SIGNED OT Zach Sterup

[zoogs]

we usually offer top talent in the state right away..... sooo makes me wonder what really is going on... i think is it s type of thing where we have no reall place for this guy in the system but is too much a talent to waste... kinda like chase harper the other year......

 

I would draw a distinction between this and Chase Harper just based on what we've heard so far.

 

Chase Harper was the kind of guy that's just so talented, you don't turn him away on account of any numbers issue, because you'll find space for him.

 

Sterup seems like he still has a lot of questions and until we have other indications, sounds like a guy we have so far and will continue to slow play.

[Nexus]

:star ranked #26 OT by ESPNU.

[HuskerNMO]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

[AndyDufresne]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

 

Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.

[HuskerNMO]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

 

Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.

 

They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.

[AndyDufresne]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

 

Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.

 

They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.

 

Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.

[RockyMountainOySker]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

 

Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.

 

They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.

 

Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.

The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.

[AndyDufresne]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

 

Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.

 

They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.

 

Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.

The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.

 

I realize that the sole reason that these sites exist is to capitalize on rabid fans and make money. I don't understand why Rivals is so hesitant to put out their early rankings though, which is what I was referring to in my initial post. Many of the initial Rivals 250 will drop out and be replaced by players that are currently unranked. If there is this kind of fluidity in the rankings and they have in fact evaluated all of the players, why wait to assign the 25 5* rankings and the full complement of 4-stars? They will just move players around between now and signing day anyway.

[dylan]

Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.

 

5.8-

 

Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.

 

They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.

 

Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.

The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.

 

I realize that the sole reason that these sites exist is to capitalize on rabid fans and make money. I don't understand why Rivals is so hesitant to put out their early rankings though, which is what I was referring to in my initial post. Many of the initial Rivals 250 will drop out and be replaced by players that are currently unranked. If there is this kind of fluidity in the rankings and they have in fact evaluated all of the players, why wait to assign the 25 5* rankings and the full complement of 4-stars? They will just move players around between now and signing day anyway.

 

part of it is marketing decisions, but it's important to note also that their rankings are based in large part upon who offers a kid. if their staff actually had the ability to break down film as well as they pretend to, they'd go ahead and rank all the kids. since they can't, they put out preliminary high rankings on the kids that have a lot of early offers and then adjust the rankings as it becomes more clear how in demand each kid is.

 

i suspect they also adjust them to give higher rankings to uncommitted kids, drawing more hits/interest in their recruitment, but i don't have any data to support that.

[TMul]

part of it is marketing decisions, but it's important to note also that their rankings are based in large part upon who offers a kid. if their staff actually had the ability to break down film as well as they pretend to, they'd go ahead and rank all the kids. since they can't, they put out preliminary high rankings on the kids that have a lot of early offers and then adjust the rankings as it becomes more clear how in demand each kid is.

 

i suspect they also adjust them to give higher rankings to uncommitted kids, drawing more hits/interest in their recruitment, but i don't have any data to support that.

I agree with this totally as Sterup is probably the perfect example of this on one side while Tyler Moore is the example on the other side. If Moore strings out his recruitment while adding a bazillion offers from everybody and kicking ass at combines, he's a 5 star and doing the hat thing in Februrary. If the NU staff liked Sterup enough to offer him months ago and he commits on the spot without all of his offers coming in over the months, he's probably a mid 3 star.

 

Camps/combines play a huge role in these as well.

 

And like someone else posted this is a multi-million dollar operation pimping HS kids. I've read multiple times that these services tell kids over and over to not commit to see how many offers they can get and to help them make the right decision..........aka you're our gravy train and string this sucker out.

[NoLongerN]

Ya, sometimes I feel like these services are the "Don King" of the recruiting world! :-)

 

SheepdogMark

[Nexus]

Ya, sometimes I feel like these services are the "Don King" of the recruiting world! :-)

 

SheepdogMark

 

 

No waaaay! The Sheepdog came out of hiding?

 

How's it going Mark? Long time, no see.

[HuskerNMO]

nm

[HuskerNMO]

Yes, this thread won't pull up the last page if I set my default # of posts per page view to normal.

[HuskerNMO]

Alright, looks like post #106, whoever it was is causing the trouble with this thread. Anytime I try to display the 106th post in this thread I get a DB error.