Just a thought on ratings.

#1

TheRain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
851
Likes
635
#1
I think everyone would agree that there are three universally used HS talent ratings sites available online for football... The big three of Rivals, 247 and ESPN. We don't always like or agree with them all (ESPN) but these are the big three.

Thinking of a players star rating like you would a resume' wouldn't we agree to always use the highest ratings when we list their accomplishments and awards? I know If it were my resume then I would and I would be right to do it.

This would apply to all schools everywhere. If I'm LSU and I have a year that every player i recruit has a four star ranking or higher on at least one of the big three sites then I claim all of them are four or five stars.

This is not a slap at Freak by the way, who does an excellent job with Volnation. I'm just thinking out loud.

Anyway, we all know they are all 5 star hearts... Champions of life... No energy vampires... Brick by brick...
 
Likes: RollerVol
#2

JFBanicki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,603
Likes
826
#2
That’s what the 247 composite rankings are for. They take the rankings from all the top services and average them out.

The real issue is how these services boost or lower a ranking based on where they commit. We’ve all seen how a kid can be a 3* when he’s committed to a random school but if they flip to Bama, OSU, Clem, LSU, or UGA they jump to a high 4* within a couple weeks.
We’ve also seen kids that are rated a 5 star as long as they were favored to go to one of those schools but a couple months after choosing a school outside that list they drop to a 4*
 
#4

Sudden Impact

A measure of who we are iswhat wedo w/what we have
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
8,554
Likes
1,635
#4
To think that every rating service provides an accurate assessment of every player in the system is crazy...There are 1000s and most get overlooked. The coach's evaluation is the most important process in recruitment. Pruitt and Staff I truly believe are better evaluators and know the needs of the program better than the recruiting services. Plus, development, training and leadership.
We were fooled by Butch because he was a star Gazer and pumped his numbers up with unneeded 4* vs going the evaluation route and could not develop players.
 
Likes: RollerVol
#6

Raebo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
305
Likes
445
#6
I don’t pay a lot of attention to the star ratings except to know that the more you have, the better you are or might be.

Is it an indication of potential, with the right training and growth where they will be 4 years from now and how high the pros might view them?
Is it based on current performance level, if you played a game today, this player would be better right now?
Or is it based on some combination of potential and current performance level?
Maybe some players are rated on their current performance level while others are rated on their potential?

If anyone knows, I would like a reply, thanks.
 
#9

Devo182

Sophia Cunningham's daddy
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
11,074
Likes
19,328
#9
That’s what the 247 composite rankings are for. They take the rankings from all the top services and average them out.

The real issue is how these services boost or lower a ranking based on where they commit. We’ve all seen how a kid can be a 3* when he’s committed to a random school but if they flip to Bama, OSU, Clem, LSU, or UGA they jump to a high 4* within a couple weeks.
We’ve also seen kids that are rated a 5 star as long as they were favored to go to one of those schools but a couple months after choosing a school outside that list they drop to a 4*
If some coaches are proven elite evaluators, wouldn't that make sense? If they are proven to fail at this, then it may change (FSU or USC). On the flipside, to not follow Dabo or Saban would just be ignorant.

Many people even use the basic method of "going by the offers". In other words, ignore stars and just look at the offers. This supports the above notion. Regardless of if you believe in stars correlating to talent, just look at who is offering and pursuing them (sometimes 2 different things). Coaches get way more time with each kid, upclose, than services ever will. Even they have said as much. Services simply give us a decent overall correlation, in a way that is easily digestable (3*, 4*, 5*, etc).
 
Last edited:
#10

TheRain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
851
Likes
635
#10
I'm not a fan of the composite score. If ESPN fails to do their job and scouts a kid one time early in his Jr year and never follows up, their incompetence gets to drag a kid on two different sites. (or inflate)

Really I'm talking cosmetically if just one of the big three rates a guy a four and the other two rates him a three... He is in fact a four star player from the fans/media prospective.
 
#11

GUNTERSVOL

VOL FROM BIRTH
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
448
Likes
468
#11
ratings are done by humans...they're not perfect either...yes, I would use the highest rating of the three and sort it out on the field of play...:D

GO BIG ORANGE!
My long held position on star rankings is that they can basically be used as a probability of performance not a ceiling on performance. It is easier to rate the guy who started shaving in the fifth grade, played in a big school setting, was lucky enough to start by jr. year, could go to lots of camps, and had help putting out good highlights, as a five star. Got no problem with the services seeing the obvious potential. But late bloomers from smaller schools who had to play behind other quality athletes and could not get to a bunch of camps COULD be just as productive but harder to rate. When P5 schools have been dealing with some kids and invested many hours of studying these kids and value them just as much I am good with it. Sometimes the deal might be that the staff thinks that some three and four star kids might take a year longer after access to training table and workouts have an equal or even higher ceiling than the five star guys..... I think we have several in this class that have physical capabilities that make that possible if not probable due to single i.e. speed, or multiple factors i.e. speed, agility, strength, vertical, etc. for their position and.or came out of less than stellar programs. You can't brag about them at this time, but you can sure have a valid belief that they could close the star gap as calculated by any or all services There may be few guys who improve their output by being gamers due to intelligence or instincts, but those are limited compared to those physically capable of excellence with the right preparation and dedication to the task. You really get rich when you combine gamer and physical capability. Sometimes you get lucky and guys who you did not or could not rate as high come in and explode as athletes. You see those guys on Sunday all the time.
 
Last edited:
Likes: DarthVol1
#12

Sleegro

5⭐❤, Champion of Life, Brick, Realist
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
11,909
Likes
32,143
#12
I'm not a fan of the composite score. If ESPN fails to do their job and scouts a kid one time early in his Jr year and never follows up, their incompetence gets to drag a kid on two different sites. (or inflate)

Really I'm talking cosmetically if just one of the big three rates a guy a four and the other two rates him a three... He is in fact a four star player from the fans/media prospective.
That's how it's always been. Fans use whichever is higher. And whiney baby negavols trying to push an agenda always find a way to use the lower ratings.🤔🤐🧐😬😁😥😤😯👎👍☝️🤛
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top