forums

stars

ATL-BRAD

ATL-BRAD

Freshman
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
534
Can someone tell me how they come up with stars. Travis Johnson's film is every bit as good as Orson Charles a 4 star. He also has offers from ever part of the country and all are big time school. So he should be at least a 4 star by what I know on how stars are rated. So someone tell me how they come up with this please.
 
Advertisement
give big stars to big market teams commits because more fans pay for your recruiting site. then they see their team is recruiting such stud 5 star athletes and BOOM there you go.....
 
ATL-BRAD said:
Can someone tell me how they come up with stars. Travis Johnson's film is every bit as good as Orson Charles a 4 star. He also has offers from ever part of the country and all are big time school. So he should be at least a 4 star by what I know on how stars are rated. So someone tell me how they come up with this please.
Click to expand...

Says you?
 
Advertisement
it happens every year with tha U, last yeR Burgess was a 3 star, but as soon as he commits to Louiville he becomes a 4 star. Denzyl perryman was a 3star, Chick was a 4 and was just as good Clowney, even Duke took 4 ever to gain that 5th star. I don't give much credence to the star system anyway but seems bias towards us
 
Orson went to Plant....much better competition if IIRC. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if most of his 'offers' are non commitable.
 
duppy03 said:
it happens every year with tha U, last yeR Burgess was a 3 star, but as soon as he commits to Louiville he becomes a 4 star. Denzyl perryman was a 3star, Chick was a 4 and was just as good Clowney, even Duke took 4 ever to gain that 5th star. I don't give much credence to the star system anyway but seems bias towards us
Click to expand...

Chick was good, but he wasn't/isn't as good as Clowney. That's just ridiculous.
 
Advertisement
AaronRodgersJewBeard said:
duppy03 said:
it happens every year with tha U, last yeR Burgess was a 3 star, but as soon as he commits to Louiville he becomes a 4 star. Denzyl perryman was a 3star, Chick was a 4 and was just as good Clowney, even Duke took 4 ever to gain that 5th star. I don't give much credence to the star system anyway but seems bias towards us
Click to expand...

Chick was good, but he wasn't/isn't as good as Clowney. That's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Plenty of recruiting talking heads thought Chick looked more polished than Clowney in HS, but that Cloweny had a higher upside due to his athleticism. Chick also outplayed Clowney at the Under Armor all-star game to walk away as MVP. Calling him as good as Clowney as a recruit really isn't ridiculous at all.

Chick did end up as a 5 star too, at least on Scout.
 
ATL-BRAD said:
Sands I went back and looked at them.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that your logic doesn't work. Just because you evaluate film and think it's comparable doesn't mean whatever panel works for Scout, or Rivals, will agree with you all the time.

The reality is also what others have said. But your fundamental mistake is to assume that your perspective is somehow objective here. Different evaluators evaluate differently. That's just life. And that's aside from the fact that the rankings are biased in plenty of other ways.
 
ATL-BRAD said:
Can someone tell me how they come up with stars. Travis Johnson's film is every bit as good as Orson Charles a 4 star. He also has offers from ever part of the country and all are big time school. So he should be at least a 4 star by what I know on how stars are rated. So someone tell me how they come up with this please.
Click to expand...

Yes, for-profit companies often owned by media conglomerates assign the most stars to the kids who are being recruited by the schools with the most subscription bases, therefore mathematically pushing other talented kids down. Also keep in mind that these "recruiting analysts" aren't qualified to work as a recruiting coordinator at an NAIA school or work for a real media company in any sort of legitimate journalistic position. Or they would. It's basically hangers-on who seem to become accredited just by talking enough.

They have been caught red handed cooking the books. If you believe the star system at this point, shame on you.

Keep an eye on kids offer lists. They are a better gauge.
 
Last edited:
Ethnicsands said:
ATL-BRAD said:
Can someone tell me how they come up with stars. Travis Johnson's film is every bit as good as Orson Charles a 4 star. He also has offers from ever part of the country and all are big time school. So he should be at least a 4 star by what I know on how stars are rated. So someone tell me how they come up with this please.
Click to expand...

Says you?
Click to expand...

Says USC, OU, LSU, AUB, UF, TENN, MIA, and a total of 40 schools so far.
 
Advertisement
It is still earlier and his rating could change. He is a 4 star on ESPN.
 
Ya know, EVERYONE loves to ***** about the star system, but there can be no denying that as the online evaluation service industry continues to mature (keep in mind this entire industry is only 10 years old) they are proving to be more and more accurate, specifically with regard to the higher star count kids.

That said, I like the scout.com star rating system moreso than rivals, espn, etc. Scout uses the offer sheet as a primary input for star ratings. Its basically a ranking of their current market value in the eyes of CFB coaches.


In the case of this Travis Johnson kids, perhaps his star ranking is less than it could be because he doesnt have a projected position at the next level. Just a thought but that makes sense.
 
Advertisement
SFbayCane said:
Ya know, EVERYONE loves to ***** about the star system, but there can be no denying that as the online evaluation service industry continues to mature (keep in mind this entire industry is only 10 years old) they are proving to be more and more accurate, specifically with regard to the higher star count kids.

That said, I like the scout.com star rating system moreso than rivals, espn, etc. Scout uses the offer sheet as a primary input for star ratings. Its basically a ranking of their current market value in the eyes of CFB coaches.


In the case of this Travis Johnson kids, perhaps his star ranking is less than it could be because he doesnt have a projected position at the next level. Just a thought but that makes sense.
Click to expand...

They got exposed red-handed last year as having admitted always cooked the rankings to benefit themselves financially. Zero journalistic integrity. Really indefensible IMHO.
 
duppy03 said:
it happens every year with tha U, last yeR Burgess was a 3 star, but as soon as he commits to Louiville he becomes a 4 star. Denzyl perryman was a 3star, Chick was a 4 and was just as good Clowney, even Duke took 4 ever to gain that 5th star. I don't give much credence to the star system anyway but seems bias towards us
Click to expand...

WTF am I reading? Clowney is the best prospect of the internet recruiting era. He had 8 sacks and 5 FF as a Fr in the SEC. Chick had 5 sacks and 1 FF in the ACC.

Andrew said:
It is still earlier and his rating could change. He is a 4 star on ESPN.
Click to expand...

and TheRinger
 
bomb said:
SFbayCane said:
Ya know, EVERYONE loves to ***** about the star system, but there can be no denying that as the online evaluation service industry continues to mature (keep in mind this entire industry is only 10 years old) they are proving to be more and more accurate, specifically with regard to the higher star count kids.

That said, I like the scout.com star rating system moreso than rivals, espn, etc. Scout uses the offer sheet as a primary input for star ratings. Its basically a ranking of their current market value in the eyes of CFB coaches.


In the case of this Travis Johnson kids, perhaps his star ranking is less than it could be because he doesnt have a projected position at the next level. Just a thought but that makes sense.
Click to expand...

They got exposed red-handed last year as having admitted always cooked the rankings to benefit themselves financially. Zero journalistic integrity. Really indefensible IMHO.
Click to expand...


To discount the entire industry because of a profit motive is naive IMO. We've seen this from the magazine producers since the early 80's. (Lindys, Phil Steele, Sporting News, etc...) It is what it is. Gotta stay in bidnizz.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top