WoodyHayes1951 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Scout has the Big XII signing THREE 5 star players Scout has the Big Ten signing TEN 5 star players Scout has the SEC signing SIXTEEN 5 star players Rivals has 0, 4 and 14 respectively. 247 has 1, 2 and 20 respectively. Quote Link to comment
BCS1994 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Lol your signature is funny. But i gotta say that girl is amazing either way. It's just that her brain is a little whack. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Lol your signature is funny. But i gotta say that girl is amazing either way. It's just that her brain is a little whack. That's gotta be the worst ms paint job I have ever seen. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Scout has the Big XII signing THREE 5 star players Scout has the Big Ten signing TEN 5 star players Scout has the SEC signing SIXTEEN 5 star players Rivals has 0, 4 and 14 respectively. 247 has 1, 2 and 20 respectively. Well, when we moved to the Big 10, we werent supposed to be able to recruit texas anymore and this year we pulled 4 very talented guys out of texas, which is I think the most under Pelini as coach. Quote Link to comment
husker ponsler Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Bo is the right man for the job just needs a little time its all starting to come together. BC just about killed us and BO is rebuilding in the right direction and winning games. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I got into a deep discussion one time with a guy who works for one of the three main recruiting services (Scout, Rivals, 247). I'm not going to tell you which one because they all are the same in my mind. A few years ago, when our recruiting was struggling, we recruited several players and almost immediately their ratings went down. I argued that it was because the kid chose Nebraska and not one of the hot programs at the time. The guy made a comment that the services watch film and look to see who is recruiting them. Meaning, if a kid all of a sudden gets offers from USC, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Florida...etc., his ratings are probably going to go up. If he goes all the way through the recruiting process and none of those schools offer him, his ratings probably are not going to be bumped. Now, I believe this has both helped us and our recruits this year and hurt us. I believe we have some recruits that got bumped after we went after them and they committed. We were perceived as a better program than who was after him before. The services probably now looked at Nebraska and said...Hey, if they really wanted the kid, he is probably better than we thought. On the flip side, I am sure we got recruits that were right on the edge of the 5 star that if the above listed schools would have went hard after them, they would have gotten that 5th star. If you look at Rivals, I think 6.1 is considered a 5*. We have at least one player at 6. This is just part of where these rankings are really questionable. Now, I am sure to a certain level, the SEC is getting a little better talent than the Big Ten and Big XII. But, this is an example of where these rankings can be skewed. Quote Link to comment
QMany Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 To go with your ^ point there ... As much as I hate Darren Rovell, he agrees: darren rovell @darrenrovellTrue, but kids who sign w/better schools get higher rankings RT @rkeislin Teams with higher (recruiting) rankings win more games. As soon as a kid kids interest/visits/offers from LSU/Bama/Florida, their rankings go up. It happens with us with certain players we pluck from smaller schools (Iowa State), but not to the same extent. Quote Link to comment
WoodyHayes1951 Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 I would say that is correct. James Clark proves it. He was a 3 star. Oh he got offers from Clemson, Nebraska, UF and OSU? then he's a 4 star. Quote Link to comment
jaws Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I would say that is correct. James Clark proves it. He was a 3 star. Oh he got offers from Clemson, Nebraska, UF and OSU? then he's a 4 star. Maybe if he visited FLA 6x instead of 5x, he would have gotten a 5th star. In the end it comes does to coaching and a bit of luck. Great coaches can do a lot with kids that have great athletic ability, want to learn, and work hard. Then you have some kids that have great physical tools but can't grasp the college game. Quote Link to comment
dylan Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 To go with your ^ point there ... As much as I hate Darren Rovell, he agrees: darren rovell @darrenrovellTrue, but kids who sign w/better schools get higher rankings RT @rkeislin Teams with higher (recruiting) rankings win more games. As soon as a kid kids interest/visits/offers from LSU/Bama/Florida, their rankings go up. It happens with us with certain players we pluck from smaller schools (Iowa State), but not to the same extent. Yup. That's part of the shell game. I think there is a rough correlation between talent and rankings, but it's rigged by the fact that winning teams get higher recruiting rankings by default. The more they win, the more the rankings get skewed in their favor. Quote Link to comment
QMany Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Also, don't trust ESPN's rankings. Texas #15 class? Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I could believe this because I find it nearly impossible for a service to closely evaluate all high school kids in the country to come up with a rating system. Therefore, that's not all that inaccurate of a rating system. If Saban wants him, he must be good, right? Here's where the issue is in my mind. We nab a kid who commits-very solidly-early in the process. Other schools take not of this solid committment and stay away, thus hurting his rating. I've always been a believer that individual player ratings were a manipulated bunch of bs. But the overall team rankins, though maybe skewed a little, are usually a pretty good determination of who's going to near the top. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I could believe this because I find it nearly impossible for a service to closely evaluate all high school kids in the country to come up with a rating system. Therefore, that's not all that inaccurate of a rating system. If Saban wants him, he must be good, right? Here's where the issue is in my mind. We nab a kid who commits-very solidly-early in the process. Other schools take not of this solid committment and stay away, thus hurting his rating. I've always been a believer that individual player ratings were a manipulated bunch of bs. But the overall team rankins, though maybe skewed a little, are usually a pretty good determination of who's going to near the top. I believe this happened to at least one Cotton kid. Quote Link to comment
I am I Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I think all you have to do is look at whether the coaches use the Recruiting Services to find, compare, or evaluate a large portion of their target class. My guess is no. The servies need the fans and coaches much more than the coaches need them. Quote Link to comment
BCS1994 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Why not trust ESPN's class?? I look at the SEC's dominance, and they have dominated ESPN's recruiting site in the past years. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.