TNHopeful505
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 11,322
- Likes
- 20,032
LebVol just made an interesting point to me.
"How do we know that a 2* punter is not #2 recruit in the class by the coaches?"
You know, a LOT (90%) of VN's opinions on recruits, and whether or not we "want" them is based on what recruiting services tell us about them.
If you take away the recruiting services, we gain and we lose a lot of things.
Recruiting services in a way set a coach up for failure, or for success in many ways.
For instance, if a coach recruits a bunch of players that happen to be lower rated by a recruiting service, and wins with them, then he seems to be a great "developer of talent."
But if he signs the same guys, but they're rated highly by services, and he achieves the same record, then he's a disappointment.
Hence, by that standard, many times a recruiting service sets the benchmark for a coaches success or failure before the players even step on the field.
Let's face it, most of us want a kid because he's a "4-star" or "5-star" player. We may not have watched a second of film, and even if we do, we don't know what we're looking for. We're just looking at a string of clips that represent the best plays a recruit has against competition that may or may not be stiff. And that recruit may have had a terrible game, and 49 out of 50 plays he wasn't even a factor, but the one play he was is on a tape.
However, many times, the recruiting services are fairly accurate in determining the skill of a player. But they have also proven to "miss" a player. The safety for them is that if they "overrank" a player, then he's a bust, and it's not their fault, and if they "underrank" a player, then he is a surprise, and they can just say he came out of nowhere. Either way, they can just seemingly arbitrarily rank a player and get away with it.
My question to you, VN, is do you think that the sport of College Football is better with recruiting services like Rivals, Scout and 247? Or would it be better without it?
I'm personally beginning to think that the sport would be better without it. Here's why:
1. Perceptions of who a coach is as a recruiter would not be determined until 3-4 years after a kid signs.
2. Recruiting services create pressure on coaching staffs, that they must sign a "top" class by the services standards, else the fanbase be displeased. This would be done away with if recruiting services were done away with.
3. Because of this pressure, coaches are often felt led to compromise standards, and even violate rules, in order to land a player who is highly ranked. Face it, when do you see the rules broken for a 2*? Or even a 3*? Would we be in the mess we are in now if Kiffin wasn't trying so hard to land "highly ranked" players?
4. Fans are often times turned towards or against a player simply because of their "ratings." I think Cody Blanc and Devrin Young were two examples of that. Kids took beatings on VN, that I doubt they would have received if they were 4* players. Likewise, other players like Chris Donald or Kenny O'Neal are heralded busts, because their ratings that were assigned to them did not match their transition to college. However, nobody would have been surprised had they been 2* players.
5. Fans develop a opinion on a player based on ratings, highlight reels and camps like the Opening, instead of focusing on whole games, in-person evaluations, and whole season footage. This leads to us thinking that we know better than coaches, and that they aren't making the "right" decisions. For instance, most of us are outraged that Kiffin let Tajh Boyd, Bryce Petty and Cam Newton go NOW, but nobody was then. But how do we know that that wasn't the best decision at the time? How could we know? Do you really think that if Kiffin knew what he was turning away that he would have? (Don't answer that).
What think you, VN? Rivals, Scout, 247...good for the college game? Definitely good for discussion, publicity, perception and hype. But good for the game in general? Or would you rather see them done away with, and force coaches to be better talent evaluators, and force fans to trust them more?
"How do we know that a 2* punter is not #2 recruit in the class by the coaches?"
You know, a LOT (90%) of VN's opinions on recruits, and whether or not we "want" them is based on what recruiting services tell us about them.
If you take away the recruiting services, we gain and we lose a lot of things.
Recruiting services in a way set a coach up for failure, or for success in many ways.
For instance, if a coach recruits a bunch of players that happen to be lower rated by a recruiting service, and wins with them, then he seems to be a great "developer of talent."
But if he signs the same guys, but they're rated highly by services, and he achieves the same record, then he's a disappointment.
Hence, by that standard, many times a recruiting service sets the benchmark for a coaches success or failure before the players even step on the field.
Let's face it, most of us want a kid because he's a "4-star" or "5-star" player. We may not have watched a second of film, and even if we do, we don't know what we're looking for. We're just looking at a string of clips that represent the best plays a recruit has against competition that may or may not be stiff. And that recruit may have had a terrible game, and 49 out of 50 plays he wasn't even a factor, but the one play he was is on a tape.
However, many times, the recruiting services are fairly accurate in determining the skill of a player. But they have also proven to "miss" a player. The safety for them is that if they "overrank" a player, then he's a bust, and it's not their fault, and if they "underrank" a player, then he is a surprise, and they can just say he came out of nowhere. Either way, they can just seemingly arbitrarily rank a player and get away with it.
My question to you, VN, is do you think that the sport of College Football is better with recruiting services like Rivals, Scout and 247? Or would it be better without it?
I'm personally beginning to think that the sport would be better without it. Here's why:
1. Perceptions of who a coach is as a recruiter would not be determined until 3-4 years after a kid signs.
2. Recruiting services create pressure on coaching staffs, that they must sign a "top" class by the services standards, else the fanbase be displeased. This would be done away with if recruiting services were done away with.
3. Because of this pressure, coaches are often felt led to compromise standards, and even violate rules, in order to land a player who is highly ranked. Face it, when do you see the rules broken for a 2*? Or even a 3*? Would we be in the mess we are in now if Kiffin wasn't trying so hard to land "highly ranked" players?
4. Fans are often times turned towards or against a player simply because of their "ratings." I think Cody Blanc and Devrin Young were two examples of that. Kids took beatings on VN, that I doubt they would have received if they were 4* players. Likewise, other players like Chris Donald or Kenny O'Neal are heralded busts, because their ratings that were assigned to them did not match their transition to college. However, nobody would have been surprised had they been 2* players.
5. Fans develop a opinion on a player based on ratings, highlight reels and camps like the Opening, instead of focusing on whole games, in-person evaluations, and whole season footage. This leads to us thinking that we know better than coaches, and that they aren't making the "right" decisions. For instance, most of us are outraged that Kiffin let Tajh Boyd, Bryce Petty and Cam Newton go NOW, but nobody was then. But how do we know that that wasn't the best decision at the time? How could we know? Do you really think that if Kiffin knew what he was turning away that he would have? (Don't answer that).
What think you, VN? Rivals, Scout, 247...good for the college game? Definitely good for discussion, publicity, perception and hype. But good for the game in general? Or would you rather see them done away with, and force coaches to be better talent evaluators, and force fans to trust them more?
