5* recruiting (debunked)

#151
#151
PMC2726 said:
I wish all 5*s could be Eric Berry. Every. Single. One.

Byrce Brown
James Banks
Kenny O'Neal
Walter Fisher
Brandon Jefferies
Chris Donald
Drew Richmond
Da'Rick Rogers
Nu'Keese
Cam Clear
LaMarcus Coker
Maurice Couch
Janzen Jackson
Demetrice Morley
Brent Vinson
Click to expand...
LaMarcus Coker... I thought he was gonna be an all time great.
 
#152
#152
99gator said:
Great. What are the odds your evaluation of all of those 2 and 3 stars are that good that you identify those guys instead of a bunch of scrubs?

My experience is the following.....

Florida's best seasons were when.....

Florida had strong recruiting classes with usually a #1 class thrown in there every three years or so.
Florida had the target on its back and didn't sneak up on anyone.
Everyone on Florida's schedule was jacked up to play Florida and the opponent consistently spoke of tearing down the goal posts.
Florida had 5 stars that were busts, but the 5 stars that panned out were All-SEC, All-American, won individual awards, were high draft picks and provided the difference between being a good team and being a champion.

Now, My guess is the same could be said of Tennessee
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point as well. I want to make it clear that there is nothing WRONG with a top 10 class or signing multiple 5* players. What Im trying to get through to a few on here is a 3* recruit is likely under evaluated by 247 if he happens to play on a bad team. You can take that same 3* and put him in a HS powerhouse program and all of a sudden he's a 4* or better yet hes no different of a player(seen it happen several times). You can't properly evaluate any player based on highlight film and camps. You also can't properly evaluate a player without considering his situation around him in the fall. The same can be said for blue chip players as well. Due to the school they play for they tend to get overrated a lot(not all). JG is a prime example of this. His stats were not 4* status but his school was a pretty good one. Now I've only seen highlights so it's hard to say he DIDN'T deserve his rank but the individual stats didn't look like most 4* qbs stats. Point is too many people put too much faith in 247 and not enough in the coaches that actually DO know how to evaluate and actually DO go to a game or 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#153
#153
bamawriter said:
Let's say the recruiting services do absolutely no research and simply hand out high ratings to highly-recruited players. Sure seems like it's produced fairly accurate results.
Click to expand...
They do research, it's just in no way comparable to coaches and team evaluators. If they were, guess where they would be working?

Now if I rated all of Clemson's recruits this year 4 and 5 stars, how good would you say I'd look 4 years from now?
It's really not that complicated, at least it shouldn't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#154
#154
chargervol said:
They do research, it's just in no way comparable to coaches and team evaluators. If they were, guess where they would be working?

Now if I rated all of Clemson's recruits this year 4 and 5 stars, how good would you say I'd look 4 years from now?
It's really not that complicated, at least it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

Like I said, can't argue with results. Though some sure try.
 
#155
#155
bamawriter said:
Like I said, can't argue with results. Though some sure try.
Click to expand...
I thought he raised a damn good point. If they are that good at evaluating on such limited information why are they not being scooped up by every college in the nation? I'd like to hear you and a few others answer that one. Js
 
#156
#156
1vol8 said:
I thought he raised a damn good point. If they are that good at evaluating on such limited information why are they not being scooped up by every college in the nation? I'd like to hear you and a few others answer that one. Js
Click to expand...

I know one of the guys that sold out of rivals and started 247. He makes way more money than he would as a non-coach scout for a college program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol
#157
#157
UTChicagoV said:
There are a few misunderstandings regarding recruiting rankings in this post that make it pointless to discuss.

1) Stars are not indicative of professional careers. They are indicative of readiness to contribute as a starter and impact in a college program. 247Sports Rating Explanation

2) The Blue Chip ratio has proven that you need to recruit more 4 & 5 star players to have *regular* success as a college program. Blue-Chip Ratio 2018: 13 teams have title-worthy recruiting

3) Basic math shows that HS players have a better shot at the NFL if they are 4 or 5 star players versus a 3 star or lower (ie., a higher proportion of 4 and 5 star players are drafted versus 3 star or lower). The NFL draft proves that recruiting rankings matter.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your work on this. It should be the end of the discussion but given the intelligence level on this site it won't be. Thanks again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mtnvol80
#159
#159
bamawriter said:
I know one of the guys that sold out of rivals and started 247. He makes way more money than he would as a non-coach scout for a college program.
Click to expand...
Yes, the owner does. What about the 99% that aren't the owners?
Oh, and the NFL has scouts also.
 
#160
#160
chargervol said:
Yes, the owner does. What about the 99% that aren't the owners?
Oh, and the NFL has scouts also.
Click to expand...

Without having seen anyone's paystub, I'm fairly certain that if you're a scout who isn't qualified to coach, your paycheck will be bigger at 247 than it would at a college program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol
#161
#161
munsterlander said:
No antagonism here, just find the "argument" interesting.

Seems like several separate issues are being mixed together. Some random thoughts:
  • Recruiting services get it wrong sometimes - agree, but citing a list of superstar misses isn't an effective way to characterize how often they get it wrong. That's cherry picking to make an argument.
  • And it would be an inductive fallacy, I think, to conclude that because superstar misses exist that we could successfully identify and assemble a team of them like your list. Who wouldn't like the roster you suggested? No way that ever happens. Maybe you get 1 or 2 like that.
  • So because the recruiting service get it wrong sometimes, we shouldn't be hung up on getting 5*s. Well - maybe. Again, it depends on how often they get it wrong. The data for Clemson and Bama suggest they get a bunch of them right.
  • But - does it really matter what a recruiting service says? (Beyond recruiting rankings, which, um, does that really matter either?) Are successful programs pursuing/getting 5 stars because of recruiting service assessments? Or do the recruiting services just tend to get a good percentage of the no-brainers correct but the theoretically far more knowledgeable coaches actually pay no attention whatsoever and make their own decisions? I know, I know - kinda conspiratorial - but I have to wonder if recruiting services really exist for any other reason than to keep fan(atic)s thinking about college sports all the time, paying subscriptions and allowing themselves to be targeted for ads.
I guess I'd say I trust some coaches more than recruiting services - the ones that are successful over the long-term. But I think for far more - coaches and services - it's a crap shoot. Numb nutz CBJ had good recruiting classes on paper, but they almost never seemed to pan out. And I hear the argument that it was lack of development, not talent identification. I suspect it was both. During his tenure, maybe 90% of the time I felt like there was a reason a players was "available" for UT to get. Some obvious exceptions. Blind squirrel.

And last comment - I've tried to prioritize technical issues, defects, system enhancements, evaluation criteria etc. for over 35 years. It is very hard to effectively prioritize a list of even 20-30 things. When I see rankings like 684th best player, I just laugh. Subjective assessments on top of subjective assessments, some bazaar scoring and calculation - I'm supposed to take that serious? And way more players don't get "thoroughly assessed" than do? Outta sight, outta mind - can't do the camps, you're screwed. The whole thing is just ridiculous nonsense.

I'd like to believe Pruitt and staff (especially conditioning) are significantly better than what we've had. I hope so. But it won't surprise me if we are still struggling for 7-8 win seasons the next few years.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting argument because both sides do have really good points. And no one seems to be getting too upset so that's a plus. The list of superstar misses wasn't intended to look like cherry picking. That's why I included the statement "this is just the probowl ". The fact that the list is so impressive of the CALIBER of players may be the reason it SEEMS cherry picked. But I respect your opinions overall
 
#164
#164
bamawriter said:
Their rankings are fairly predictive of what happens on the field, so I think they're fine.
Click to expand...
I was only messin with ya but that's not entirely true as I actually know a few and personally witnessed how political it actualy is. Let's just say there's a reason "The Opening" is closed to the public.
 
#169
#169
bamawriter said:
Ever seen what a non-coach player personnel guy makes at a college program? It's not like I'm speculating that the 247 scouts are pulling in millions.
Click to expand...
Then seriously. They really should come up with a better way. Tell your friend to come talk to us. We can help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#170
#170
1vol8 said:
#1 they watch highlights. You do realize that a kids highlights are built by the kid himself of only his best plays correct? They have 0 knowledge of how the kid plays throughout the game. A 4-5* rb can show highlights of a game where it looks like hes averaging over 7 yds if all you seen were highlights. If you were there you may know he got stuffed behind the line all night. Shows no vision, runs to darkness.
#2 yes they create camps and attend others. Those camps are simply about measurables and testing. Unless you're a qb in which it's that plus routes on air and possible 7 on 7. They do NOT however go to games. Not once have I EVER seen a rep from a recruiting service at a hs football game. IF that ever happens it'll only be for who THEY consider a 5* can't miss prospect.
Click to expand...
I have talked to regional scouts for rivals and scout over the years at games in the CSRA region of Ga and SC. Unlike coaches they dont stand out. They interviewed a couple of kids at a game I was at that had 3 D1 power 5 kids in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol
#173
#173
Smokeyone said:
I have talked to regional scouts for rivals and scout over the years at games in the CSRA region of Ga and SC. Unlike coaches they dont stand out. They interviewed a couple of kids at a game I was at that had 3 D1 power 5 kids in it.
Click to expand...
Ok. Rivals and scout. No one goes off of them. They all look at what 247 has to say. Which I obviously disagree with but hey....it is what it is.
 
#175
#175
CAVPUT said:
Making this more complex than it needs to be. These ratings are a business for Hubbs, 247 and ESPN. Boil it all down and you're left with the evaluation of this coaching staff vs guys like Hubbs, 247 and ESPN.

If Pruitt thinks he can win with a kid, I don't give a damn what "star" rating Hubbs and his ilk assign to a player especially when you consider the depth of the profile compiled by Pruitt and staff (built over several years of evaluation btw) vs that of 247, Rivals, etc.

3.5 mil per year vs $9.99 per month. I know whose opinion I'm going with.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Butch was paid millions too, as was Dooley, and many other staffs. This argument that they are paid highly, therefore are reeling in the best guys just doesn't (and can't) add up. Only so many talented kids, while there are dozens of million dollar staffs.

Though I think Pruitt is well known as an elite evaluator, so I am more inclined to roll with his takes.

That all said, the "trust the coaches" approach assumes just because we offered a kid and he committed, that makes him better than his ranking. The fact is we have offered 400+ kids. So, if we offered, let's say, 40 DBs and 1 lowly mid 3-star commits, some will say "trust the staff". But let's be real - what if that DB was 30th on our board of 40 DB prospects? When we are offering SO many kids, it becomes harder to accept trusting them every time.

And this has nothing to do with this staff - just pointing out how this argument may be flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol and WeeohdeeWood
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top