Not disagreeing because I get how that makes sense. Particularly in the case of ND. However, I bet if you took the rankings in the aggregate over ten years, that those would be the edge conditions and the correlation to high rankings and success would be the norm.
Not trying to be flip, but our classes have not been highly ranked and we have sucked. So they are getting that piece of it correct.
44cuse
I'm not really sure it's the edge conditions. I tend to think of it more like those temporal thermometers that scan your forehead. Generally speaking they are pretty accurate when you don't have a fever. When you do they become significantly less accurate. My point being, for the most part, a service can slot in the top tier teams in teh top 25 with a few changes each year, then fill out the rest of the top 60 or so with the BCS folks in general accordance with where they finish in the standings then do the same with the mid-majors. Most of the time, this is going to basically be played out on the field. But does that mean it was accurate recruiting rankings or merely a reflection of the state of those programs? I'd posit it's the latter.
Another example of this is that, as far as I know, we never cracked the top 25 in recruiting rankings in the early to mid-90s. I believe we finally did did with the 1998 class (mo minter, mo jackson, jeremy cooper, et al). At the time we were clearly a top 25 program producing quite a few NFL prospects, yet we never cracked the top 25. When we finally did, it was with the 1998 class -- a class that essentially coincided with our precipitous fall from the ranks of the elite (or at least the "very good.")
Do I think this is because scouting sites intentionally mislead people or serve no purpose? No, not really. But I just think they are inherantly flawed. For example, there is no way for them to account for any of the following:
-- a kid's makeup and how hard he'll work at the next level
-- a kid's academic status and how hard he'll work to maintain that.
-- the differences between programs in terms of coaching and strength/conditioning
-- the differences between their own evaluators (is the kid covering Seattle as good as the kid covering Buffalo/Syracuse/Albany)?
-- inherent biases: who's better the LB playing at JD or the kid playing at Mater Dei in Calif.? Probably the latter but not necessarily as kids like Will Allen or Ray Rice prove all the time.
-- the need to sell publications (ND is a national fan base -- does it make sense to rank them 38th?)
-- how a kid fits into a particular system
-- personal things going on in a kid's life.
There are just so many things and that's not even getting into the point that they try to distinguish between the 36th best OLB and the 44th -- I mean, can anyone do that?
I just think you have to trust your staff's ability to evaluate and then, more importantly, develop the talent they get. Then cross your fingers on eligibility and injury issues.
