Gridiron Kings

[Whiskeyjack]

No. If recruiting services rate a guy a 5-star across the board, I'll take him at that position over any 4-star at that position (given the offense/defenses/schemes are the same, for instance, spread vs. pro). Same goes for a 4-star over a concensus 3-star.

Your hypothetical is a falacy. Show me a recruit who is a 5-star by one site and a 3-star by another? Doesn't happen.

Across-the-board 5s are very rare. Here's a more realistic example.

FL WR Chris Black has the following ratings:

247:
Rivals:
ESPN:
Scout:

247 gave him a 5, the other three agree he's a 4. Would you take him over Greenberry, who's not rated as a 5 by any of the services? Black's composite score is 0.25 higher than Greenberry's, so he must be significantly better, AMIRITE?

No one here is arguing that the star ratings are meaningless, but your faith in the system is misplaced.

 

[koonja]

Across-the-board 5s are very rare. Here's a more realistic example.

FL WR Chris Black has the following ratings:

247:
Rivals:
ESPN:
Scout:

247 gave him a 5, the other three agree he's a 4. Would you take him over Greenberry, who's not rated as a 5 by any of the services? Black's composite score is 0.25 higher than Greenberry's, so he must be significantly better, AMIRITE?

No one here is arguing that the star ratings are meaningless, but your faith in the system is misplaced.

No, I would not take him over Greenberry. I like Greenberry and he is passionate about ND. Having said that, I cannot say that Greenberry is better than this guy, who you claim is rated higher. If I said that it would be all bias and homerism.

The recruiting services do their work, and they do it better than you or I can know. I'll take a 5 over a 4 over a 3-star by the services listed above, anyday.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Your hypothetical is a falacy. Show me a recruit who is a 5-star by one site and a 3-star by another? Doesn't happen.

That wasn't my hypothetical. My point was that how many stars a service chooses to assign to a kid doesn't change what type of player he is. Stars are somewhat useful as guideposts to fans who don't get to see these kids play, but coaches watch them play and don't care about star ratings (at least they shouldn't). As a practical matter, the guys that are rated as 5 by the services are usually also highly regarded by coaches, but there is nothing magical about the s that make a player any better for having more stars. (Dr. Suess would agree. Ha)

Here is an actual hypothetical: lets say there is a kid that plays in the middle of nowhere Idaho or Montana, but he is so good and puts up such crazy numbers that word gets out about him. However, there isn't any good tape on him and he doesn't go to camps or play 7-on-7s and his competition is absolutely terrible. If a scouting service rates this kid, they're probably guessing. Do you care what star is attached to him by a service? Would you be comfortable if your team's head coach offered him a scholarship after working him out, even if he was unrated by the recruiting services or had a low grade?

This would be an extreme example, but kids do actually fly under the radar and kids are downgraded based on playing subpar competition. If you're running a scouting service and you're grading hundreds of kids, how much time and resources do you commit to getting a detailed report on one kid who is outside the mainstream of the recruiting circles? My guess is you throw a dart and move on. The kid's actual value and potential is not in any way tied to whether that dart causes him to be labeled a 4 or a 3.

 

[beryirish]

.......................I'm starting to see a lot of stars

 

[irishog77]

Golden hit the nail on the head-- players can't all of a sudden become 5star players...it makes the analysts look like they've been sleeping on the job, totally missed on a stud player, or have no clue what they've been doing. I think there is kind of a "professional code" amongst analysts also (particularly from the same service), meaning they won't totally call out a colleague who has been supposedly scouting a player or region. These guys just couldn't give a guy that 5th star who a few weeks ago wasn't even necessarily top 10...in his position.
I'm not saying I agree with any of these things or trying to justify it personally, but the world of high school recruiting is one shady business.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No, I would not take him over Greenberry. I like Greenberry and he is passionate about ND. Having said that, I cannot say that Greenberry is better than this guy, who you claim is rated higher. If I said that it would be all bias and homerism.

I haven't seen them go head-to-head, so I can't definitively say that Greenberry is "better" than Black, but Greenberry has proved he's a baller by dominating 7ONs against the top recruits in the nation, whereas Black hasn't proved anything. So yes, I would confidently take Greenberry over Black at this point. I'd probably take him over DGB, too.

The recruiting services do their work, and they do it better than you or I can know. I'll take a 5 over a 4 over a 3-star by the services listed above, anyday.

That's where you're wrong. There are simply too many recruits for them to evaluate accurately, and if you were inclined to do the homework yourself, you'd be able to do as good a job or better.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Golden hit the nail on the head-- players can't all of a sudden become 5star players...it makes the analysts look like they've been sleeping on the job, totally missed on a stud player, or have no clue what they've been doing. I think there is kind of a "professional code" amongst analysts also (particularly from the same service), meaning they won't totally call out a colleague who has been supposedly scouting a player or region. These guys just couldn't give a guy that 5th star who a few weeks ago wasn't even necessarily top 10...in his position.
I'm not saying I agree with any of these things or trying to justify it personally, but the world of high school recruiting is one shady business.

I was trying to get at this same idea earlier. It is similar to ranking the teams during the season. If a team is 3-0 and ranked #23 and they beat the #1 team, they are not moving all the way up to #1. They might get a nice boost (say, to the #8-#10 range), but it is generally hard to move up rankings that dramatically in a relatively short period of time. If they really are the #1 team, they will get there by the end of the season, just like Greenberry will probably be appropriately ranked by NSD.

 

[koonja]

I never win this argument. I'll just say that I get more excited over a 5 star than a 4, than a 3... So I guess to me stars matter because I don't take the time to watch the tapes. I trust the recruiting services because I don't have a better evaluation than theirs.

As far as taking DG over DGB, I can't agree with you. I have a feeling that you'd say the same thing if DGB decided for ND, too.

DBG is a guy compared to Randy Moss, or better. He's the #1 receiver by every site, and it a 5-star across the board. According to Eric Hansen, (southbendtribune writer who writes for the football team) DGB is the staff's #1 recruit, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

We also saw this in our favor over the weekend. The Scout guys were praising Darby left and right because well he is their #1 rated CB and they have to make it look like they knew what they were doing when they put him there. I want a non biased third party to attend these events and grade these propsects. These analyst for the sites have too many agendas.

 

[koonja]

And I understand that if you just call a 5-star guy a 5-star, it doesn't mean anything. But I'd like to think there's some logic and observable data, traits, measurments, etc, put into slapping a 5-star rating on a guy

 

[irishog77]

Which brings up another point altogether: why aren't NCAA coaches allowed to attend, comment, or even watch film of these things?

 

[koonja]

We also saw this in our favor over the weekend. The Scout guys were praising Darby left and right because well he is their #1 rated CB and they have to make it look like they knew what they were doing when they put him there. I want a non biased third party to attend these events and grade these propsects. These analyst for the sites have too many agendas.

When the recruiting services come out with their first rankings, oh, I don't know, 6 months ago and they end up being wrong we should not fault them for that. I am glad they make the ratings, and then continue to adjust them as they get more time to evaluate, all the way up to NSD.

It's kind of like how the AP changed the way they do the top-25 in the first week of college football starting last year. In the past, they would rank the top 25 and then let's say, if #15 got beat by a nobody, they'd only get put back to #25-ish (since they started out so high in the rankings, they could only move back so far).... Now, starting last year, after week one they basically re-write the rankings and re-do the top-25, or at least claim to. So the #15 team that got beat would likely be out of the top-25 after the loss...

This is what recruiting services do all year long. Like you guys said, they have an almost impossible job of ranking everyone accurately. But you still have to take it for what it's worth. To me, I don't have a better recipe for a recruit's talents besides what they tell me.

 

[irishog77]

How accurate are 7-on-7 games like this? For instance, if someone does bad does that mean they are probably not that good in pads? Or vise versa, if someone does outstanding does that mean they should be ready to play once in college?

Just trying to figure out what the point of 7-on-7 is besides just an opportunity to play more football.

I forgot about this message yesterday. I would say no, these aren't extremely accurate. A good grasp of overall or pure athleticism can probably be gained from these...but these are essentially pick up games of flag football. 7 guys who probably haven't even actually met before, let alone play on a football team together. The 7v7 leagues that players play in consisting of their high school teams are a little better gage for accuracy, but overall these games are so foreign to a "real" game that it's tough to say they are very accurate.

 

[greyhammer90]

Both sides make really good points and I can see how there are exceptions to the rule. Every now and then there are three stars that excel far beyond five stars. There are also players that manage to fly under the radar (Hello Cam). However, to say that stars mean nothing is absurd. If that's the case imagine you're a head coach: be honest, without knowing any players specifically, would you rather have a roster full of three stars or a roster full of five stars? I know what I want.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As far as taking DG over DGB, I can't agree with you. I have a feeling that you'd say the same thing if DGB decided for ND, too.

I didn't expect you to agree with it, and I'm surely in the minority here.

My comment about (maybe) taking Greenberry over DGB is mainly based on the fact that Greenberry is a proven baller, and DGB isn't. His potential is staggering, but there's so much uncertainty involved with projecting performance at the next level; 5s do bust (James Aldridge anyone?)

I feel like the 7ON tourneys are the best indicator of success at the next level, at least for the skill positions, and Greenberry is as close to a proven bad *** as you'll find anywhere now. I'd rather have a guy who I've personally watched dominate other top recruits than an unproven kid with lots of hype around him.

There seems to be some mysticism surrounding the recruiting services for you. Since you don't have the time to follow recruiting closely and form your own opinions, then surely no one else could possibly do it accurately. You put way too much faith in an industry that's less accurate than your average weatherman and has lots of hidden agendas to boot.

 

[military_irish]

Both sides make really good points and I can see how there are exceptions to the rule. Every now and then there are three stars that excel far beyond five stars. There are also players that manage to fly under the radar (Hello Cam). However, to say that stars mean nothing is absurd. If that's the case imagine you're a head coach: be honest, without knowing any players specifically, would you rather have a roster full of three stars or a roster full of five stars? I know what I want.

I know your point and agree but I don't know if Boise St, TCU, or Utah would agree. They are filled with 2-3 star talent with a four star spinkled in and maybe one or two five star. They all have won a BCS game, also.

 

[greyhammer90]

Once again, there are exceptions. It's not like Boise turns down five stars. They got to where they are despite the lack of recruiting top 100 players by using excellent coaching, game planning, and evaluating (and in my opinion not being forced to the grind that most major conference teams go through). Getting top 10 recruiting classes doesn't make you a guaranteed success just like not getting them doesn't mean you're an automatic failure. It just makes winning easier, and with our future schedules, I'll take anything that will help.
(I'm NOT one of those idiots that bags on a three star commit. If our coaching staff has offered them a scholarship then they are welcome aboard in my opinion. If recruiting services have some idea of how an athlete can impact a team then our coaches have ten times more of an idea.)

 

[Andy in Sactown]

If recruiting services have some idea of how an athlete can impact a team then our coaches have ten times more of an idea.)

While I agree with the sentiment you are trying to impart, I think they are slightly different evaluations. Apples to oranges if you will.

I'll elaborate:

A scout is going to give his or her professional evaluation of a recruit as is. Now "as is" can include things that effect the player's future, like developmental upside, but are largely system/program agnostic.

A coach is going to start off with similar evaluating principles, but isn't trying to come up with a rating. They aren't trying to grade, they are trying to find RKG's.

Hypothetical player X may have been rated a 3 star DE, but is recruited by a good player developer to play OLB in their system and becomes an All-American.

TL;DR version: Scout's evaluations are generalized. Coach's are specific.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

“@DMBerk: Look for a few #NotreDame pledges to move up in new Scout.com rankings from what I'm hearing.”

 

[Whiskeyjack]

“@DMBerk: Look for a few #NotreDame pledges to move up in new Scout.com rankings from what I'm hearing.”

Always good to see our guys moving up, but I wish it was 247 or Rivals =/ Hopefully they'll take notice and adjust accordingly.

 

[koonja]

I checked espn3.com and they aren't airing the game online. If anyone finds a way to watch it online, please post. I'd appreciate it.

 

[IrishLax]

Straight up.... Shane Morris looks terrible (albeit his receivers aren't helping him out). But holy crap is he missing tons of passes and open guys.

 

[Ironman8]

DMBerk Dave Berk

Look for a few #NotreDame pledges to move up in new Scout.com rankings from what I'm hearing.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

Game is getting ugly for our boys...Matt Davis looks good though

 

[Ironman8]

Straight up.... Shane Morris looks terrible (albeit his receivers aren't helping him out). But holy crap is he missing tons of passes and open guys.

For as bad as Morris has looked, how good has Davis looked. Very impressive for any prospect, but even more intriguing for one of his makeup.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

For as bad as Morris has looked, how good has Davis looked. Very impressive for any prospect, but even more intriguing for one of his makeup.

Would love to see Davis in our spread

 

[Ironman8]

Would love to see Davis in our spread

Agreed. He did pass up an offer from Oregon, which would have been sick to see as well as an overall college football fan.

 

[calvegas04]

was hoping they would show highlights from all the games, not just show the championship game

Also T&M is getting some good players

 

[greyhammer90]

Morris has had 15 minutes in 7 on 7 and has around 26 yards. That's legendarily bad.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I would have liked to see Prosise play a little receiver.