Do Recruiting Services Help or Hurt a Fanbase?

#1
TNHopeful505

TNHopeful505

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,601
Likes
20,978
#1
Just wondering what you all think.

Would our perception of our coaching staff and program be better or worse if the recruiting services like Rivals or Scout didn't exist?

I realize that what happens on the field is most important, but never the less, it does seem that players are hyped and coaches are evaluated by the amount of "stars" that they bring in.

Do you think it is good or bad for college football programs and coaches that we as fans rely so heavily on these services to "evaluate" how our staff is recruiting?

Just thought it was an interesting discussion for the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
I believe recruiting services are more for the casual fan. I put very little merit into stars. I judge recruits off of their highlights, stats, etc.

Most fans would be absolutely lost without the stars next to a recruits name. So I think it provides a little awareness for most fans, people that wouldn't have knowledge otherwise, in regard to recruiting.

Edit: I think overall recruiting services are good. Obviously, those rankings should be taken lightly... Just look at UT's "elite" classes in the past.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
It gives us fans something to discuss in the off season. It is exciting to me.

We could be like Texas, pulling in big name recruits and STILL losing ballgames.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5
#5
AbarVolfan15 said:
This is the softest thread ever.
Click to expand...

I am highly bored. I'm giving an exam to high schoolers (I'm a teacher), passing time.

I just think it is interesting that we put so much stock into the services, and we determine a lot of a coaches success at recruiting based on them.

Just wondering if it's a good thing in most opinions, or if it does more harm than help, both in hyping prospects, and creating a "view" of a coach as a recruiter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
It would be more helpful if fans knew what the stars actually mean. They see 3* and automatically assume the player sucks. When in reality, the definition means that service thinks that particular player will be good in college and have a good chance to make it to the pros. Matter of fact, the only difference between the 3's and 4's is where they rank as a number.

It is all in how you use the system. For some, it is the end all be all and that's what hurts.
 
#7
#7
People need to chill on letting the "stars" get them all bent out of shape.

Recruiting services are just that, services. In the end they want to sell magazines and internet subscriptions. Truth.
 
#8
#8
UTFanForLife said:
It would be more helpful if fans knew what the stars actually mean. They see 3* and automatically assume the player sucks. When in reality, the definition means that service thinks that particular player will be good in college and have a good chance to make it to the pros. Matter of fact, the only difference between the 3's and 4's is where they rank as a number.

It is all in how you use the system. For some, it is the end all be all and that's what hurts.
Click to expand...

That's true. Many people think that if you aint a 4 or 5* you ain't nobody.

Of course, many great players would disagree with that.

I just think many people put too much stock in it.

If Butch Jones doesn't land a top 50 class this year, people would be insanely upset. But at the same time, if Butch Jones takes that #51 class and has evaluated that talent and makes them fit in his system perfectly, and wins with them, then isn't he a great recruiter?

I just don't know how great it is for the fanbase that we put so much into the services. But at the same time, it is good to get an IDEA of the outside opinion of the talent level of the players.
 
#9
#9
TNHopeful505 said:
Just wondering what you all think.

Would our perception of our coaching staff and program be better or worse if the recruiting services like Rivals or Scout didn't exist?

I realize that what happens on the field is most important, but never the less, it does seem that players are hyped and coaches are evaluated by the amount of "stars" that they bring in.

Do you think it is good or bad for college football programs and coaches that we as fans rely so heavily on these services to "evaluate" how our staff is recruiting?

Just thought it was an interesting discussion for the day.
Click to expand...
What people need to realize is that these recruiting services love this constant attention from fan bases. It's a business. It gives fans something to follow outside of football saturdays. I promise you, coaches o not look to recruiting services to find the players that they recruit. You can take that to the bank. Way too many fans get caught up in the "star gazing" game that makes these recruiting services big bucks!
 
#11
#11
TNHopeful505 said:
That's true. Many people think that if you aint a 4 or 5* you ain't nobody.

Of course, many great players would disagree with that.

I just think many people put too much stock in it.

If Butch Jones doesn't land a top 50 class this year, people would be insanely upset. But at the same time, if Butch Jones takes that #51 class and has evaluated that talent and makes them fit in his system perfectly, and wins with them, then isn't he a great recruiter?

I just don't know how great it is for the fanbase that we put so much into the services. But at the same time, it is good to get an IDEA of the outside opinion of the talent level of the players.
Click to expand...

We definitely want the 4's and 5's, but to dismiss the 3's always cracks me up. There really can't be much difference in a 5.7 3* and a 5.8 4*.

Plus, you have to consider the bias these services play. It's a human doing these evals, and they have certain affiliations. That's why you have some 4*s be 5*s on a different site. So the player isn't elite if I'm looking on ESPN, but is a superstar if I look on rivals. D. Green is a good example of this
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
TNHopeful505 said:
I am highly bored. I'm giving an exam to high schoolers (I'm a teacher), passing time.

I just think it is interesting that we put so much stock into the services, and we determine a lot of a coaches success at recruiting based on them.

Just wondering if it's a good thing in most opinions, or if it does more harm than help, both in hyping prospects, and creating a "view" of a coach as a recruiter.
Click to expand...

Keep your eye out for the little boogers peeking around and for crip notes on their inner wrists.:p
 
#14
#14
What is crazy is that probably only 50-60% of the high school football players get evaluated. Some do not for a reason, but sometimes a player only gets evaluated after he has committed. The rankings are sometimes biased, because I have seen on several occassions a 2* kid, get an offer from a major school and immediately become a 3*. And have also seen the opposite. I think these services are a good foundation, but there is too much inconsistensy (form service to service) for it to be taken too seriously...
 
#15
#15
how can you judge the best running back in the state if you not seen them all.sometimes it has to do with the high school coach not getting them out there.just look up the name contrez mccathern from mount juliet tennessee. son played with him 3 yrs graduates this year.and for you number guys runs 4.5 in 40 benches 350 squats 500 and had super numbers per carry over 1500 yds this yr and 20 td and team used 3 backs 1 had 1000 and the other 500 check him out and let me know
 
#16
#16
catchnburn said:
It gives us fans something to discuss in the off season. It is exciting to me.

We could be like Texas, pulling in big name recruits and STILL losing ballgames.
Click to expand...

Or you could be like Alabama and win national championships with these big recruits
 
#18
#18
The recruiting services are useful at times to fans but are often skewed by people looking at "who offered" or relying on one service and ignoring the others. The recruiting services also go soft on updating some players who are definitely a "hard" commit with no chance of a decommit. Case in point, UT commit Brett Kendrick. He is rated as a low 3* with only two offers, UT and Arky. No other teams bothered to offer as Kendrick is from Knoxville and is obviously a Vols fan. He will likely be a high 3* or low 4* when final ratings are done but the services see no need to scout him further at this point. Some fans will obviously be disappointed at taking a low 3* OL recruit even though he is better than that in actuality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
The only issue I see is when the sites favor a team or teams. UA, OSU, FSU, ND, etc get a lot of love right now. So when they right up an article about a recruit that does not have a leader(early in the process) they only list the schools that happen to be the top schools in the BCS. Which always makes it sound like the top players are only considering certian schools. But many times they are considering other schools.

Yes as a UA fan currently it is great to egt the constant free plugs on ESPN and these sites. But to be honest they create a lot of bias and I think hurt the image of some schools to act as if they are not even recruiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
VOLinthaATL said:
Recruiting services are just that, services. In the end they want to sell magazines and internet subscriptions. Truth.
Click to expand...

Ah... It's a profit deal. Get your stars guessed right here! Only a buck! Actual live star guessing! Take a chance and win some crap!
 
#22
#22
UTFanForLife said:
We definitely want the 4's and 5's, but to dismiss the 3's always cracks me up. There really can't be much difference in a 5.7 3* and a 5.8 4*.

Plus, you have to consider the bias these services play. It's a human doing these evals, and they have certain affiliations. That's why you have some 4*s be 5*s on a different site. So the player isn't elite if I'm looking on ESPN, but is a superstar if I look on rivals. D. Green is a good example of this
Click to expand...

I think a lot of what goes into these ratings are scholly offers, and big name schools help this, they also are biased as to who is "big name".
 
#23
#23
CMcEver said:
I think a lot of what goes into these ratings are scholly offers, and big name schools help this, they also are biased as to who is "big name".
Click to expand...

I can tell you that if you are playing in an allstar game that a certain recruiting site sponsers, you will be rated higher on that site. Case in point, Derrick Green.

Rivals - #1 RB, #14 nationally; 5*

ESPN - #5 RB, #41 ranked nationally; 4*

Scout - #2 RB, #14 nationally; 5*

247 - #11 RB, #141 nationally; 4*

He is going to be playing in the Army All American Game; who Rivals just happens to make selections for.

This is the problem I have with recruiting sites and the star system. There is obviously a bias here, as there is a big discrepency between the different sites. Most won't deny that Derrick Green is a beast and a great running back; but if I were to go by 247 there are 10 other RBs that are better, if I go by rivals we just landed the best running back in the land.
 
#24
#24
Stars don't mean much when we are pulling 3* players. However, you don't see the top 10 teams in the country dipping into the 2 and 3* barrel. You can make a list of low star players that have been all pro nfl players but you can make twice the list with high star players. don't kid yourself.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top