally assign responsibility?

You hold them accountable for irrationally limiting their options in the first place, they had the free will to or not to and chose to, thus, you can hold them accountable for a limited choice that they made limited.

I'm not sure how a person could ever control the irrational "choice" to limit their options. I guess you have more faith in humanity than I do [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lmao.gif[/img]