I "see" just fine. What you REFUSE to see is that the ratings aren't the product of 247's expertise. Saban isn't using his subscriptions to figure out who to recruit. The recruiting sites are also SEVERELY limited both in ability and numbers of people. They MISS as many as they find. So if you are convinced that cherry picking is a particularly admirable trait... then they're "great".
But the proof isn't them copying the answers of Saban, Dabo, Day, and Smart. The proof or how accurate they truly are... is what comes after. The players recruited and signed by programs that are NOT as dependable in finding talent as the top 5 or so.
LOL... no. You cannot win championships without the kind of players that Saban et al would recruit with or without Rivals and 247. Please tell me you don't really think that ANY of those coaches are asking 247's writers what they think of a TE before recruiting him.
IIRC, Swinney's first NC was won with a roster than averaged out 11th. Why? Because he wasn't a first class recruiter and talent evaluator but just got lucky? No. Because he didn't have the respect of the recruiting "analysts" (journalists really). He was recruiting championship caliber players with 3* labels. If UT ever climbs back to the championship level, they'll find a coach who can do that then coach them up like Clemson did.
You very literally claim that the cart pulls the horse.
PS- you have NEVER dealt with the fact that the recruiting services hedge their accuracy by arbitrarily limiting the number of 4 and 5 star evals they hand out. It is a marketing gimmick and you fall for it. If they REALLY knew what they were doing... there would be a standard for getting 4/5*. There would always be different numbers of each from one year to the next. They set those numbers intentionally low. That allows them to pick 30 5* guys... when there may actually be 100 who are comparable. They award another 300 or so 4*... and that may be from a "real" pool of 1000.
One last try at an illustration to help you see what I'm talking about. If you were tasked with doing visual inspection of widgets specified to be 11" to 12" long. To do that, you didn't have a ruler but had some samples to compare. Your task out of 10,000 parts is to choose 400 that are in spec though 1500 or more are actually in spec. You are deemed "successful" if you are right 20% of the time... no problem, right? If you were told that 100 were exactly 11.5" long, you could probably choose 30 of them and be right on 60%.
However if you were told that you had to find all in spec parts then further separate the ones exactly 11.5"... how much harder would that be?
Last edited:
