Why recruiting matters, and the importance of signing day

[Enhance]

And if a player doesn't go to one of their camps?

 

And...you know they are superior because....they are telling you this?

The opportunities or chances for players to slip through the cracks in this day and age are significantly smaller than they used to be, though it can happen and there's no denying that. It is also completely possible a potentially great player can be graded out low (J.J. Watt was a two-star). I think Psycho's statement about players going to camps came off a little bit like that's the only way they're being evaluated. That's not true. It's just another tool in the recruiting service arsenal.

 

Also, you made a statement about how you hope programs aren't using these services and you believe they're wholly for fan use. That may apply to places like Rivals (I honestly don't know). But, coaches have come out publicly endorsing the value recruiting services offer, particularly for getting access to film and getting a general idea about the quality of player. There is also proof out there of the money universities spent on those services.

 

Now, the recruiting services the coaches are usually talking about are the companies that do the full on evaluations and video gathering, not necessarily 24/7 Sports or Rivals. But, like I said, a lot of times those coaches don't specify who they're working with.

 

Here is an interesting article on the subject. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/sec/2011-07-22-coaches-scouting-recruiting-services_n.htm

[Guy Chamberlin]

Services have no real value.

 

Recruiting itself is quite important.

 

If services merely catalogued the speed, strength, vertical leap, academic status and injury history of high school players from around the country, they would have real value.

They do, and they do.

 

Their star ratings don't always pan out, and they've gotten a little big for their britches, but they still have value.

[BigRedBuster]

 

And if a player doesn't go to one of their camps?

 

And...you know they are superior because....they are telling you this?

The opportunities or chances for players to slip through the cracks in this day and age are significantly smaller than they used to be, though it can happen and there's no denying that. It is also completely possible a potentially great player can be graded out low (J.J. Watt was a two-star). I think Psycho's statement about players going to camps came off a little bit like that's the only way they're being evaluated. That's not true. It's just another tool in the recruiting service arsenal.

 

Also, you made a statement about how you hope programs aren't using these services and you believe they're wholly for fan use. That may apply to places like Rivals (I honestly don't know). But, coaches have come out publicly endorsing the value recruiting services offer, particularly for getting access to film and getting a general idea about the quality of player. There is also proof out there of the money universities spent on those services.

 

Now, the recruiting services the coaches are usually talking about are the companies that do the full on evaluations and video gathering, not necessarily 24/7 Sports or Rivals. But, like I said, a lot of times those coaches don't specify who they're working with.

 

Here is an interesting article on the subject. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/sec/2011-07-22-coaches-scouting-recruiting-services_n.htm

 

I specifically used the word "mostly" in my post.

 

Yes, I expect a program to maybe to on a service and search to see if they possibly are missing out on someone. They might be able to find XYZ player in San Fransisco that they normally would not have known about.

However, I would expect our coaches to evaluate that player themselves to see if that player really has what it takes to succeed here. I would hope they are doing that instead of saying...."Hey...Rivals rates this kid a 4 star...we need to go after him".

 

A good example of this is a recent WR offer we made. Jeremiah Holloman is a 3 star recruit with a .8333 rating on 247 composite. (which is a fairly low 3* rating)

 

Now, if this kid is offered this early in the process, I would expect that our staff looked at him and believes he's better than that rating instead of using that rating as a deciding factor in their offer.

 

 

 

I'm not advocating for our "program" to use any specific service. I hope and pray they are doing their own evaluations and not using these services.

 

 

These services are mostly for fans to follow recruiting.

 

If you think these services have a major affect on our program...well.....you have a much bigger view of their importance than they deserve.

 

[Saunders]

Can someone tell me what the .10 means/is that takes a guy from average to "elite" in the rankings?

 

Thanks.

[Enhance]

I know you used mostly, Buster, and I was suggesting that may be inaccurate depending on what services the coaches are using. I just don't know the answer. Can you quantifiably prove there aren't a significant portion of coaches/programs using any of the services, and then what kind of services are they using? Are they using Rivals or some of the smaller, more local companies?

 

And, at least in regards to the coaches themselves, the article I provided suggests it's fairly common across the college football landscape for coaching to use them. HUDL is a recruiting service in and of itself and it has boomed incredibly and I know for a fact hundreds of coaches are using their services at all levels of athletics. Granted, I don't think HUDL does any of their own evaluation, but that's something I also don't know.

 

I don't mean to put you on the defensive (which I'm sure you're accustomed to in this thread by now). I'm just suggesting that, overall, recruiting services may not be so fan-oriented as they look on the surface, though places like Rivals may be. There's a distinction there imo.

 

As a final a side note, I'm positive coaches do their own deep evaluations of recruits. But, I would also feel comfortable believing they probably get a head start on things using the recruiting services.

[BigRedBuster]

I know you used mostly, Buster, and I was suggesting that may be inaccurate depending on what services the coaches are using. I just don't know the answer. Can you quantifiably prove there aren't a significant portion of coaches/programs using any of the services, and then what kind of services are they using? Are they using Rivals or some of the smaller, more local companies?

 

And, at least in regards to the coaches themselves, the article I provided suggests it's fairly common across the college football landscape for coaching to use them. HUDL is a recruiting service in and of itself and it has boomed incredibly and I know for a fact hundreds of coaches are using their services at all levels of athletics. Granted, I don't think HUDL does any of their own evaluation, but that's something I also don't know.

 

I don't mean to put you on the defensive (which I'm sure you're accustomed to in this thread by now). I'm just suggesting that, overall, recruiting services may not be so fan-oriented as they look on the surface, though places like Rivals may be. There's a distinction there imo.

 

As a final a side note, I'm positive coaches do their own deep evaluations of recruits. But, I would also feel comfortable believing they probably get a head start on things using the recruiting services.

Like I said, I'm sure coaches use them to some extent. My contention is that they don't take their evaluation as gospel and they actually do their own evaluations. I believe this because I hear coaches talking about watching film and evaluating recruits all the time.

 

I'm sure the use of these services varies widely from program to program. My guess is that a program with less funds available are going to use them more than a program with huge funds to have a staff sorting through this stuff.

 

When I'm talking about recruiting services, I'm not thinking about Hudl. I'm specifically talking about Rivals, Scout and 247.

 

Honestly, it would be interesting to hear an interview with a coach or ex coach at the Div 1 power program level discuss how they go about finding and evaluating players and to what extent they use these services.

[Enhance]

 

I know you used mostly, Buster, and I was suggesting that may be inaccurate depending on what services the coaches are using. I just don't know the answer. Can you quantifiably prove there aren't a significant portion of coaches/programs using any of the services, and then what kind of services are they using? Are they using Rivals or some of the smaller, more local companies?

 

And, at least in regards to the coaches themselves, the article I provided suggests it's fairly common across the college football landscape for coaching to use them. HUDL is a recruiting service in and of itself and it has boomed incredibly and I know for a fact hundreds of coaches are using their services at all levels of athletics. Granted, I don't think HUDL does any of their own evaluation, but that's something I also don't know.

 

I don't mean to put you on the defensive (which I'm sure you're accustomed to in this thread by now). I'm just suggesting that, overall, recruiting services may not be so fan-oriented as they look on the surface, though places like Rivals may be. There's a distinction there imo.

 

As a final a side note, I'm positive coaches do their own deep evaluations of recruits. But, I would also feel comfortable believing they probably get a head start on things using the recruiting services.

Like I said, I'm sure coaches use them to some extent. My contention is that they don't take their evaluation as gospel and they actually do their own evaluations. I believe this because I hear coaches talking about watching film and evaluating recruits all the time.

 

I'm sure the use of these services varies widely from program to program. My guess is that a program with less funds available are going to use them more than a program with huge funds to have a staff sorting through this stuff.

 

When I'm talking about recruiting services, I'm not thinking about Hudl. I'm specifically talking about Rivals, Scout and 247.

 

Honestly, it would be interesting to hear an interview with a coach or ex coach at the Div 1 power program level discuss how they go about finding and evaluating players and to what extent they use these services.

 

Completely agree with bolded. That's a fantastic story out there waiting to happen, particularly if you can find one willing to go in detail about their relationship with recruiting services. Chizik of course was quoted in the article I shared with you, and the article also suggested strong ties between LSU/Oregon to one recruiting service.

 

My gut tells me coaches are using recruiting services like Hudl but don't rely too much on the more fan-oriented ones like Rivals. And then, once coaches get an idea about a player, they then do their own deep evaluations with their own people.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I know you used mostly, Buster, and I was suggesting that may be inaccurate depending on what services the coaches are using. I just don't know the answer. Can you quantifiably prove there aren't a significant portion of coaches/programs using any of the services, and then what kind of services are they using? Are they using Rivals or some of the smaller, more local companies?

 

And, at least in regards to the coaches themselves, the article I provided suggests it's fairly common across the college football landscape for coaching to use them. HUDL is a recruiting service in and of itself and it has boomed incredibly and I know for a fact hundreds of coaches are using their services at all levels of athletics. Granted, I don't think HUDL does any of their own evaluation, but that's something I also don't know.

 

I don't mean to put you on the defensive (which I'm sure you're accustomed to in this thread by now). I'm just suggesting that, overall, recruiting services may not be so fan-oriented as they look on the surface, though places like Rivals may be. There's a distinction there imo.

 

As a final a side note, I'm positive coaches do their own deep evaluations of recruits. But, I would also feel comfortable believing they probably get a head start on things using the recruiting services.

Like I said, I'm sure coaches use them to some extent. My contention is that they don't take their evaluation as gospel and they actually do their own evaluations. I believe this because I hear coaches talking about watching film and evaluating recruits all the time.

 

I'm sure the use of these services varies widely from program to program. My guess is that a program with less funds available are going to use them more than a program with huge funds to have a staff sorting through this stuff.

 

When I'm talking about recruiting services, I'm not thinking about Hudl. I'm specifically talking about Rivals, Scout and 247.

 

Honestly, it would be interesting to hear an interview with a coach or ex coach at the Div 1 power program level discuss how they go about finding and evaluating players and to what extent they use these services.

 

Completely agree with bolded. That's a fantastic story out there waiting to happen, particularly if you can find one willing to go in detail about their relationship with recruiting services. Chizik of course was quoted in the article I shared with you, and the article also suggested strong ties between LSU/Oregon to one recruiting service.

 

My gut tells me coaches are using recruiting services like Hudl but don't rely too much on the more fan-oriented ones like Rivals. And then, once coaches get an idea about a player, they then do their own deep evaluations with their own people.

 

That's my gut feeling also.

[cm husker]

Do coaches leverage the "reporters" to pressure players and get around contact rules? Absolutely. That's another good reason to kill the contact rules.

 

Enhance, I was referring to the top 200 or so evaluations not being materially different than 20 years ago and that after that, the services aren't that great, even now.

 

I get you have a vested interest in the recruiting industrial complex, but of those "dozens" of people that you refer to, how many are talent evaluators versus marketing experts? I posted artivles another thread and can't pull it up on my phone, but basically, the average reporter at these sites makes less than $15k a year. It's a part time and often free lance gig. Few make a sustainable living doing evaluations. Most are treating it like beat reporters on the minor league baseball circuit treat it: a step toward a better reporting job.

 

There is of course an important distinction between consumer facing products like rivals, scout and ESPN and the coach facing products that focus on film production to enhance evaluation. The first are hardly used by the coaches, except to work around NCAA rules, as I mentioned before. The second have value, but they must be fretting over the NCAA lifting recruiting staff restrictions. There's a decent chance a large share of their market will start insourcing that work.

[BigRedBuster]

Do coaches leverage the "reporters" to pressure players and get around contact rules? Absolutely. That's another good reason to kill the contact rules.

 

Enhance, I was referring to the top 200 or so evaluations not being materially different than 20 years ago and that after that, the services aren't that great, even now.

 

I get you have a vested interest in the recruiting industrial complex, but of those "dozens" of people that you refer to, how many are talent evaluators versus marketing experts? I posted artivles another thread and can't pull it up on my phone, but basically, the average reporter at these sites makes less than $15k a year. It's a part time and often free lance gig. Few make a sustainable living doing evaluations. Most are treating it like beat reporters on the minor league baseball circuit treat it: a step toward a better reporting job.

 

There is of course an important distinction between consumer facing products like rivals, scout and ESPN and the coach facing products that focus on film production to enhance evaluation. The first are hardly used by the coaches, except to work around NCAA rules, as I mentioned before. The second have value, but they must be fretting over the NCAA lifting recruiting staff restrictions. There's a decent chance a large share of their market will start insourcing that work.

you do realize the contact rules are put in place to protect the athlete????

I thought you were all for protecting the athlete.

[BigRedBuster]

Here's just a side note that I have been thinking about for while.

 

Top rated recruits

 

2017 Outside linebacker, 8 out of top 10 players defensive or OTs

2016 Defensive tackle, 8 out of top ten defensive players except two QBs

2015 Defensive Tackle, top 10 either defensive player or OT

2014 RB, 6 out of top 10 players defensive or OT

 

 

Yet....when the Heisman comes around, almost all of these players won't have any chance to even sniff the trophy. It just points out even more what a joke the Heisman is.

[cm husker]

 

 

Do coaches leverage the "reporters" to pressure players and get around contact rules? Absolutely. That's another good reason to kill the contact rules.

 

Enhance, I was referring to the top 200 or so evaluations not being materially different than 20 years ago and that after that, the services aren't that great, even now.

 

I get you have a vested interest in the recruiting industrial complex, but of those "dozens" of people that you refer to, how many are talent evaluators versus marketing experts? I posted artivles another thread and can't pull it up on my phone, but basically, the average reporter at these sites makes less than $15k a year. It's a part time and often free lance gig. Few make a sustainable living doing evaluations. Most are treating it like beat reporters on the minor league baseball circuit treat it: a step toward a better reporting job.

 

There is of course an important distinction between consumer facing products like rivals, scout and ESPN and the coach facing products that focus on film production to enhance evaluation. The first are hardly used by the coaches, except to work around NCAA rules, as I mentioned before. The second have value, but they must be fretting over the NCAA lifting recruiting staff restrictions. There's a decent chance a large share of their market will start insourcing that work.

you do realize the contact rules are put in place to protect the athlete????

I thought you were all for protecting the athlete.

In theory they are. In practice, they are awful for an athelete because they deny him information. I have my doubts that such restrictions were really for the athelete and not really a form of protectionism (kind of like how the sec is claiming spring break needs to be preserved for the athelete, when in reality it's all about protecting the SEC).

 

A far better approach would be an enforceable "no call list."

 

Players and parents could put anyone on the list they want (including recruiting services) and could report (anonymously if desired) violations.

 

This would much better than (1) a blanket band that may not be in an individual athletes interest, and (2) allowing coaches who are willing to cheat to have an advantage. It would also be much easier to enforce than the current system that apparently requires coaches to inform on other coaches (see fulmer, Kiffen and other examples from the SEC).

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Do coaches leverage the "reporters" to pressure players and get around contact rules? Absolutely. That's another good reason to kill the contact rules.

 

Enhance, I was referring to the top 200 or so evaluations not being materially different than 20 years ago and that after that, the services aren't that great, even now.

 

I get you have a vested interest in the recruiting industrial complex, but of those "dozens" of people that you refer to, how many are talent evaluators versus marketing experts? I posted artivles another thread and can't pull it up on my phone, but basically, the average reporter at these sites makes less than $15k a year. It's a part time and often free lance gig. Few make a sustainable living doing evaluations. Most are treating it like beat reporters on the minor league baseball circuit treat it: a step toward a better reporting job.

 

There is of course an important distinction between consumer facing products like rivals, scout and ESPN and the coach facing products that focus on film production to enhance evaluation. The first are hardly used by the coaches, except to work around NCAA rules, as I mentioned before. The second have value, but they must be fretting over the NCAA lifting recruiting staff restrictions. There's a decent chance a large share of their market will start insourcing that work.

you do realize the contact rules are put in place to protect the athlete????

I thought you were all for protecting the athlete.

In theory they are. In practice, they are awful for an athelete because they deny him information. I have my doubts that such restrictions were really for the athelete and not really a form of protectionism (kind of like how the sec is claiming spring break needs to be preserved for the athelete, when in reality it's all about protecting the SEC).

 

A far better approach would be an enforceable "no call list."

 

Players and parents could put anyone on the list they want (including recruiting services) and could report (anonymously if desired) violations.

 

This would much better than (1) a blanket band that may not be in an individual athletes interest, and (2) allowing coaches who are willing to cheat to have an advantage. It would also be much easier to enforce than the current system that apparently requires coaches to inform on other coaches (see fulmer, Kiffen and other examples from the SEC).

 

That's your opinion that a lot of people disagree with.

[cm husker]

Do you understand that I'm not just saying "allow unfettered contact no matter what"?

[cm husker]

Oh, and for the person who was arguing that dead periods aren't as much about protecting a coach's time as an athletes, have a look at the NCAAs statement: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/10/30/ncaa-board-of-directors-football-recruiting-all-star-games-dead-period/3317441/