Gabe Jeudy-Lally to UT

KTrain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
143
Likes
147
With him playing with Pili at BYU is a plus if they both become starters
Him being very smart recruited by every IVY League school is a Plus.
Our DB's minus Flowers bring back a ton of experience some sketchy but if they take next step a plus.
I look for our DBs to take a positive step and even our whole D as a better all around unit.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
Sure, but Morgantown State isn’t beating anyone of significance. You have to look at the wider picture. UGA, Bama, OSU. Those schools are recruiting the best based on stars and guess what? Their records support it.
Your claim has to be validated not just for 3 teams but across ALL teams. It is WAY too easy to just copy recruiting work of four or 5 programs that prove they have an eye for talent. There should be a very consistent correlation between the composite recruit rankings and winning/rankings. You might expect an anomaly here and there due to great or bad coaching... but it should be relatively predictive. It isn't.

2022 College Football Team Talent Composite


Someone mentioned A&M and how good their class was last year. Other than that class, they didn’t have much and they were one of the youngest teams in the SEC. I wouldn’t be surprised if they bounce back.
According to the list above they were the 4th most talented team in the country. That wasn't just the product of one class. From 2019 through 2022, they were ranked 4th, 6th, 8th, and 1st. We also aren't talking about a team that won a disappointing 8 games. They had a losing record. Unless there were several busts in those other 3 classes... they should have been MUCH better just on talent alone.

The NFL will find the talent and you're always going to have Terrell Owens type players who are late bloomers. QB seems to be one area where rankings don’t hold up.
Not all of those players are "late bloomers". They're just players who for various reasons the recruiting sites didn't like very much. Tillman is instructive. He was rated 2*. That's important because it indicates that the recruiting sites DID know about him. A 3 star rating is almost default if a P-5 school offers and especially an SEC school. They evaluated Tillman and decided he sucked. It wasn't just development either. He was big and relatively fast when signed.

It is also important to note here that the recruiting sites ALL hedge here. They limit the number of 4/5* ratings they hand out which should make it easier to not miss. Yet each year we see a LOT of 4* players who aren't very good.

This is what makes the transfer portal so interesting. Those developmental players can now transfer into a P5 program, or to a better P5 program. Sucks for the schools that invest in developing them.
LOL. It isn't just developmental players. It is players who had the talent all along and for whatever reason didn't get noticed. Some guys grow into themselves after HS. But that's not the majority of this "leveling".

This is where I was hoping UT would go for a DB in the portal. Has to be some blooming corner prospects out there.
Recruiting is speculative. The recruit rankings are speculative. The value of the portal is that you have a much more known commodity.

Something many don't appear to understand also is that programs are using the portal to purge their rosters. There was a lot more pressure before not to pull a guy's scholarship if they turned out not to be as good as projected. It really screwed the player over if you did it since they had to sit out even if they found a destination. Now if they're good enough they'll be picked up by someone.

Almost all of the guys UT has lost over the last two years have signed down to a lower level schools. It is very, very likely that most of them got nudged toward the portal.
 

WaywardVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2022
Messages
106
Likes
126
Your claim has to be validated not just for 3 teams but across ALL teams. It is WAY too easy to just copy recruiting work of four or 5 programs that prove they have an eye for talent. There should be a very consistent correlation between the composite recruit rankings and winning/rankings. You might expect an anomaly here and there due to great or bad coaching... but it should be relatively predictive. It isn't.

2022 College Football Team Talent Composite


According to the list above they were the 4th most talented team in the country. That wasn't just the product of one class. From 2019 through 2022, they were ranked 4th, 6th, 8th, and 1st. We also aren't talking about a team that won a disappointing 8 games. They had a losing record. Unless there were several busts in those other 3 classes... they should have been MUCH better just on talent alone.

Not all of those players are "late bloomers". They're just players who for various reasons the recruiting sites didn't like very much. Tillman is instructive. He was rated 2*. That's important because it indicates that the recruiting sites DID know about him. A 3 star rating is almost default if a P-5 school offers and especially an SEC school. They evaluated Tillman and decided he sucked. It wasn't just development either. He was big and relatively fast when signed.

It is also important to note here that the recruiting sites ALL hedge here. They limit the number of 4/5* ratings they hand out which should make it easier to not miss. Yet each year we see a LOT of 4* players who aren't very good.

LOL. It isn't just developmental players. It is players who had the talent all along and for whatever reason didn't get noticed. Some guys grow into themselves after HS. But that's not the majority of this "leveling".


Recruiting is speculative. The recruit rankings are speculative. The value of the portal is that you have a much more known commodity.

Something many don't appear to understand also is that programs are using the portal to purge their rosters. There was a lot more pressure before not to pull a guy's scholarship if they turned out not to be as good as projected. It really screwed the player over if you did it since they had to sit out even if they found a destination. Now if they're good enough they'll be picked up by someone.

Almost all of the guys UT has lost over the last two years have signed down to a lower level schools. It is very, very likely that most of them got nudged toward the portal.
That’s a lot of effort typing. Consistency in high level recruiting is the common denominator in sustained success. A&M has had one phenomenal class. Plus, they are the outlier. You could look beyond those three teams and youre still going to see the same thing. Consistent high level recruiting is going to get results. Talent absolutely matters and to say otherwise is borderline derangement. Using examples of one off players from some directional school ignores that they’re 80+ players on a roster. Yes, the NFL is full of those players because they don’t give a rip where your team finished. We do care where our team finishes, and so we’d rather win 11 games than have 1 player off a team of 88 make in the pros.

Recruiting is speculative, but not blind speculation as you are trying to make it seem. You don’t know how a guy is going to do if his girlfriend breaks up with him. But with all the camps, and resources for evaluation, there’s a lot you do know. That’s why the top schools end up competing for the same players. Sure, there’s missed, but there are also your Tee Higgins type players. Those players and their rankings matter, and missing out in those is big part of the reason UT stunk for so long. I’d like to see how far you’d follow your logic if I was to get in here and say we shouldn’t recruit Nico because rankings don’t matter, Or that Gaston Moore should be ahead of Nico for reps in the spring because rankings don’t matter. Bull crap.

Re: Tillman. His college performance proved he was a late bloomer. How many catches in his first two years? The fact was, he wasn’t that good coming out of high school. You have busts and bloomers, but if we’re comparing averages, there’s a reason UGA, Bama and OSU are consistently in the top 5.
 
Last edited:

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
That’s a lot of effort typing. Consistency in high level recruiting is the common denominator in sustained success.
That's obviously true. What is not so obviously true is that you can say a program has done that simply because they've signed a bunch of 4/5* as rated by a bunch of journalists.

A&M has had one phenomenal class. Plus, they are the outlier. You could look beyond those three teams and youre still going to see the same thing. Consistent high level recruiting is going to get results. Talent absolutely matters and to say otherwise is borderline derangement. Using examples of one off players from some directional school ignores that they’re 80+ players on a roster. Yes, the NFL is full of those players because they don’t give a rip where your team finished. We do care where our team finishes, and so we’d rather win 11 games than have 1 player off a team of 88 make in the pros.
All of that is objectively, factually false. Did you look at the link I gave you?

I wouldn't argue against Bama, UGA, and OSU consistently getting a lot of talent of late. Probably not Clemson. Texas has averaged a top 10 class since 2019 and was a mediocre 8 win team. OU avgs about 10th and was 6-7. Miami, Auburn, UF, Stanford, and Nebraska in addition to OU make a total of 6 teams with supposed top 25 talent that couldn't even manage a winning record in 2022.

If you are going to use the wins of a handful of programs to claim accuracy then you cannot ignore the losses of others.

Recruiting is speculative, but not blind speculation as you are trying to make it seem.
I didn't say it is. I didn't even say the recruiting sites miss all of the time. They don't. I'm simply saying that they aren't as accurate as some of you think.

You don’t know how a guy is going to do if his girlfriend breaks up with him. But with all the camps, and resources for evaluation, there’s a lot you do know. That’s why the top schools end up competing for the same players. Sure, there’s missed, but there are also your Tee Higgins type players. Those players and their rankings matter, and missing out in those is big part of the reason UT stunk for so long. I’d like to see how far you’d follow your logic if I was to get in here and say we shouldn’t recruit Nico because rankings don’t matter, Or that Gaston Moore should be ahead of Nico for reps in the spring because rankings don’t matter. Bull crap.
Well, I would say you should recruit Nico whether he had 5* or 2* if you believe in his talent.

Most major programs use actual recruiting consultants and have for many years. Those companies make in depth evaluations for a fee. They make their money by being accurate. That's very likely a portion of why you saw UT go after someone like Luttrell and never wavering in spite of him not getting "love" from others. The "best" recruiters will usually discover players before the recruiting sites. Leacock makes a decent example. He was a 3* and there was some handwringing here when UT recruited him and took his commitment. The Vols saw an overlooked talent. He exploded during his Sr year and jumped Tate who many here were drooling over.
 

WaywardVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2022
Messages
106
Likes
126
That's obviously true. What is not so obviously true is that you can say a program has done that simply because they've signed a bunch of 4/5* as rated by a bunch of journalists.

All of that is objectively, factually false. Did you look at the link I gave you?

I wouldn't argue against Bama, UGA, and OSU consistently getting a lot of talent of late. Probably not Clemson. Texas has averaged a top 10 class since 2019 and was a mediocre 8 win team. OU avgs about 10th and was 6-7. Miami, Auburn, UF, Stanford, and Nebraska in addition to OU make a total of 6 teams with supposed top 25 talent that couldn't even manage a winning record in 2022.

If you are going to use the wins of a handful of programs to claim accuracy then you cannot ignore the losses of others.

I didn't say it is. I didn't even say the recruiting sites miss all of the time. They don't. I'm simply saying that they aren't as accurate as some of you think.



Well, I would say you should recruit Nico whether he had 5* or 2* if you believe in his talent.

Most major programs use actual recruiting consultants and have for many years. Those companies make in depth evaluations for a fee. They make their money by being accurate. That's very likely a portion of why you saw UT go after someone like Luttrell and never wavering in spite of him not getting "love" from others. The "best" recruiters will usually discover players before the recruiting sites. Leacock makes a decent example. He was a 3* and there was some handwringing here when UT recruited him and took his commitment. The Vols saw an overlooked talent. He exploded during his Sr year and jumped Tate who many here were drooling over.
And those journalists pay attention to those things. Not hard to follow who gets invited to what camps, who gets offers, and who doesn’t.
If the recruiting sites are faulty then what about the schools that recruit those players, who hire the so called recruiting experts?

Sorry, but your logic isn’t following here. Consistent recruiting at a high level (based on those No nothing journalists) is still the best predictor of success. If you honestly think Heup isn’t out there trying to get top rated recruits you’ve lost your mind.
 

LittleVol

Of course I can help you, Coach Heupel.
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
17,057
Likes
27,648
I know a lot of people don't like Hadden, because he's always yapping. But he's not the worst we've ever had. Not even last year.
Pretty decent in open field tackling. Injured way too much tho.

The addition of Matthews and Gibson are huge. That's the storyline imo.

Need Turnage to step up.

I think they will make some other guys go into the portal after spring.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
And those journalists pay attention to those things. Not hard to follow who gets invited to what camps, who gets offers, and who doesn’t.
And it isn't hard to recognize how many 4/5* players do not play up to that billing and how many 3* and below players outperform theirs.

If the recruiting sites are faulty then what about the schools that recruit those players, who hire the so called recruiting experts?
Not sure what your question is since one of my main arguments against getting wrapped up in the recruiting sites is that they tend to copy the work of successful coaches to make themselves appear more accurate than they would be otherwise. Maybe consider it like this. If commitments were all silent then how much less or more accurate would the star ratings be?

As it is, if you take 4/5* players as a group they make up around 40% of any draft. About 20% or so of 4* players get drafted. That's another way of saying that they miss a lot more talented players than they identify.

If I am jaded on the ratings it is from watching the last 20 years or so of UT doing a LOT better on NSD than on game day. There have just been too many guys like Kenny O'Neal or Chris Donald that we've all jumped up and down about... who simply weren't very good.

Sorry, but your logic isn’t following here. Consistent recruiting at a high level (based on those No nothing journalists) is still the best predictor of success.
I gave you six teams that supposedly have top 25 talent than had losing records this year. If they were the "best predictor" of success then that would NEVER happen. One quarter of the supposed most talented teams in the country could not manage a winning record. That "logic" is pretty much unassailable.

The "point" some of you try to make about the top 4 or 5 teams winning championships is as valid as saying that the five wealthiest people in the world have a lot of money. You are claiming that a TRAILING indicator makes the recruiting site evaluations "predictive".

If you honestly think Heup isn’t out there trying to get top rated recruits you’ve lost your mind.
If you think he is trying to get top RATED recruits then you aren't paying attention. For that matter, Saban, Smart, Day, et al aren't checking with 247 or On3 before deciding whether to offer a player or not either. ALL coaches are trying to find top (omit rated) talent. They're trying to find guys they can win with... and if they're "underrated" then all the better.
 
Likes: butchna

WaywardVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2022
Messages
106
Likes
126
And it isn't hard to recognize how many 4/5* players do not play up to that billing and how many 3* and below players outperform theirs.

Not sure what your question is since one of my main arguments against getting wrapped up in the recruiting sites is that they tend to copy the work of successful coaches to make themselves appear more accurate than they would be otherwise. Maybe consider it like this. If commitments were all silent then how much less or more accurate would the star ratings be?

As it is, if you take 4/5* players as a group they make up around 40% of any draft. About 20% or so of 4* players get drafted. That's another way of saying that they miss a lot more talented players than they identify.

If I am jaded on the ratings it is from watching the last 20 years or so of UT doing a LOT better on NSD than on game day. There have just been too many guys like Kenny O'Neal or Chris Donald that we've all jumped up and down about... who simply weren't very good.

I gave you six teams that supposedly have top 25 talent than had losing records this year. If they were the "best predictor" of success then that would NEVER happen. One quarter of the supposed most talented teams in the country could not manage a winning record. That "logic" is pretty much unassailable.

The "point" some of you try to make about the top 4 or 5 teams winning championships is as valid as saying that the five wealthiest people in the world have a lot of money. You are claiming that a TRAILING indicator makes the recruiting site evaluations "predictive".


If you think he is trying to get top RATED recruits then you aren't paying attention. For that matter, Saban, Smart, Day, et al aren't checking with 247 or On3 before deciding whether to offer a player or not either. ALL coaches are trying to find top (omit rated) talent. They're trying to find guys they can win with... and if they're "underrated" then all the better.
I’m well aware of the stats. The fact remains, these schools who consistently recruit at a high level have the most success. The wash out rate of 5 stars doesn’t change that. The distribution of star rankings in the NFL doesn’t change that. It only holds that you’d see a lot of lower ranked players because there are very few players ranked as 5-stars each year, and an exponentially larger number of 2 and 3 star. For example 247 only gave a 5 star ranking to 34 recruits in 2022. That number constitutes only 1 round of the draft. So, sure, half of those may not pan out, but more than 90% of 3 star recruits never make in the NFL, and the 10% who do comprise significantly more players than the 34 5 star recruits. You are distorting to actual stats to fit your narrative.

Coaches checking with a recruiting service is a straw man argument, and not one I made. But, you better believe that the recruiting landscape and evaluation process is lot more detailed than it was when Lemming was the only game in town. The major camps and invitationals are evidence. The fact is that Bama, UGA and OSU are the most consistent recruiting teams based on recruiting rankings. I could give a rip about the chicken/egg aspect of this.

My point is simple, the teams that consistently rank in the top 5 in recruiting, get the best results over time.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
I’m well aware of the stats. The fact remains, these schools who consistently recruit at a high level have the most success.
Good grief. Really? Saying that Bama, UGA, and OSU are signing talented players is the equivalent of saying water is wet. It DOES NOT PROVE that the recruiting sites are accurate at evaluating talent. You are IGNORING the whole set of data... even the overwhelming portion of the data.

The wash out rate of 5 stars doesn’t change that.
So basically anything that undermines your faith in the accuracy of the recruiting site's evaluations... doesn't matter? Gotcha.

The distribution of star rankings in the NFL doesn’t change that. It only holds that you’d see a lot of lower ranked players because there are very few players ranked as 5-stars each year, and an exponentially larger number of 2 and 3 star. For example 247 only gave a 5 star ranking to 34 recruits in 2022. That number constitutes only 1 round of the draft. So, sure, half of those may not pan out, but more than 90% of 3 star recruits never make in the NFL, and the 10% who do comprise significantly more players than the 34 5 star recruits. You are distorting to actual stats to fit your narrative.
LOL. Seriously? Over 400 players receive 4/5* each class. So that should give them MORE than enough opportunities to identify more than around 100 future draftees.

Giving a kid 3* essentially means they've acknowledged that they got some FBS offers. Do you REALLY think the recruiting sites evaluate all of those players? So saying "a low % get drafted" means absolutely nothing. Actually less than nothing.

YOU are the one IGNORING the stats to cling to your narrative.

And the funny part of this is... the recruiting sites are NOT paid to be accurate. They're paid to get subscriptions and clicks. They only have to be accurate enough to dupe people into believing they're "accurate".

Coaches checking with a recruiting service is a straw man argument, and not one I made.
It is implicit in the argument you CONTINUE to make that somehow good recruiting follows recruit ratings. Again, if there were no public commitments until after the final "rankings" were put out... the recruiting sites would be MUCH less accurate. If those sites did not exist... Bama, UGA, and OSU would STILL get talented players.

But, you better believe that the recruiting landscape and evaluation process is lot more detailed than it was when Lemming was the only game in town. The major camps and invitationals are evidence. The fact is that Bama, UGA and OSU are the most consistent recruiting teams based on recruiting rankings. I could give a rip about the chicken/egg aspect of this.
LOL... right because it blows up your narrative that these teams are winning championships because they're getting "highly rated classes".

My point is simple, the teams that consistently rank in the top 5 in recruiting, get the best results over time.
If there is a cause-effect relationship there then it is the recruiting sites feeding off what successful programs do... They are not independently evaluating players as you suggest. And you cannot simply take a handful of teams and claim the recruiting sites are "accurate" when they FAIL so badly beyond those few teams.
 
Likes: butchna

DaddyChad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
21,261
Likes
28,297
Sure, but Morgantown State isn’t beating anyone of significance. You have to look at the wider picture. UGA, Bama, OSU. Those schools are recruiting the best based on stars and guess what? Their records support it.
Someone mentioned A&M and how good their class was last year. Other than that class, they didn’t have much and they were one of the youngest teams in the SEC. I wouldn’t be surprised if they bounce back.

The NFL will find the talent and you're always going to have Terrell Owens type players who are late bloomers. QB seems to be one area where rankings don’t hold up.

This is what makes the transfer portal so interesting. Those developmental players can now transfer into a P5 program, or to a better P5 program. Sucks for the schools that invest in developing them.

This is where I was hoping UT would go for a DB in the portal. Has to be some blooming corner prospects out there.
I would be surprised if A&M bounced back. How many have hit the portal from that program already? Jimbo is a sleezebag that I didn’t think could get much sleezier then he brings in Petrino. 😂
 

WaywardVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2022
Messages
106
Likes
126
Good grief. Really? Saying that Bama, UGA, and OSU are signing talented players is the equivalent of saying water is wet. It DOES NOT PROVE that the recruiting sites are accurate at evaluating talent. You are IGNORING the whole set of data... even the overwhelming portion of the data.

So basically anything that undermines your faith in the accuracy of the recruiting site's evaluations... doesn't matter? Gotcha.

LOL. Seriously? Over 400 players receive 4/5* each class. So that should give them MORE than enough opportunities to identify more than around 100 future draftees.

Giving a kid 3* essentially means they've acknowledged that they got some FBS offers. Do you REALLY think the recruiting sites evaluate all of those players? So saying "a low % get drafted" means absolutely nothing. Actually less than nothing.

YOU are the one IGNORING the stats to cling to your narrative.

And the funny part of this is... the recruiting sites are NOT paid to be accurate. They're paid to get subscriptions and clicks. They only have to be accurate enough to dupe people into believing they're "accurate".

It is implicit in the argument you CONTINUE to make that somehow good recruiting follows recruit ratings. Again, if there were no public commitments until after the final "rankings" were put out... the recruiting sites would be MUCH less accurate. If those sites did not exist... Bama, UGA, and OSU would STILL get talented players.

LOL... right because it blows up your narrative that these teams are winning championships because they're getting "highly rated classes".


If there is a cause-effect relationship there then it is the recruiting sites feeding off what successful programs do... They are not independently evaluating players as you suggest. And you cannot simply take a handful of teams and claim the recruiting sites are "accurate" when they FAIL so badly beyond those few teams.
Wrong. 34 players received 5 star ranking from 247.
This year, 32.
I don’t know what you’re suggesting I’m suggesting. I think you’re fighting windmills in your mind.

Signing Day: Every 5-star in college football's 2023 recruiting class
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
Wrong. 34 players received 5 star ranking from 247.
This year, 32.
I don’t know what you’re suggesting I’m suggesting. I think you’re fighting windmills in your mind.

Signing Day: Every 5-star in college football's 2023 recruiting class
What did you think I'm wrong about? The total of 4/5* players is between 300-400. I have looked it up a few times but don't remember the exact number. In any given year, there are going to be easily 100 kids that might warrant a 5* rating. Maybe even a few more than that. They have elite qualities across the board for their position. It would be comparable to the 100 best diamonds out of a lot of 3,000. To hedge their bets... the recruiting sites only award around 30 5* ratings. So while you could comfortably say those 100 guys are among the best... they choose 30 they think are the surest of the sure bets out of that group. And still... they have busts. And not just elite talents that bust for some other reason. Guys that they badly overrated... that shouldn't have even been in consideration. To their credit though around 60% will be drafted. That's not awful... but not as good as you and a few others like to pretend.

I'm not fighting anything except your absurd notion that using a handful of talented teams who win at the highest level proves that the recruiting sites are "accurate" predictors of success. It would be far more accurate to say those programs are accurate predictors of the recruiting rankings.
 

WaywardVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2022
Messages
106
Likes
126
What did you think I'm wrong about? The total of 4/5* players is between 300-400. I have looked it up a few times but don't remember the exact number. In any given year, there are going to be easily 100 kids that might warrant a 5* rating. Maybe even a few more than that. They have elite qualities across the board for their position. It would be comparable to the 100 best diamonds out of a lot of 3,000. To hedge their bets... the recruiting sites only award around 30 5* ratings. So while you could comfortably say those 100 guys are among the best... they choose 30 they think are the surest of the sure bets out of that group. And still... they have busts. And not just elite talents that bust for some other reason. Guys that they badly overrated... that shouldn't have even been in consideration. To their credit though around 60% will be drafted. That's not awful... but not as good as you and a few others like to pretend.

I'm not fighting anything except your absurd notion that using a handful of talented teams who win at the highest level proves that the recruiting sites are "accurate" predictors of success. It would be far more accurate to say those programs are accurate predictors of the recruiting rankings.
The recruiting sites are accurate predictors of exactly what I said. Teams that consistently finish in the top of their rankings have the most success.

Plus, there is no legit service that ranks 100 5 star players in a year. It’s always in that 30-40 range. Rivals, 247.

What's the Success Rate for 5-Star Recruits Reaching the NFL?

You should really read these articles because you’re way off. I’m making a completely non controversial statement and you have some agenda to discredit recruiting sights.

How rare it is to be a 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-star recruit
 

Winchester73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
344
Likes
708
Just watching the Polynesian Bowl last week, it’s obvious to the eye test that some kids are just bigger stronger and/or faster. Those kids are going to get the most attention and the most calls - and the higher ratings. It’s the unknowns for many of them that stars can’t determine. And what we all should know by now is that any given 2* may out perform any given 5* … but that’s NOT the rule, it’s the exception.
 
Likes: WaywardVol

INDEFENSE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
670
Likes
1,317
Everyone puts so much belief in camps but aren't they basically shorts olympics?Sure we see how fast you run without pads and such and we see the one on ones which aren't realistic compared to game situations and you rank gets bumped one way or the other. You want to evaluate a player you do it with game film, the rest is just optics that will cause you to see things that aren't there. You can get info about a players speed that you weren't sure about or height or weight or if it's a team camp, how they take to coaching, but as a player you know that based on game film.JMO
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
The recruiting sites are accurate predictors of exactly what I said.
You are STILL missing it. I'm not sure how much more plain it could be.

Teams that consistently finish in the top of their rankings have the most success.
IF they were accurate predictors then it wouldn't just be two to 4 teams. They would predict the top 10 consistently... the top 25. They would predict the top 1/3 of every conference consistently. They would predict the NFL draft better than they do.

It is FAR less that the "teams that consistently finish in the top of their rankings have the most success" and MUCH MORE that the handful of programs that are most successful finish in the tops of their rankings". In this case, the whole argument is "chicken or egg"... and it matters with regard to the claim that the sites are accurate.

Plus, there is no legit service that ranks 100 5 star players in a year. It’s always in that 30-40 range. Rivals, 247.
Did you even read the comment?

In any class, there are 100 and maybe more kids that they could legitimately give 5* to. They have all of those skills, talents, and markers to "deserve" 5*. That fact really isn't hard to see at all. Routinely you see 3/4* players make immediate impact comparable to or greater than 5* recruits.

The sites arbitrarily limit the number of 5* ratings they hand out. They do that to raise the perception of their accuracy. If you were told that there were 100 grade A extra large eggs on a table with 2000-3000 eggs and you needed to identify them all then that would be a much harder task than finding 30 of those 100. And you wouldn't particularly call it "accurate" if only 18 out of the 30 you chose actually met the standard. That's what you have with these recruiting sites. They KNOW and sometimes will talk about someone being "underrated"... in their own ratings! They aren't even trying to find every 5* worthy kid. They're trying to find enough to convince fans to keep buying subscriptions, following them on social media, and clicking their articles/blogs. That's how they make money.

Like any other business there is an optimum "quality" of product. There's a point that making the product "better" is not justified by the customer's expectations or willingness to pay.

Around 60% year over year- I'm a bit more generous than they are. See above for why that isn't as "great" as you think.

You should really read these articles because you’re way off. I’m making a completely non controversial statement and you have some agenda to discredit recruiting sights.

How rare it is to be a 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-star recruit
No. I really don't have an "agenda" at all except to answer people like you who overestimate the accuracy and meaning of the recruiting rankings.

The laughable part here is your assumption that I and others have not read dozens of articles over the years like those. In general, those writing those defenses have a DIRECT financial incentive to sustaining the inflated perception of the recruiting sites' accuracy. It is typical "narrative" driven journalism- start with a conclusion then shape and parse the facts in such a way that your reader believes the conclusion.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,836
Likes
44,075
Everyone puts so much belief in camps but aren't they basically shorts olympics? Sure we see how fast you run without pads and such and we see the one on ones which aren't realistic compared to game situations and you rank gets bumped one way or the other. You want to evaluate a player you do it with game film, the rest is just optics that will cause you to see things that aren't there. You can get info about a players speed that you weren't sure about or height or weight or if it's a team camp, how they take to coaching, but as a player you know that based on game film.JMO
The camps mean more than you might imagine. They do check those raw measurables but they also evaluate things that aren't easily measured- "twitch", instinct, vision, bend, flexibility, violence, etc. There is a fairly significant range of coaching quality in HS. One of the things coaches might look for to differentiate one kid from another at a camp is how "skilled" they are or stated another way how close to their ceiling are they.

This is one of those places where a recruiting site with limited resources can easily miss. They see two players that look roughly the same measurables wise but one performs better because their skills are more polished. VERY often and easily the player they see as a 3* just has a higher ceiling that a good recruiter can discern.
 

WaywardVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2022
Messages
106
Likes
126
You are STILL missing it. I'm not sure how much more plain it could be.

IF they were accurate predictors then it wouldn't just be two to 4 teams. They would predict the top 10 consistently... the top 25. They would predict the top 1/3 of every conference consistently. They would predict the NFL draft better than they do.

It is FAR less that the "teams that consistently finish in the top of their rankings have the most success" and MUCH MORE that the handful of programs that are most successful finish in the tops of their rankings". In this case, the whole argument is "chicken or egg"... and it matters with regard to the claim that the sites are accurate.

Did you even read the comment?

In any class, there are 100 and maybe more kids that they could legitimately give 5* to. They have all of those skills, talents, and markers to "deserve" 5*. That fact really isn't hard to see at all. Routinely you see 3/4* players make immediate impact comparable to or greater than 5* recruits.

The sites arbitrarily limit the number of 5* ratings they hand out. They do that to raise the perception of their accuracy. If you were told that there were 100 grade A extra large eggs on a table with 2000-3000 eggs and you needed to identify them all then that would be a much harder task than finding 30 of those 100. And you wouldn't particularly call it "accurate" if only 18 out of the 30 you chose actually met the standard. That's what you have with these recruiting sites. They KNOW and sometimes will talk about someone being "underrated"... in their own ratings! They aren't even trying to find every 5* worthy kid. They're trying to find enough to convince fans to keep buying subscriptions, following them on social media, and clicking their articles/blogs. That's how they make money.

Like any other business there is an optimum "quality" of product. There's a point that making the product "better" is not justified by the customer's expectations or willingness to pay.

Around 60% year over year- I'm a bit more generous than they are. See above for why that isn't as "great" as you think.


No. I really don't have an "agenda" at all except to answer people like you who overestimate the accuracy and meaning of the recruiting rankings.

The laughable part here is your assumption that I and others have not read dozens of articles over the years like those. In general, those writing those defenses have a DIRECT financial incentive to sustaining the inflated perception of the recruiting sites' accuracy. It is typical "narrative" driven journalism- start with a conclusion then shape and parse the facts in such a way that your reader believes the conclusion.
Very few teams consistently finish in the top five in recruiting. Very few. Overall, it still is a very good predictor of top 20 success. Fool proof? No. But it’s better than you are attempting to make it out to be.

Now you’re drifting into conspiracies. It’s not narrative driven journalism. These services have an unbelievable task of sorting out thousands of players, and yet we see the same thing every year. The top schools going after those players. There is absolutely no way to chicken and egg thousands of players. Do I think schools recruit based on services? No. But I think they are using much of the same source material to arrive at their conclusions.

It’s pretty obvious you’ve got a bone to pick with recruiting services. I’m not here as an apologist for recruiting services. So, again, have fun attacking those windmills.
 

Danl

Absinthe Minded
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
4,417
Likes
5,074
Very few teams consistently finish in the top five in recruiting. Very few. Overall, it still is a very good predictor of top 20 success. Fool proof? No. But it’s better than you are attempting to make it out to be.

Now you’re drifting into conspiracies. It’s not narrative driven journalism. These services have an unbelievable task of sorting out thousands of players, and yet we see the same thing every year. The top schools going after those players. There is absolutely no way to chicken and egg thousands of players. Do I think schools recruit based on services? No. But I think they are using much of the same source material to arrive at their conclusions.

It’s pretty obvious you’ve got a bone to pick with recruiting services. I’m not here as an apologist for recruiting services. So, again, have fun attacking those windmills.
Here's a question that I have pondered and maybe you have an answer:

Do recruiting services try to identify and ALL the 5* players each recruiting cycle? If not, why not?

Same question for all 4* players?
 

Danl

Absinthe Minded
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
4,417
Likes
5,074
I don’t follow your question.
Let's say it's a given that the recruiting services try to evaluate and assign some numerical star value to high school football players. Also, it's a given that those players that the services think have the greatest potential to be successful college and/or pro players, by whatever metric that service employs, are given a 5* rating. Those players that the service thinks are very good players, but not 5* (again using whatever metric that service uses) are assigned a 4* rating.

Given the above, do you believe that the recruiting services try to identify ALL the players that satisfy their 5* (or 4*) metrics?

If they don't and only assign a 5* (or 4*) rating to a some smaller number of players, why would they do that?
 

VN Store




Top