Recruit Rankings and CFB Coach bonus pay

[Huntr]

So, I saw this tweet yesterday

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>For <a href="https://twitter.com/insidemdsports">@insidemdsports</a>, Mike Locksley's contract now includes a recruiting bonus for 247sports ranking. Previously was only Scout and Rivals.</p>— Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/alex_prewitt/statuses/458351190498349056">April 21, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

and did kind of a double take (For those who don't know, Locksley is Maryland's OC). A bunch of questions immediately came to mind and I thought the hive might have some insight.

1) Is having a similar clause common in coaches contracts? How common?

2) This situation appears ripe for corruption. It would be way, way too easy to bump up a kid's ranking after they are in the fold for the sake of getting a kick back. Why would the recruiting services want to open themselves up to that kind of criticism and doubt over their motivations?

3) Evidently (some?) coaches pay much, much more attention to recruit rankings than people think or at least more than a lot of folks on this board claim. Should that impact the regard we hold for the ranking of kids being recruited to our various rooting interests? That is, will you now wonder how much of a given kid's recruitment is chasing the star rating (and, therefore, some bonus pay) and how much is looking for a "fit" that will help your team win games?


eta: i can count to potato

 

[koonja]

So, I saw this tweet yesterday

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>For <a href="https://twitter.com/insidemdsports">@insidemdsports</a>, Mike Locksley's contract now includes a recruiting bonus for 247sports ranking. Previously was only Scout and Rivals.</p>— Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/alex_prewitt/statuses/458351190498349056">April 21, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

and did kind of a double take (For those who don't know, Locksley is Maryland's OC). A bunch of questions immediately came to mind and I thought the hive might have some insight.

1) Is having a similar clause common in coaches contracts? How common?

2) This situation appears ripe for corruption. It would be way, way too easy to bump up a kid's ranking after they are in the fold for the sake of getting a kick back. Why would the recruiting services want to open themselves up to that kind of criticism and doubt over their motivations?

32) Evidently (some?) coaches pay much, much more attention to recruit rankings than people think or at least more than a lot of folks on this board claim. Should that impact the regard we hold for the ranking of kids being recruited to our various rooting interests? That is, will you now wonder how much of a given kid's recruitment is chasing the star rating (and, therefore, some bonus pay) and how much is looking for a "fit" that will help your team win games?

The rankings are public info, and so they cannot control if the rankings factor into some 3rd party contract or not. I doubt 247 had say in the new coaches clause.

 

[NDohio]

So, I saw this tweet yesterday

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>For <a href="https://twitter.com/insidemdsports">@insidemdsports</a>, Mike Locksley's contract now includes a recruiting bonus for 247sports ranking. Previously was only Scout and Rivals.</p>— Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/alex_prewitt/statuses/458351190498349056">April 21, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

and did kind of a double take (For those who don't know, Locksley is Maryland's OC). A bunch of questions immediately came to mind and I thought the hive might have some insight.

1) Is having a similar clause common in coaches contracts? How common?

2) This situation appears ripe for corruption. It would be way, way too easy to bump up a kid's ranking after they are in the fold for the sake of getting a kick back. Why would the recruiting services want to open themselves up to that kind of criticism and doubt over their motivations?

32) Evidently (some?) coaches pay much, much more attention to recruit rankings than people think or at least more than a lot of folks on this board claim. Should that impact the regard we hold for the ranking of kids being recruited to our various rooting interests? That is, will you now wonder how much of a given kid's recruitment is chasing the star rating (and, therefore, some bonus pay) and how much is looking for a "fit" that will help your team win games?

Interesting. I agree that this could be a recipe for disaster. The reality though is the whole system as it currently exists is a recipe for cheating and scandal.

What happened to bullet points 3-31?

 

[Huntr]

No, of course not. They can't stop them, but they could request that it doesn't happen. I look at it in the same light as the AP requesting their rankings not be used in the BCS calculations. Whether that request would be honored or not is certainly another thing.

 

[IrishLion]

The rankings are public info, and so they cannot control if the rankings factor into some 3rd party contract or not. I doubt 247 had say in the new coaches clause.

They don't have a say in the clause, but that's not the concern... the concern is the old "under the table" dealing where a rep for Random Coach calls someone from 247, and says, "Hey, I've got your Christmas bonus on the way if you bump Random Player up a few spots and get this borderline 3-star up to low-4. I'll get my bonus and you'll get yours."

 

[koonja]

No, of course not. They can't stop them, but they could request that it doesn't happen. I look at it in the same light as the AP requesting their rankings not be used in the BCS calculations. Whether that request would be honored or not is certainly another thing.

They don't have a say in the clause, but that's not the concern... the concern is the old "under the table" dealing where a rep for Random Coach calls someone from 247, and says, "Hey, I've got your Christmas bonus on the way if you bump Random Player up a few spots and get this borderline 3-star up to low-4. I'll get my bonus and you'll get yours."[/QUOTE]

Understood, but how does 247 actually give the bumps up or down? Isn't it a collective decision? Meaning most of their analysts would be involved with a ratings change?

That'd be a lot of people to pay off and keep quiet. I see the room for concern, but it seems like a lot of people opening themselves up to risk for, well, IDK how much money to be honest.

 

[IrishLion]

That's a good point, but I'd imagine everyone in the room at 247 gets one or two of their own "guys" to go to bat for in terms of rankings.

And I'm not saying it's prevalent/easy, because I have no idea how it actually works. Just saying the risk is legit.

 

[PANDFAN]

So, I saw this tweet yesterday

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>For <a href="https://twitter.com/insidemdsports">@insidemdsports</a>, Mike Locksley's contract now includes a recruiting bonus for 247sports ranking. Previously was only Scout and Rivals.</p>— Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/alex_prewitt/statuses/458351190498349056">April 21, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

and did kind of a double take (For those who don't know, Locksley is Maryland's OC). A bunch of questions immediately came to mind and I thought the hive might have some insight.

1) Is having a similar clause common in coaches contracts? How common?

2) This situation appears ripe for corruption. It would be way, way too easy to bump up a kid's ranking after they are in the fold for the sake of getting a kick back. Why would the recruiting services want to open themselves up to that kind of criticism and doubt over their motivations?

3) Evidently (some?) coaches pay much, much more attention to recruit rankings than people think or at least more than a lot of folks on this board claim. Should that impact the regard we hold for the ranking of kids being recruited to our various rooting interests? That is, will you now wonder how much of a given kid's recruitment is chasing the star rating (and, therefore, some bonus pay) and how much is looking for a "fit" that will help your team win games?


eta: i can count to potato

look at where he is at....maryland ...they don't have high rated guys coming there EXCEPT local guys like Diggs...it's an incentive for him because he is known as a good recruiter and bringing in guys highly rated helps sell the program...however having a bunch of divas doesn't translate to winning games...look at Bama...sure they get the cream of the crop at certain positions but they also take on guys specific to what they want and need for their system...

 

[IrishLax]

That's a good point, but I'd imagine everyone in the room at 247 gets one or two of their own "guys" to go to bat for in terms of rankings.

And I'm not saying it's prevalent/easy, because I have no idea how it actually works. Just saying the risk is legit.

There's a famous quote from an anonymous USC coach a few years ago who said something along the lines of "the difference between a 3 player and a 4 player is a phone call from me."

Frankly, recruiting rankings/analysis gets better ever year. It has to do with the proliferation of camps/combines/7on coupled with the emergence of services like Hudl and Youtube.

Twenty years ago, you basically had Tom Lemming watching as much hard copy film as he could get mailed to him. Ten years ago, recruiting analysts relied heavily on all-star games and local scouts (both 3rd party and from their network) for their rankings, coupled with film review as possible. That's the era that the above quote comes from... because if a coach from a dominant program was talking to a reporter from, say, Rivals and was swearing up and down that the kid was going to be a star... who is the Rivals analysts to say he's wrong?

Now, the "star system" is far more independent as the information required to review and rank prospects is much more readily available. There is still inherent bias towards prospects who are signed up to play in a network's sponsored All-Star game... and there is also bias towards the kids who hit the camp circuit hard or give the most access. This makes sense, because if you can evaluate someone up close you're just naturally inclined to rank them above someone you haven't been able to size up in person.

On top of that, there is bias towards schools like ND and Bama (and really any "big time" program) where if an "under the radar" guy gets an offer and commits, then he gets a long hard look in the film room. For other schools, like say a Utah or NC State, they may have an elite player committed but no one ever gives him that second look to say "wow, this kid can play."

Lastly, the system is VERY biased to kids who are multi-year starters at power programs... or who have a hype machine for whatever reason whether it be their last name or who knows. Kids who don't breakout until their senior year never get the credit they are due. Jhonny Williams and Kolin Hill are great examples. If they put out their senior film as juniors, they would've been solid 4 prospects.

The only coaches that care about team recruiting rankings are guys like Franklin, Meyer, Kiffin, etc. (i.e. huge egos to stroke)... or someone like Locksley who has a bonus tied to the rankings. Guys like Saban care TONS about recruiting and getting the very best they can get... but they don't give a lick what some third party has to say about their class as long as Saban is getting the players at the top of his board. Same applies to the vast majority of schools... pay attention to who sends out print literature about recruiting rankings or talks about it in interviews. There are only a few of them, and while they no doubt might try to trade info for ranking bumps or what have you, the impact is negligible in this day and age.

 

[Fbolt]

2) This situation appears ripe for corruption.

So the system isn't already corrupt?