I would draw a distinction between this and Chase Harper just based on what we've heard so far.
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.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
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.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.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
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.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.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.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.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.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.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.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
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.The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.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.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.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.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
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 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.The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.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.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.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.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
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 a$$ 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.
:laughpoundYa, sometimes I feel like these services are the "Don King" of the recruiting world!
SheepdogMark
