forums

Recruiting Rankings are Garbage

Advertisement
The problem with recruit rankings is there is no accurate way to to rate recruits against each other. How do you compare a 4* from Georgia to a 4* from Florida .....etc?
 
For every michael jackson, there are guys that are studs and pan out so its tough. This staff evaluates better and loves athletes. the pervious staff loved, i dont know, what they loved but it wasnt speed.
 
cway313 said:
Then what?
Click to expand...

Like an eye test. When I see a 5 star he is suppose to be like a created player on a football video game with all his stats level maxed out. He should be pretty close to NFL size to boot. When you watch his highlight it should look like things you can only do in a video game considering that most of the players he playing against are like 5'9 and slow.

4 Star
For 4 stars it kinda like 5 stars except he probably has 1 noticeable flaw. He might be a bit short for his position or he only has good speed/movement not elite speed/movement, or he might have size and speed but didn't dominate as much as he should have with his talent on film but has great upside to adjust for the college game.

3 Star
Just a bunch of flashing. He doesn't look like the superior athlete he just looks good. Remember he ISN'T playing against a bunch of D1 bound players. For most players they are playing guys who are x10 smaller then what he will see in college. As a DL for example if you just look good against HS OLs whose average size is like 6'2 250 well I got news for you... you'll be playing OLs that on average are about 6'4 295-300+ in D1.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
So do you think Kevaris Thomas, the 4th best QB in Florida should be rated higher as well since he is the 4th best QB in Florida.
Click to expand...
OriginalGatorHater said:
That was not what was being debated. I was arguing with this poster who thinks that florida 3 stars are somehow superior to 3 stars from other states. I hope we reach a point where we are getting mainly 5 and 4 stars with a few 3 stars a season. I believe our coaches can find some diamonds in the rough. Why don't we go after the unranked guys like Josh Allen?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were superstars. I'm giving my opinion that the ratings are jacked. I asked what everyone else thinks. I pointed out that a kid with 19 D-1 offers is #652 nationally. It doesn't need to be a personal attack on me or anyone else. Just a healthy debate.
 
Number1CanesFan said:
I didn't say they were superstars. I'm giving my opinion that the ratings are jacked. I asked what everyone else thinks. I pointed out that a kid with 19 D-1 offers is #652 nationally. It doesn't need to be a personal attack on me or anyone else. Just a healthy debate.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about superstars or any personal attacks. I was just pointing out that you are wrong and then provided facts. A lot of those offers are most likely non commitable.
 
Canesfan1899 said:
I’ll take the coaches evals over recruiting ranking any day. Coaches see kids in camps or during games and decide how they can fit in their schemes. Sometimes you miss on an evil bit the coaches we have right now have been doing a very good job so far.
Click to expand...

People always confuse this.

The biggest factor in recruiting rankings is the coaching staffs across the land. Schools in their respective states are finding these guys, not Tom, ****, and Harry at highschoolfootballstuds.com.

Yes, the websites do their own camps, evaluate kids, but the starting point is the coaches.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
I didn't say anything about superstars or any personal attacks. I was just pointing out that you are wrong and then provided facts. A lot of those offers are most likely non commitable.
Click to expand...
I don't think most 3-star guys get 19 offers. Also, as others have pointed out, there are 4 and 5-star guys that are overranked. I just think the ranking system is foul (my opinion). As I said in a response in this thread, the media has made recruiting such a big deal that teams gain and lose momentum based on perception of the rankings of their recruits. Perception become becomes reality. Miami has more 3-star commits than 4-star commits this cycle this far. If Miami wound up with 18 3-stars and 7 4-stars, the perception would be Miami had a weak class. They lost Momentum. They're moving back towards irrelevance.

If Miami had Wisconsin's recruiting ranking (2019-20th, 2018-44th, 2017-39th) every year, most would consider Miami a recruiting failure.
 
Number1CanesFan said:
I don't think most 3-star guys get 19 offers. Also, as others have pointed out, there are 4 and 5-star guys that are overranked. I just think the ranking system is foul (my opinion). As I said in a response in this thread, the media has made recruiting such a big deal that teams gain and lose momentum based on perception of the rankings of their recruits. Perception become becomes reality. Miami has more 3-star commits than 4-star commits this cycle this far. If Miami wound up with 18 3-stars and 7 4-stars, the perception would be Miami had a weak class. They lost Momentum. They're moving back towards irrelevance.

If Miami had Wisconsin's recruiting ranking (2019-20th, 2018-44th, 2017-39th) every year, most would consider Miami a recruiting failure.
Click to expand...

If Miami ends up with 18 3 stars then we absolutely would have lost momentum. That would be Goldenesque. Yes, some 4 and 5 stars are overated, but 90% of the time the 5 and 4 stars are accurately ranked. Plenty of 5 stars are also overated. The rating system is pretty **** good. The teams that recruit the best also happen to be the teams in the playoff. Coincidence?
 
TheRichtShow said:
The problem is there are not just 1 or 2 outliers, there are always a lot.

The article could have just said to have a decent chance of winning the national title you have to recruit like Alabama (#1 class every year).

And recruiting rankings have only been around 20 years, so again, acting like it's been this way for the past 100 is just laughable. And even then, just look at our own history. The best string of classes we had was during Coker's tenure, and those 5* and high 4* players ended up sliding us to mediocrity.

It seems you are obssessed with the national title as the only barometer of success. But there is a ton a space between a national title and going 6-6. Recruiting rankings do an okay job of predicting that success, but they're far from being gospel
Click to expand...

Another idiotic statement by TheRichtShow. What a surprise.
 
It's not a flawless system but you're better off recruiting as many 4/5 stars as you can.
The likelihood of a 4/5 star panning out is greater than that of a 3-star. If most of your roster is panning out then you're probably gonna have a higher chance of fielding a contender.

4/5 stars are not always the better HIGH SCHOOL players. However, they're being PROJECTED as better COLLEGE players. Usually it's because they're physically more developed, more athletic, bigger, faster, yada yada yada.

IMO 3-star kids require more evaluation whereas 4-star and (especially) 5-star kids are considered "no brainers".
Like this kid is college ready! He's got all the physical tools to be a stud right now. He's a 6'1" 190lb CB who runs a 4.4 and can leap.
Then at the same time you have a CB who was an absolute stud in high school...got 12 interceptions, is athletic, can run and jump, yada yada...but he's only 5'10" 165lbs. He ends up being a 3-star. Doesn't mean he won't be a great college player, just means he's not as physically gifted or "as ready" as the other kid.
 
Advertisement
Nothing worse then a star *****. First off we are an outlier. Here's why. Im from PA so I'm familiar with PA HS football. Let me tell you. If you put Crowley in even the best competition (district 7 or district 1) he would run for 2000+. Sam Brooks would have 3 sacks per game. I am a firm believer that a 3* from certain parts of Florida is a 4*+ in many other places. I understand we are ways away from Alabama in recruiting but we are most certainly in that next tier. Plus I'll bet a few of our 3* kids will be 4* by seasons end. Relax & trust the staffs evals. Why drive yourself nuts?
 
904Cane said:
No they aren't how do you explain so many 3 🌟 in the early rounds of NFL draft
Click to expand...

Because there are far more 3* players. As a % of total 3* players, there aren't a lot drafted. But since there are sooooooo many 3*, of course they are going to make up a large % of the number.
 
TheRichtShow said:
Incredibly accurate for what?

For 5*? yes. But it's pretty easy to identify the top 30 players in the country. That's probably true out to the top 100-150

Its a lot more difficult to rank between say #250 and #750, even though that has a huge impact on where a team's recruiting ranking will fall
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. Even when you get to the 3* and 2* and 1* weeds, the recruiting rankings still hold up:

Recruiting Matters: Why the rankings get it right
 
Advertisement
TheRichtShow said:
LSU, FSU, and Michigan were National title contenders last year according to that ratio. Exactly why people need to stop taking rankings as gospel. They're important, but they're not dispositive of how a team will perform

And why not just cut the list to Alabama, Ohio St, and Clemson alone. It's those 3, and everyone else
Click to expand...

You're confusing necessary with sufficient.
Recruiting rankings do not say it's sufficient to simply have this class rank, and you will compete for a national title.
Instead it's saying it's necessary to rank within this rank to compete for a national title. But you need this ranking + something else.
Kinda like saying it's necessary to not be blind to be a major league baseball player. But simply not being blind isn't sufficient to being a major league baseball player. You need to not be blind + something else.
What the blue chip ratio is saying is that these are the only teams that aren't blind.
 
JohnZarrilli said:
Of course there’s individual deviations and exceptions, but, on the aggregate, crooting rankings are highly predictive of team success. Zero idea why this is still debated.
Click to expand...

Or debated by our fanbase. I understand why Michigan State or Pitt or VT or Wisconsin type fans debate them. They have no chance of ever getting an elite recruiting ranking. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, they argue "stars don't matter" because they don't want to believe there is a ceiling to what they can do. It's an inferiority complex.
But we are about to enter the blue chip ratio in the next year or two. Why our fans would ignore the wealth of data showing we are about to become one of the teams capable of winning a national title, I don't understand.
 
mossmadness said:
You're confusing necessary with sufficient.
Recruiting rankings do not say it's sufficient to simply have this class rank, and you will compete for a national title.
Instead it's saying it's necessary to rank within this rank to compete for a national title. But you need this ranking + something else.
Kinda like saying it's necessary to not be blind to be a major league baseball player. But simply not being blind isn't sufficient to being a major league baseball player. You need to not be blind + something else.
What the blue chip ratio is saying is that these are the only teams that aren't blind.
Click to expand...

Its all smoke and mirrors but Im not here to change anyones opinions the other BIG factor is WHERE your a 5 Star there's 5 Star players in other States that are 2.5 stars in FL.

I'm telling you these camps challenges 7v7 events they call coaches for reports on teams and players all this will be exposed one day.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top