Star system

[21Guns.]

Sorry but this last sentence blew my mind a bit... and FYI, I have no pony in this race. So if on average, it is 100% accurate, does that mean it is a 50% accurate way, 75%, or perhaps 92.6%?

Personally, I think the star system is over-hyped and people (fans) spend way too much time worrying about it. Coaches offer players they identify as "good fits" for their programs. They aren't tracking stars on Rivals or Scout and saying, "we gotta have this kid." They already identified that kid by camp, video, referral, etc. Sure star ratings tend to have a correlation between perception and reality (what they do in college and potentially the pros) but there are sooooo many mis-evaluated rankings by all these sites, that you simply cant put too much stock in the number of stars by a kids name.


Point is, debate away all you guys want, but at the end of the day, coaches dont give a rats ass about what Rivals or Scout evals say. I'll take Pitt coaches assessments 7 days a week and twice on Sunday over some Quantitative Mathematics degree holder working for Rivals who won a few fantasy drafts and now considers himself an expert in player evaluation.

Here is the problem. Coaches also go after guys they have a realistic chance of landing. Just because they offered and landed a guy doesn't mean that player is who they think is best guy at his position. They have spots to fill and they are going to lower their standards until they fill those spots. It kind of like a guy at the bar. At 10 PM he going to go after hottest girl in the place. As he see she has no chance he going to move on. At midnight he now talking to that chick who might be 20 lbs over weight. Come 2am he talking any chick who will go home with him. So just because he brought her home doesn't mean he thinks she is best girl out there. So just by judging a recruit if the coaches offer doesn't give you a true evaluation of the player.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Not so fast. Recruiting stars are also validated by the NFL draft. See, with W's and L's, there is also this thing called coaching. Coaching matters.

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Isn't that what I just said?

No. You said (I think) that 'recruiting results are proofed by overall record, not rankings'. Which is true......to a point. However, you did not account for the fact of bad coaches who have oodles of talent that did not translate on the field. I can think of several Pitt teams, especially in the 80's, which would turn out NFL draft picks, 1st and 2nd rounders, who would just have mediocre records. Or Wanny's teams in many cases.

So it is not necessarily 1+1=2. It is more 1x+1=2x (where x=coaching.)

 

[Swervin27]

Here is the problem. Coaches also go after guys they have a realistic chance of landing. Just because they offered and landed a guy doesn't mean that player is who they think is best guy at his position. They have spots to fill and they are going to lower their standards until they fill those spots. It kind of like a guy at the bar. At 10 PM he going to go after hottest girl in the place. As he see she has no chance he going to move on. At midnight he now talking to that chick who might be 20 lbs over weight. Come 2am he talking any chick who will go home with him. So just because he brought her home doesn't mean he thinks she is best girl out there. So just by judging a recruit if the coaches offer doesn't give you a true evaluation of the player.

I love any analogy that compares recruits with pulling wool out of a bar after last call. well done.

I agree with the "offer list" being very misleading. a kid commits early or isn't completely accessible to other schools, that could hamper his official offer list.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

If you win, you've recruited well.
If you have talenT but don't win, you didn't .

Players , coaches, and schemes all fit together