Recruiting Sites Exposed

#2
#2
Vol2424 said:
Recruiting sites exposed | College Football Freaks
Click to expand...

Interesting that even though the article was posted on June 12th, Clemson was not even mentioned yet a week later says he is going to Clemson. Was this an oversight by the article or does this show that Clemson is cheating? Just thought it to be interesting since many of us have wondered how Clemson keeps getting 5 star recruits.
 
#3
#3
This has always been the way they do business.

I'll tell you what else they do sometimes that people don't notice;
They will go back to previous classes and revise the amount of stars a certain player was originally given, I have seen where a player gets bumped from a 3 star to a 4 star once they're college playing days are over.
They will also inflate rankings if a player holds out on committing and provides multiple interviews to tease multiple fanbases, which of course leads to subcriptions.
 
#4
#4
I wouldn't trust it any other way.

What's wrong with >>>> a site that tells me which recruits are most in demand?
 
#5
#5
UGA insider said:
This has always been the way they do business.

I'll tell you what else they do sometimes that people don't notice;
They will go back to previous classes and revise the amount of stars a certain player was originally given, I have seen where a player gets bumped from a 3 star to a 4 star once they're college playing days are over.
They will also inflate rankings if a player holds out on committing and provides multiple interviews to tease multiple fanbases, which of course leads to subcriptions.
Click to expand...

They also drop a players stars. Look at Sentimore. Went from a 4 to a 3.
 
#6
#6
This is a little too simplistic. Every once in awhile the recruiting sites will find someone they think is good that top programs do not recruit. It is very rare but it happens.

In addition to offer lists, the recruiting sites use camp performances, highlight review, and production (compensating for competition). So offers are not the only factor. But as I've said in a couple of other threads, if there are two pretty equal prospects and one is offered by Saban and other successful coaches while the other is not... you can guess who gets 4* and who gets 3*.
 
#12
#12
UTVOLKeith said:
no statement.

sorry
i could argue that he is a 5 star imo
Click to expand...

I think it's funny that they do it. It's changing things as you go. It's like saying you were right or wron and changing it later. I'm not really sure why they changed Sentimore's rating though. What did he do to drop other than get kicked off the team? Did that mean he was less of a talent on the football field? It's not like he didn't see the field and wasn't playing behind guys that are now in the NFL.
 
#13
#13
Vol2424 said:
I think it's funny that they do it. It's changing things as you go. It's like saying you were right or wron and changing it later. I'm not really sure why they changed Sentimore's rating though. What did he do to drop other than get kicked off the team? Did that mean he was less of a talent on the football field? It's not like he didn't see the field and wasn't playing behind guys that are now in the NFL.
Click to expand...

it was the offers man...
aren't you reading the thread?:focus:
 
#15
#15
UTVOLKeith said:
I wouldn't trust it any other way.

What's wrong with >>>> a site that tells me which recruits are most in demand?
Click to expand...

Well off the top of my head...

One, the guys they trust most aren't perfect. They also favor guys for awhile then lose interest without it being apparent to the recruiting sites.

Two, the coaches who influence them most do not always tell the truth about who they want the most or who is highest on their board.

Three, for every guy who gets 4/5* and deserves it there are 2 or more that do not get a high ranking that deserve it. It may not satisfy fans but it is better strategy to find one of those other two guys than to try to take Saban's choice picks away from him... at least right now.


There are real recruiting services out there that programs pay to help them locate and evaluate talent. They'll look at measureables, body types, production, every shred of video available, testing, grades, character,... then give a grade to the coaches. They get paid fees so the information is privileged and guarded by those who pay for it. Their focus is narrow but they are extremely thorough. They will have a much more accurate ranking for prospective recruits. Few know how much their evals match those of the public recruiting sites... and their income depends on keeping it that way.
 
#17
#17
Vol2424 said:
I couldn't really tell. It read as if it was missing a question mark. :unsure:
Click to expand...

you're right about that for sure.

i will do better.

Another thing they were looking at with DS is that he is JUCO...which you stated, and it's hard for them to look over offer thingy they have in their algorithm.

If JUCOs give you two years and start in the SEC>>>thats 5 star for me.
 
#18
#18
the only groups of fans who go ape sh*t over "recruiting sites being corrupt" are the fans of teams who aren't near the top.

its not an exact science.

and Tom Lemming does not speak for everyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
UTVOLKeith said:
you're right about that for sure.

i will do better.

Another thing they were looking at with DS is that he is JUCO...which you stated, and it's hard for them to look over offer thingy they have in their algorithm.

If JUCOs give you two years and start in the SEC>>>thats 5 star for me.
Click to expand...

True. How many offers did he have? I can't find his new profile. Just the one from 2 years ago and he had offers from everyone. I thought he was headed back to Bama at one point. I know he didn't have that many offers second time around.
 
#20
#20
UT has spent enough time at the top on NSD followed by being nowhere near the top on January 1... that I take this stuff with a grain of salt.

I would say it isn't a "science" at all the way the public recruiting sites do it. It is more art than science. That doesn't make it completely inaccurate... but to give it the absolute weight that some do isn't a good idea either.
 
#21
#21
I4Jay said:
the only groups of fans who go ape sh*t over "recruiting sites being corrupt" are the fans of teams who aren't near the top.

its not an exact science.

and Tom Lemming does not speak for everyone
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

I didn't post this meaning I agree with all of it. I thought it was worth the read though.
 
#22
#22
sjt18 said:
Well off the top of my head...

One, the guys they trust most aren't perfect. They also favor guys for awhile then lose interest without it being apparent to the recruiting sites. CORRECT >Way of the world man...easy to see through that>>so that don't bother me

Two, the coaches who influence them most do not always tell the truth about who they want the most or who is highest on their board. CORRECT > how often does that work, you think? leads to less pressure from other schools, right?

Three, for every guy who gets 4/5* and deserves it there are 2 or more that do not get a high ranking that deserve it. It may not satisfy fans but it is better strategy to find one of those other two guys than to try to take Saban's choice picks away from him... at least right now. WRONG > this is so wrong you make me want to do a statistical analysis>>> losing most credibility man


There are real recruiting services out there that programs pay to help them locate and evaluate talent. They'll look at measureables, body types, production, every shred of video available, testing, grades, character,... then give a grade to the coaches. They get paid fees so the information is privileged and guarded by those who pay for it. Their focus is narrow but they are extremely thorough. They will have a much more accurate ranking for prospective recruits. Few know how much their evals match those of the public recruiting sites... and their income depends on keeping it that way. NO **** sherlock>>>>are you privy to these? if so inform us. Is this the first time you have made that remark?
Click to expand...

see bold above
 
#23
#23
sjt18 said:
UT has spent enough time at the top on NSD followed by being nowhere near the top on January 1... that I take this stuff with a grain of salt.

I would say it isn't a "science" at all the way the public recruiting sites do it. It is more art than science. That doesn't make it completely inaccurate... but to give it the absolute weight that some do isn't a good idea either.
Click to expand...

The thing is , it seems to be more about the $ , than getting the actual news about the recruits out there. If I didn't know any better , I would think they just search the boards and form an opinion. I do find it funny how a player jumps almost as soon as they commit to a certain school. We picked some players that didn't even have a star and most ended up being 2 or 3 stars shortly after. Makes you wonder if they know anything at all about them , or as this article puts it , go by who made the offer.

I wonder how much they will matter in 10 years. So much info is out there because of sites like this and social media.
 
#24
#24
sjt18 said:
UT has spent enough time at the top on NSD followed by being nowhere near the top on January 1... that I take this stuff with a grain of salt.

I would say it isn't a "science" at all the way the public recruiting sites do it. It is more art than science. That doesn't make it completely inaccurate... but to give it the absolute weight that some do isn't a good idea either.
Click to expand...

very well stated imo.

but looking at our SEC foes and our attrition with the elite players its not hard to conclude that it is very very important.
 
#25
#25
Another recruiting analyst trying to "expose" something he is a part of, that's really interesting. Lemming has tried to be "the guy" for a long time in recruiting, and because he's not been that guy, he wants to try and cry about how things work. Common sense tells me, that if the Top 10-15 schools in America offer a kid, he's got talent. So, he's just trying to tie talent to offers, which is what happens, but he's trying to say that's all certain sites go off of, which is absurd. If that was the case, there wouldn't be a single analyst traveling to go watch these kids play. Instead, they would just sit around and watch film all day, and never host any camps. The article is honestly hypocritical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top