Tangent Thread - Recruiting Rankings & Predictions Edition

knapplc said:
I think you're taking this much seriouser than I am. 

Bottom line is, if 75% of kids don't know five months from Signing Day which school they're going to attend,  there's zero chance Wiltfong or any predictor can know where more than that number are going to go. 

So either the kids all know where they're going, they disclose it to someone, that solid information gets out to the recruiting guys and only the recruiting guys... OR they're making educated guesses and fudging the numbers to justify the percentage they claim.

These are high school kids.  We can believe they, and all of their friends, can keep a secret, or we can believe something else. 
Click to expand...


I just covered this in the above post.  It's a bit of a semantic argument but I DO actually think a lot of kids pretty much know where they're going.  They're not 100% decided yet but they have a favorite that will take a lot to get them to choose something else.

 
That sounds reasonable, but if it's that easy, wouldn't all the gurus running recruiting sites be at or above 80% (or so)? 

It just seems Wiltfong's numbers are too good to be true.  Plus there's no way anyone can claim a team is "leading" for a kid unless they have inside info from that kid, at which point we go back to the discussion of how well teenagers keep secrets.

 
knapplc said:
That sounds reasonable, but if it's that easy, wouldn't all the gurus running recruiting sites be at or above 80% (or so)? 

It just seems Wiltfong's numbers are too good to be true.  Plus there's no way anyone can claim a team is "leading" for a kid unless they have inside info from that kid, at which point we go back to the discussion of how well teenagers keep secrets.
Click to expand...
I think many of the guys with lower prediction percentages are homers selling subscriptions. 

"I just put a CB for a dynamic player. Sign up to find out who" kind of thing.

At the end of the day, Mavric is right.  Most of these kids can be narrowed down to one or two schools simply by geography. Most of their recruiting is simply enjoying being wooed.

In all honesty, if we kept track of the accuracy in the recruiting forum on our predictions, I wouldn't be surprised if Mavric or the top point getters push 80%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My apologies been on the phone all day when typing on here and that can lead to me trying to cut down on what all i would like to say to save fighting spell check which doesnt like half words i use.

Enhance said:
@husker98Did you read the article or the pull quote I provided? A fair portion of what you just said is contradicted by facts. I'll include the pull quote again and bold the important bit:

Also, "we need to stop pretending these stars we put on kids are infallible and truly reflective of their skill" is a straw man. Nobody is saying that. However, somebody (aka you) did just say recruiting rankings are "garbage," which is wholly false.
Click to expand...




I did.

And your wrong everything i wrote is factually backed up. SN nation looked at only the starting line up, in the link i posted, of the Eagles and Patriots. The patriots only start 5 guys rate 4 star or higher.

The Eagles are in all likely hood soon to be beaten down by group of guys who were rated 3 stars coming out of high school. That was my point, that you missed, being that highly rated may get you to the league. Neat.

 But on the starting line up of the most successful team in America, they are a firm minority.

It is my personal belief the system is garbage, this belief is based on my personal experiences.

When i played high school ball we had a kid rated 2 stars. He never once met with rivals or any other site that gave him that designation. And as i came to find out later in my broadcast career after meeting some of these people, if you don't show at their events or live within a specific radius where they can see you in person you won't be rated higher than a 3 unless some other circumstances arise.

There are simply to many kids, not enough eyes to go see them all. 

Which brings me to my final point.  The recruiting services called my 2 star team mate a project player. Our team doesn't game film so................ and no one came to see him.

and he played in every game for all 4 of his years at CSU, and had a chance to continue. But opted not too.

Defend all that if you want too but i will call it as i see it.............. Garbage. They have the audacity to categorize and "rate" kids they have never seen, and never will except on aTV or computer monitor. 

And as to the bolded part, i could waste my night quoting other posts where people assert kid X is a back up to kid Z because the aforementioned kid is rated 50 spots higher. the personal profiles section in the recruiting forum is full of either that blatant assertion or subtle inclination. That comment was aimed at those people less you, but you jumped on it so there you go, less a straw man, more a real man.  So your are in fact wrong just like i believe you are about recruiting. 

Moiraine said:
Also, I thought we were talking about college football.
Click to expand...


So did i.

 
husker98 said:
And your wrong everything i wrote is factually backed up. SN nation looked at only the starting line up, in the link i posted, of the Eagles and Patriots. The patriots only start 5 guys rate 4 star or higher.

The Eagles are in all likely hood soon to be beaten down by group of guys who were rated 3 stars coming out of high school. That was my point, that you missed, being that highly rated may get you to the league. Neat.

But on the starting line up of the most successful team in America, they are a firm minority.
Click to expand...




You still aren't understanding the math. They are a firm minority because there are way less of them to begin with. The fact is, 4 & 5 stars are a lot more likely to play in the NFL and a lot more likely to start in the NFL than are 3 stars. Which means the predictions are doing a good job.

12% of all ranked players in 2018 are 4 & 5 star (par for the course I believe), but 23% of all starters on the Patriots are 4 & 5 stars.


My comment on talking about college football is that the NFL is not at all relevant in this discussion. The star ratings are used to recruit kids to college. College football is a different game than the NFL. Just look at Tommie Frazier. Or any number of amazing college running backs who did horribly in the NFL.

But since we're doing it I'll continue:

There were 160 first-rounders in that span, and 29 of them were rated as five-star prospects (18 percent) by Rivals.com as high school seniors. That's an impressive ratio, considering FBS schools sign about 2,500 football players each season. There generally are about 30 five-star prospects annually, meaning less than 1.5 percent of the players signed are five-star guys.
Click to expand...


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000319991/article/where-firstrounders-rated-coming-out-of-high-school

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
You still aren't understanding the math. They are a firm minority because there are way less of them to begin with. The fact is, 4 & 5 stars are a lot more likely to play in the NFL and a lot more likely to start in the NFL than are 3 stars.

12% of all players in 2018 are 4 & 5 star, but 23% of all starters on the Patriots are 4 & 5 stars.
Click to expand...


Oh no i fully follow all of that, i'm just highlighting that they are not the end all be all everyone make 4-5* out to be by bringing up the patriots roster and how many 3* they play, and how much they have won with them which i was using to build on in another point but instead became a bigger focus. 

I never refuted that being that highly rated wont get you there or that those highly rated kids aren't good players just pointing out the problems with the system and how it functions and why it is junk. 

 
knapplc said:
That sounds reasonable, but if it's that easy, wouldn't all the gurus running recruiting sites be at or above 80% (or so)? 

It just seems Wiltfong's numbers are too good to be true.  Plus there's no way anyone can claim a team is "leading" for a kid unless they have inside info from that kid, at which point we go back to the discussion of how well teenagers keep secrets.
Click to expand...
I tend to believe old wilt is cooking the books. He may have some connections but 91% 5 months out is ridiculous. I don't track his predictions by any means but I have seen him change his prediction numerous times for 1 kid. So as long as he gets it right before they commit he is 91%? 

How do the kids who commit to numerous schools play in to the percentages. Some kids commit to 3 schools or more in the process. Didn't he change his CB for micah parsons numerous times - how does that effect accuracy 

 
husker98 said:
Oh no i fully follow all of that, i'm just highlighting that they are not the end all be all everyone make 4-5* out to be by bringing up the patriots roster and how many 3* they play, and how much they have won with them which i was using to build on in another point but instead became a bigger focus. 

I never refuted that being that highly rated wont get you there or that those highly rated kids aren't good players just pointing out the problems with the system and how it functions and why it is junk. 
Click to expand...
You continue to present the argument that people here consider the recruiting rankings the end all be all yet I don't see anyone saying this. You're arguing against a point no one has made. 

You also keep saying the system is "garbage" or "junk" when the statistical facts prove you're wrong. It's not that black and white. There's no nice way to say this - you are not understanding the math. 4 and 5 stars are a minority because there are way less of them, but they're still statistically more likely to play in the NFL. There's no possible way you "fully understand this" based on your retorts in this discussion because, if you did, you would see why your position makes no logical sense.

 
Enhance said:
You continue to present the argument that people here consider the recruiting rankings the end all be all yet I don't see anyone saying this. You're arguing against a point no one has made. 

You also keep saying the system is "garbage" or "junk" when the statistical facts prove you're wrong. It's not that black and white. There's no nice way to say this - you are not understanding the math. 4 and 5 stars are a minority because there are way less of them, but they're still statistically more likely to play in the NFL. There's no possible way you "fully understand this" based on your retorts in this discussion because, if you did, you would see why your position makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...


The italicized, then you haven't spent much time in the recruiting profiles section. Rankings are taken seriously there and used to make some wholly inaccurate deductions about kids and their importance to the class. Its a big forum but its a fun read.

The bolded, yes. 12% of all prospects in 2018 are 4* and up. And are doing statistically better on getting to the NFL. Despite there being less of them overall. I have followed your point from  the start.

My point in my comments which you aren't following, is that those 4-5* are so few because the recruiting services aren't even evaluating the full class of 2018. It's hard to say how many kids they actually see in person. But as the NFL shows, the bulk being 3 stars and lower and many of them starters like for the patriots, it likely isn't near enough but we will never know because none of the sites detail how many kids they personally evaluate.

There might well be another 50+ kids who could be worthy of that 4* rank,  but as i noted above won't wont get it because the scouts either won't make it to a game or live too far away and will instead evaluate the kid off of grainy hudl highlights, maybe.

The system used to rate and evaluate prospects is both flawed and ultimately only accurate for an unknown number of kids. At least 12% i'll assume as the 4* generally do well.

Which is 432 kids rated at 4* or higher, while the other 3,683 rated guys the rating maybe accurate for a few but are likely inaccurate for the majority as the bulk of our NFL players and other possible 4 stars are here. Let alone the other 300,00 High school seniors. 

A system that is evaluating and getting it right on so few, and wrong on so many, is trash in my opinion

You are lingering so hard on the numbers certain they refute all doubters while not asking how those numbers got made or why.  And that is what I am trying to tell you, and was the point behind my original comment that started this long conversation.

 
The 7-step case to proving National Signing Day rankings matter a whole lot


1. They matter at the player level. Blue chips are almost 1,000 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round. You can see the star ratings drop throughout the NFL Draft. And five-stars are about 33 times as likely to be All-Americans as two-stars are.

2. They matter at the team level. Matt Hinton broke the country into five tiers of recruiting might, finding the higher-recruiting schools to consistently beat their lessers virtually across the board. Stewart Mandel:


Power 5 teams (of which there are 65) that consistently recruit Top 20 classes have a 60 percent chance of becoming a Top 20 program and a 35 percent chance of regularly inhabiting the Top 10.

By contrast, Power 5 teams that finish outside the Top 20 in recruiting have a lower than 18 percent chance of fielding Top 20 teams and just a 6.7 percent chance of reaching the Top 10.





3. They matter at the championship level. Before 2015, Bud Elliott predicted the champion would come from a tiny group of elite recruiters, topped by Alabama. That's because every national champion of the ratings era has passed a specific recruiting benchmark.

4. There are major exceptions, duh, like Eric Fisher, who went from being a 240-pound two-star to a 306-pound No. 1 pick*. Bill Connelly, who's way smarter than me, still finds them highly valuable, despite these obvious flaws.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top