We get so worked up on recruiting

[bnoro]

This post is 100% spot on. Wait, are you Eric White?

I wish I was...

 

[Sudano]

Then you should know that this is probably our best class in 15 years. Forget class rankings, as those reward classes with more commits. I can't remember one of our classes with more BCS offers than this one. I'm not going to go through every commit because I frankly don't have the time nor patience. Guys KJ Williams -- Michigan, Edouard -- Miami, Slayton -- Neb, Mich St, Hudson -- BC, Roberts -- Ill, Custis -- Pitt (rumored late Miami offer), Franklin -- South Carlolina, etc. The list goes on.

This is a pretty damn good class. Would I like all 4 and 5 star kids? Sure. Is that realistic, no. We need to recruit with our peer schools (BC, MD, Pitt, UVA) and kick their asses on the field.

I agree with you this year looks good. (Let's not count our chickens too soon, signing date in about a month). I think we're just about there but need to not only maintain the momentum for this year but also improve incrementally on some of our weak points. Time's a changin and hope this continues.

 

[Sudano]

I won't get into whether they do a good, bad or indifferent job in evaluating, but as to the process, your post is wrong. They do go out and watch kids at all star games, combines, state playoff games, even individual games to see a particular player. I also won't say every kid they haven't seen at all, on tape or live, is not rated. I'm sure there are kids they've seen nothing of, that gets offered by an Alabama and FSU, that they rate. But most kids don't get rated unless they have seen then at least on tape. Also, stars aren't assigned. It's based in national ranking. 1-x are 5 stars, x-y are 4 stars, etc.

Of course they try to watch them if they can. That's not the main thing they do. They don't have the time nor the budget. That is a major expense to their bottom line. Why travel to watch someone and expend all that money and energy when all your customers want to know is if their college has chance for them. Their main goal is to try to find out what the real professional coaches who evaluate talent thinks of them, and the coaches aren't returning their calls. That can easily be done via text or call to the player to find out who's recruiting you. That tells them much more than watching a player. Players unseen by the recruiting sites are given stars all the time based on what information they find out about them. We've seen on these sites for years go from a no star to a 3 star soley based on who just offered them a scholarship. No matter what the sites think of these players the real heart of the matter is what the college coaches think of them.

 

[rrlbees]

Of course they try to watch them if they can. That's not the main thing they do. They don't have the time nor the budget. That is a major expense to their bottom line. Why travel to watch someone and expend all that money and energy when all your customers want to know is if their college has chance for them. Their main goal is to try to find out what the real professional coaches who evaluate talent thinks of them, and the coaches aren't returning their calls. That can easily be done via text or call to the player to find out who's recruiting you. That tells them much more than watching a player. Players unseen by the recruiting sites are given stars all the time based on what information they find out about them. We've seen on these sites for years go from a no star to a 3 star soley based on who just offered them a scholarship. No matter what the sites think of these players the real heart of the matter is what the college coaches think of them.

Excuse me for saying you're wrong for the most part. I know from our days at 2 of the sites and interactions I had with a lot of those people.

 

[bnoro]

Of course they try to watch them if they can. That's not the main thing they do. They don't have the time nor the budget. That is a major expense to their bottom line. Why travel to watch someone and expend all that money and energy when all your customers want to know is if their college has chance for them. Their main goal is to try to find out what the real professional coaches who evaluate talent thinks of them, and the coaches aren't returning their calls. That can easily be done via text or call to the player to find out who's recruiting you. That tells them much more than watching a player. Players unseen by the recruiting sites are given stars all the time based on what information they find out about them. We've seen on these sites for years go from a no star to a 3 star soley based on who just offered them a scholarship. No matter what the sites think of these players the real heart of the matter is what the college coaches think of them.

you're making up stuff right now...

 

[Sudano]

Excuse me for saying you're wrong for the most part. I know from our days at 2 of the sites and interactions I had with a lot of those people.

Please elaborate. I have subscribed for years and talked to many of these people myself. They admit they can't see everyone and explained why people subscribe to their sites. Its not to read detailed talent evaluations from those who right the articles. I'm talking football, not basketball which is a different recruiting animal.

 

[Sudano]

you're making up stuff right now...

What part of that is so drastic?
They call and text recruits right?
They write articles on those conversations.
They change their star ratings based on new information.
They really don't write too many true talent evaluations.
Subscribers want to know who's recruiting who, and basic data and not who the website thinks is good.
Its not like I'm presenting some new economic theory.
Its pretty basic.

 

[qdawgg]

Sudano - I'm still waiting for you to cite a few of the dozens of studies you say confirm your ranking theory from page two of the thread.

 

[rrlbees]

What part of that is so drastic?
They call and text recruits right?
They write articles on those conversations.
They change their star ratings based on new information.
They really don't write too many true talent evaluations.
Subscribers want to know who's recruiting who, and basic data and not who the website thinks is good.
Its not like I'm presenting some new economic theory.
Its pretty basic.

I'll answer both this and the question you asked me about elaborating here.

First your post above. Yes they do call or text recruits and interview them or ask a couple questions. But those are the site writers. Many if not most of them have nothing to do with the state rankings, then regional rankings and finally national rankings which ultimately lead to the "stars". They may pass along their thoughts if they had seen the kid live or gotten tape on them, but they are not the decision makers. They are the writers.

As to elaboration you asked, in addition the the above, I will repeat some of what I already said in a prior post. It is not just a shot in the dark or only based on who offered. Many kids are ranked before they even hVe a lot of offers. They do go see kids play in games. Whether that is just a game in their area or an all star game or a combine (which they themselves run several) or a camp or special games like the one in MD or Texas.

Of course there is no way they are going to see every kid in the country. Impossible for any organization. But they see a lot of the better kids at things I mentioned above. The lesser kids who don't participate in those things they rely on tape. I know very well one of them who spent a good 30-40 hours a week doing nothing but watching tape and evaluating.

Whether anyone agrees with their evals, whether it be live or via tape, is another thing. But the process is not close to as simple as you want to make it. And of course if they have a kid ranked low who then gets 2 stars, and Alabama and FSU come along and offer, they are going to relook at that and most likely change the ranking and thus the stars. I think the rankings get updated about 3-4 times a year.

Mew have had kids that weren't rated at all because nobody had seen him and they didn't have tape on him. I'd push them to try to get tape from the kid or sometimes I would find tape someplace online or another ouster had and I would send them a link. Then the kid would get rated and get stars. Your way means nobody but the top 20 teams would ever get a 4-5 star kid and that's just not true. Even we have had a handful of 4 stars.

 

[Statesman1]

Sudano - I'm still waiting for you to cite a few of the dozens of studies you say confirm your ranking theory from page two of the thread.

Crusty said: ↑

I have never seen a study that proves or disproves the ranking theory. I am not sure it can even be done given the independent variables. Any statement pro or con is based purely on anecdotal evidence. So, everybody is free to have their own opinion - which is nice.
Click to expand...​

Everyone is free to their own opinion even if there were dozens of studies. If recruiting rankings had no correlation to success teams like Kansas, New Mexico, and Tulane would be perennial powerhouses.

qdawgg I don't think your reading comprehension skills are up to snuff. You're waiting on studies that Sudano never implied were there, and that my man Crusty doesn't even think can be done.

 

[Sudano]

I'll answer both this and the question you asked me about elaborating here.

First your post above. Yes they do call or text recruits and interview them or ask a couple questions. But those are the site writers. Many if not most of them have nothing to do with the state rankings, then regional rankings and finally national rankings which ultimately lead to the "stars". They may pass along their thoughts if they had seen the kid live or gotten tape on them, but they are not the decision makers. They are the writers.

As to elaboration you asked, in addition the the above, I will repeat some of what I already said in a prior post. It is not just a shot in the dark or only based on who offered. Many kids are ranked before they even hVe a lot of offers. They do go see kids play in games. Whether that is just a game in their area or an all star game or a combine (which they themselves run several) or a camp or special games like the one in MD or Texas.

Of course there is no way they are going to see every kid in the country. Impossible for any organization. But they see a lot of the better kids at things I mentioned above. The lesser kids who don't participate in those things they rely on tape. I know very well one of them who spent a good 30-40 hours a week doing nothing but watching tape and evaluating.

Whether anyone agrees with their evals, whether it be live or via tape, is another thing. But the process is not close to as simple as you want to make it. And of course if they have a kid ranked low who then gets 2 stars, and Alabama and FSU come along and offer, they are going to relook at that and most likely change the ranking and thus the stars. I think the rankings get updated about 3-4 times a year.

Mew have had kids that weren't rated at all because nobody had seen him and they didn't have tape on him. I'd push them to try to get tape from the kid or sometimes I would find tape someplace online or another ouster had and I would send them a link. Then the kid would get rated and get stars. Your way means nobody but the top 20 teams would ever get a 4-5 star kid and that's just not true. Even we have had a handful of 4 stars.

You’re right I probably did overstate that they do no evaluation particularly since there has been a lot of consolidation in the industry along with the proliferation and easy access to online player videos over the past few years.
Really my point is that their evaluations are ALMOST irrelevant to the true talent evaluation process. That part of recruiting occurs even if they didn't exist. This particularly holds true since we already are getting insight into their true market value with evaluations from the coaches themselves. This insight is revealed by what the recruiting sites find out from the recruits about who’s recruiting them and who comparatively have offered them college football scholarships. This is much more relevant information to their true talent and where they stack up amongst their peers.
They themselves are not the relevant talent evaluators that we need to worry about. It’s the professional coaches’ opinions that are more pertinent and carry much more value and they ain’t talkin’ but their information is indirectly revealed. The only way to access what college coaches think of players is to ask the players themselves. They can’t ask the coaches. They try to establish themselves as truly important talent evaluators but their more important role is to interview players to inform the public about who is recruiting them and offering them scholarships. Information gatherers or aggregators if you will. A very important role for those many of us that want an unclouded view into the veiled world of college recruiting between players and coaches. We just need a clearer understanding into what they are and what they aren’t so we don’t build them up just to then tear them down. They have an important role for us fans by providing the information they do but just not the role they have tried to establish for themselves as scouts whose evaluations the recruiting coaches rely on.