Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 3927492, member: 40"] Which is why looking at only stars alone doesn't tell the full story. Building on what OiG states above, the ratings are pretty good for the highest rated prospects [sure, they occasionally "miss" on a five star, but in the main the rating systems are fairly good at identifying the creme de la creme]. It gets increasingly wonky as you progress down from there, because the variance between a four star vs. a high three star, or a three star and a lower rated three star is slim and generally a matter of subjectivity. Kid goes to PSU -- automatic four star minimum, with a bump in the ratings if needed. Same kid picks Pitt or SU, they don't get that bump. So, stars are an important "metric," but not the only one when you are talking about somewhat lower rated guys. P5 offers also provide data. Physical attributes -- confirmed height, weight, speed, athletic performance at combines, etc. also provides some data. And when you see commits after camps, where the coaches have a chance to work with and evaluate prospects first-hand, also provides some insight. The problem is, the vast majority of posters on this site only focus on their preferred "metric" -- whether it's stars, offer lists, etc. And they often do so to the exclusionary expense of the other data points. Which -- given where our recruiting zone has been -- is why you get these knee jerk reactions and sky is falling hand wringing over a guy like Brown, when in actuality his athletic prowess and physical tools were highly impressive. Coaches evaluated him first hand, at both a camp and again later on campus. And now, his star rating "supports" those attributes. He doesn't have the corresponding P5 offers, but he probably will once the season happens this fall. And then his rating -- based upon the preponderance of all data points -- will make holistic sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?