Recruit rankings

[PhatOrange]

I could care less about the stars and rankings but i do watch them bc so much hinges on perception and buzz. that said, KJ boosted Syracuse from #71 to #57.

8 kids
1- 4 star
4- 3 star
2- 2 star

Cabinda hasn't been rated yet, is expect him to be a three.

 

[tep624]

I could care less about the stars and rankings but i do watch them bc so much hinges on perception and buzz. that said, KJ boosted Syracuse from #71 to #57.

8 kids
1- 4 star
4- 3 star
2- 2 star

Cabinda hasn't been rated yet, is expect him to be a three.

Take it that's over at Rvls?

ESPN has 1 4 star, 6 3 stars and Rodney Willams N/A. Not sure of the team ranking there.

Plus Corey Cooper will at a minimum be a 3 star when he's ranked as a Prep. May very likely be a 4 star.

 

[CuseLegacy]

I could care less about the stars and rankings but i do watch them bc so much hinges on perception and buzz. that said, KJ boosted Syracuse from #71 to #57.

8 kids
1- 4 star
4- 3 star
2- 2 star

Cabinda hasn't been rated yet, is expect him to be a three.

The staff may get their top 25 class yet.

 

[orangenauburn]

Land Sykes, Ishnael, Ollison, Witter and you are on pace

Add Mavety and you are knocking on the door

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If we get to the point where our standard player is a 4/3 instead if a 3/2, my guess is our conversations about what stars mean will be a little different from how they can go now.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[dasher]

If we get to the point where our standard player is a 4/3 instead if a 3/2, my guess is our conversations about what stars mean will be a little different from how they can go now.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Long is 4 stars on espn

 

[RF2044]

If we get to the point where our standard player is a 4/3 instead if a 3/2, my guess is our conversations about what stars mean will be a little different from how they can go now.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I completely disagree. The star system is imperfect--that won't change, nor does it invalidate the argument that most evaluators on these sites don't know what they're talking about, in general.

But reeling in classes comprised primarily of 3-stars [instead of 2-stars or darkhorse under the radar types] is going to improve our national ranking, for whatever that's worth.

 

[PhatOrange]

If we get to the point where our standard player is a 4/3 instead if a 3/2, my guess is our conversations about what stars mean will be a little different from how they can go now.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Not for me they wont

 

[007]

Long is 4 stars on espn

Regardless of what anyone thinks about star ratings, the opinions on Long are all over the board. He is 4 stars on espn and 247, 3 stars on R, and 2 stars on S (What, S).

 

[dasher]

I completely disagree. The star system is imperfect--that won't change, nor does it invalidate the argument that most evaluators on these sites don't know what they're talking about, in general.

But reeling in classes comprised primarily of 3-stars [instead of 2-stars or darkhorse under the radar types] is going to improve our national ranking, for whatever that's worth.

I look at offers rf. If big schools want them, so do I.

 

[007]

I completely disagree. The star system is imperfect--that won't change, nor does it invalidate the argument that most evaluators on these sites don't know what they're talking about, in general.

But reeling in classes comprised primarily of 3-stars [instead of 2-stars or darkhorse under the radar types] is going to improve our national ranking, for whatever that's worth.

Yeah, ultimately the ONLY thing that really matters with respect to recruiting is the staff's ability to find, evaluate, recruit, sign, and develop talent.

 

[DeGrozz]

Kind of off-topic, but...

Which football recruiting service is the best out there? When it was primarily Reevals and Scoot, R had a better football reputation and S had a better hoops reputation.

Now with ESPN and 247 breaking in, does anyone have much of a preference?

ESPN seems to lump a lot more players as 3*, while Scoot seems to cater to its larger subscriber bases the most. Is Reevals the way to go if you're gonna get a subscription?

 

[RF2044]

I look at offers rf. If big schools want them, so do I.

I don't disagree--but that is exactly my point. That info is more important than star rankings, IMO.

 

[texascpa]

Kind of off-topic, but...

Which football recruiting service is the best out there? When it was primarily Reevals and Scoot, R had a better football reputation and S had a better hoops reputation.

Now with ESPN and 247 breaking in, does anyone have much of a preference?

ESPN seems to lump a lot more players as 3*, while Scoot seems to cater to its larger subscriber bases the most. Is Reevals the way to go if you're gonna get a subscription?

As I said in another thread, ESPN (and you can lump 247 in that) are better just on the mere fact that they aren't using their ratings to sell subscriptions. Rvals and Scot only give so much access to player info. If you want more, then pay for it. Who do they have a financial interest in? The teams that have a lot of paying subscribers. You keep them by keeping them happy, and you do that with high rankings.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I completely disagree. The star system is imperfect--that won't change, nor does it invalidate the argument that most evaluators on these sites don't know what they're talking about, in general.

Well... that's kind of my point. We acknowledge that stuff now.

If Cool Kid makes Top 25 classes the norm we're not going to spend any time reminding each other of how imperfect the star system is. We're going to pump each other up about how awesome it is to be getting such highly rated classes made up of highly rated players.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[RF2044]

Well... that's kind of my point. We acknowledge that stuff now.

If Cool Kid makes Top 25 classes the norm we're not going to spend any time reminding each other of how imperfect the star system is. We're going to pump each other up about how awesome it is to be getting such highly rated classes made up of highly rated players.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

No offense, but I disagree with your premise. You can't have it both ways. Ceteris paribus, I'd rather have classes comprised of higher rated recruits than not, but that also doesn't mean that Sc0ut or R1vals, or any other recruiting service is accurate outside of the top contingent of players--who generally are easy to rank. Remember "30 second" Bob Lichtenfeld, who claimed that all he had to do was watch 30 seconds worth of game film to rate a player? Those are the type of bozos who are attributing ratings to these guys.

There is literally no way that any of them could ever watch sufficient film to evaluate all players. Nor is all game film comparable--level of competition varies, and it doesn't take into account system fit, or one team's relative strength compared to the other [it is 11 on 11, after all]. We also know that the main recruiting sites cater to specific fanbases, as that's where they generate the majority of their paid site revenue.

For what its worth, I think that football prospects are exponentially harder to project than basketball prospects. Offers, size / strength / athleticism, and coaching staff evaluation will always trump the stars assigned by these dopey sites, IMO.

Also, I don't get this compulsion to generalize hypocrisy across the entire fanbase. Are you borrowing a page out of docsu's playbook?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't get this compulsion to paint the fanbase as hypocrites. Are you borrowing a page out of docsu's playbook?

That's a weird way to put it. I don't have any kind of compulsion or anything. I'm not familiar enough with what docsu posts to have an idea about the playbook reference.

Supporting a team inherently requires some amount of hypocrisy though, sharrd by all fanbases, because that support in some part is defined by an irrational belief that there's greater value in supporting your team of choice over a different team. Because that belief is irrational, it's fragile, so we buy in to other rational sounding arguments to defend it. It's about facing some type of insecurity.

We're on the way up but we're not what we once were. One place that realization pops up is in how we perceive our recruiting. Because it hasn't been obvious by the quick and dirty star system standard that we're doing well, we talk about all kinds of things that explain why our recruiting is great and the star system is suspect. A lot of them are true.

That said, when we're reestablished, those things can still be true... and we won't care. The insecurity will be resolved, so we won't need the same kind of evidence of our greatness. The quick and dirty evidence will be enough.

That kind of hypocrisy isn't a bad thing. It's a narrative we agree to buy into together that rallies us during the hard times. I think it's really interesting to acknowledge this stuff because it makes for a smarter and more sophisticated fan base. I nmean, how often do we bust on UCONN and Rutgers fans for their delusions? Well... we've got a few of our own so let's get them on the table. Stars and class rankings are an easy place for that conversation to take place since generally more stars > fewer stars and higher ranked classes > lower ranked classes, even with all of the built in weaknesses of those ranking systems. I mean, we do talk about the star system issues on the hoops side, but we joke about them. Football side... man, that is a solemn discussion. And it's that way because right now, that's how we need to talk about it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[anomander]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about star ratings, the opinions on Long are all over the board. He is 4 stars on espn and 247, 3 stars on R, and 2 stars on S (What, S).

You also have to consider the politics with Skout and Rivalz. Long was once a 3 star at Skout before they had to make room for players that are going to schools with higher subscriber amounts
. As for Rivalz I don't think they were happy he skipped out on a couple of their events he said he was attending . The next week he was switched from qb to athlete. I do feel espn tends to over rate qbs but at least they back up their rating with reasoning

 

[anomander]

Kind of off-topic, but...

Which football recruiting service is the best out there? When it was primarily Reevals and Scoot, R had a better football reputation and S had a better hoops reputation.

Now with ESPN and 247 breaking in, does anyone have much of a preference?

ESPN seems to lump a lot more players as 3*, while Scoot seems to cater to its larger subscriber bases the most. Is Reevals the way to go if you're gonna get a subscription?

If you get a subscription for mainly Syracuse information stay away from Rivalz . Skout is infinitely better. Mike does a greSt job with the Cuse site

 

[SoBristol]

Otto, I would say it is a narrative that some buy into, and some less so. You have the obvious parody of the OP in this thread "I could care less about ratings, but if we get ... then we could move to #57." Or a host of orange-colored claims, that repeat every year:

Our two-stars are better than the three-stars landed by Rutgers, because stars don't mean anything (or rankings are sometimes wrong, for example, Pugh, or it is all biased in favor of Notre Dame, or NY kids don't get rated in the way NJ kids get rated, or ...).
Or, our staff (whether Marrone's staff, or Shafer's staff with a 75% change-over) can both spot and coach up better than [Toledo, or Ball State, or Wake ...]
I don't care how we are doing in July, it is February that counts ...
I don't care about February, remember we landed Jay Bromley in May ...
You can never tell until 3 years out ...

Recruiting is the life-blood of D-1 college sports. You have to hope SU's program becomes more appealing to good prospects, we make more top 3s for visits, and we win our share against BC, Pitt, Temple & Rutgers.

 

[HOFCeluck]

No offense, but I disagree with your premise. You can't have it both ways. Ceteris paribus, I'd rather have classes comprised of higher rated recruits than not, but that also doesn't mean that Sc0ut or , or any other recruiting service is accurate outside of the top contingent of players--who generally are easy to rank. Remember "30 second" Bob Lichtenfeld, who claimed that all he had to do was watch 30 seconds worth of game film to rate a player? Those are the type of bozos who are attributing ratings to these guys.

There is literally no way that any of them could ever watch sufficient film to evaluate all players. Nor is all game film comparable--level of competition varies, and it doesn't take into account system fit, or one team's relative strength compared to the other [it is 11 on 11, after all]. We also know that the main recruiting sites cater to specific fanbases, as that's where they generate the majority of their paid site revenue.

For what its worth, I think that football prospects are exponentially harder to project than basketball prospects. Offers, size / strength / athleticism, and coaching staff evaluation will always trump the stars assigned by these dopey sites, IMO.

Also, I don't get this compulsion to generalize hypocrisy across the entire fanbase. Are you borrowing a page out of docsu's playbook?

Oh hi. Just stopping by.

 

[HOFCeluck]

That's a weird way to put it. I don't have any kind of compulsion or anything. I'm not familiar enough with what docsu posts to have an idea about the playbook reference.

Supporting a team inherently requires some amount of hypocrisy though, sharrd by all fanbases, because that support in some part is defined by an irrational belief that there's greater value in supporting your team of choice over a different team. Because that belief is irrational, it's fragile, so we buy in to other rational sounding arguments to defend it. It's about facing some type of insecurity.

We're on the way up but we're not what we once were. One place that realization pops up is in how we perceive our recruiting. Because it hasn't been obvious by the quick and dirty star system standard that we're doing well, we talk about all kinds of things that explain why our recruiting is great and the star system is suspect. A lot of them are true.

That said, when we're reestablished, those things can still be true... and we won't care. The insecurity will be resolved, so we won't need the same kind of evidence of our greatness. The quick and dirty evidence will be enough.

That kind of hypocrisy isn't a bad thing. It's a narrative we agree to buy into together that rallies us during the hard times. I think it's really interesting to acknowledge this stuff because it makes for a smarter and more sophisticated fan base. I nmean, how often do we bust on UCONN and Rutgers fans for their delusions? Well... we've got a few of our own so let's get them on the table. Stars and class rankings are an easy place for that conversation to take place since generally more stars > fewer stars and higher ranked classes > lower ranked classes, even with all of the built in weaknesses of those ranking systems. I mean, we do talk about the star system issues on the hoops side, but we joke about them. Football side... man, that is a solemn discussion. And it's that way because right now, that's how we need to talk about it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

As a fanbase, in general, we have a tendency to gang up on anyone who is critical, in any way, toward our players.

This is the sentiment that RF has his panties In wad about.

Oh, and you better believe that fans are going to start caring more about stars if commits like KJ start being the norm. It's only natural. If this doesn't apply to you RF, then awesome.

 

[PhatOrange]

Otto, I would say it is a narrative that some buy into, and some less so. You have the obvious parody of the OP in this thread "I could care less about ratings, but if we get ... then we could move to #57." Or a host of orange-colored claims, that repeat every year:

Our two-stars are better than the three-stars landed by Rutgers, because stars don't mean anything (or rankings are sometimes wrong, for example, Pugh, or it is all biased in favor of Notre Dame, or NY kids don't get rated in the way NJ kids get rated, or ...).
Or, our staff (whether Marrone's staff, or Shafer's staff with a 75% change-over) can both spot and coach up better than [Toledo, or Ball State, or Wake ...]
I don't care how we are doing in July, it is February that counts ...
I don't care about February, remember we landed Jay Bromley in May ...
You can never tell until 3 years out ...

Recruiting is the life-blood of D-1 college sports. You have to hope SU's program becomes more appealing to good prospects, we make more top 3s for visits, and we win our share against BC, Pitt, Temple & Rutgers.

Bromley supports the argument that our two stars are better then Rutgers three stars.

 

[PhatOrange]

Otto, I would say it is a narrative that some buy into, and some less so. You have the obvious parody of the OP in this thread "I could care less about ratings, but if we get ... then we could move to #57." .

What I said was kj bumped them from 71 to 57. big jump for one player. I didn't say anything about IF we get player xyz...

Ratings only matter for perception. They don't matter one iota about success and winning football games.

 

[CuseLegacy]

What I said was kj bumped them from 71 to 57. big jump for one player. I didn't say anything about IF we get player xyz...

Ratings only matter for perception. They don't matter one iota about success and winning football games.

Exactly. It is all about perception for the recruits. It is just another tool in attracting prospects to the program. ..just like the "twitter army".