Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billsin01, post: 1646594, member: 837"] I don't know. How is it going overboard to point out that there are ton of factors beyond Signing Day rankings that impact the ultimate success of a class? I mean, if you get the majority of a 20-player class to show up, work hard and stay 4-5 years, you've probably got a pretty good class. Yes, you'd rather have 4-star kids than 2-star kids, but ultimately getting them to stay, work hard and develop goes a long way toward the overall success of the team. I also very much believe that the coaches are the ones doing the rankings -- the idea that this ragtag network of 'scouts' (using the term incredibly loosely in most cases) is accurately ranking a TE in New Mexico vs. an ILB in Maine is patently absurd, IMO. I agree on this and on the recruits for this year. I think you can compare recruiting classes to previous groups and get a relative feeling that you're improving or declining. But, I don't really think the stars play into it in a meaningful way ... or at least as anything more than a single data point among a lot of other relevant factors (offers, measurables, technique/polish, projectability, how well the staff develops the players -- we saw GRob run into issues in S&C and we've seen Babers completely overhaul that part of the program as well ...) My thing on it is this -- if there were really solid data behind the 'rankings' and 'stars' you would see it reflected as legit more often than not. So yes, when you look at Alabama and Michigan and whomever, you can pretty much bank on the fact that they are getting really good talent. But just about anyone could tell you that. However, it just seems like so many 2-star kids have become stars here and I literally can't remember the last 4-star that was just a flatout stud for us. You'd think that over time the 4-stars would play out. If you look at the list below for the past 11 years according to Riv@ls, it's interesting. I mean, it's largely anecdotal, but look at all the really good players who came in as two stars vs. the complete lack of really good players who came in as 4 stars. Spruill was great and Sales was good. That basically concludes the list. 2-star Clark (15) Fredericks (15) Phillips (14) Isaiah Johnson (13) Dyshawn Davis (10) Shamarko Thomas (09) Justin Pugh (09) Alec Lemon (09) Chandler Jones (08) Derrell Smith (06) Art Jones (05) 4-star KJ Williams (never made it) Spruill (10) Averin Collier (08) Miranovich (08) Sales (08) Romale Tucker (08) Jermaine Pierce (07) Baskin (06) Adam Rosner (06) Lobdell (05) So what does it mean? I don't know. Would I rather have a class full of 4-stars than 2-stars? Yes. Would I be 75% aroused if the cuse signed a top 25 class per the ratings services? Yes, absolutely. But I just feel that what the services tend to tell you is just how good the talent is that is going on to the big schools and they are providing info, but I would say inconsistent scouting/ranking information on the vast majority of 2-3 star kids. That's why I believe any successful staff here is going to have to find lower-rated kids and they are going to have to take raw athletes and turn them into football players. What happens after signing day and how successfully they find really projectable athletes is going to be a huge key regardless of the ratings on the first Wednesday in Feb. [/QUOTE]

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