Discussion in 'University of Colorado Recruiting Archive' started by Buffnik, Jul 11, 2011.
I strongly agree with the sentiment that recruiting rankings are indicative of on-the-field success. However, it must be noted that the causal relationship here goes both ways: better recruiting rankings imply better recruiting which in turn implies better play, but winning also directly affects the ability of a team to recruit high-quality players and potentially influences the actual ratings of players associated with certain universities. I do think the latter effect, though, tends to be overstated by some.
Sounds like a bunch of communist bull**** to me.
If there's anybody who would know what a bunch of communist bull**** sounds like, it's you.
I give out too much rep.
It's impossible to accurately rank 2,000 high school kids. Last year, only 1 pro bowler was a 5 star out of high school. I watch Boise St closely enough to know that they have as much talent and depth as almost anyone. They take kids an inch too short, but they can play football as good as anyone. Nobody DEVELOPS talent like they do. Developing talent is much more important than the rankings given from a 2 minute highlight film as a junior in high school.
really? That was a softball if there ever was one. Thats like a running back juking out three defenders, then stopping and handing it off to a WR on the 1 yard line. Sacky is my Rudy.
I agree to an extent. My mother could probably get about 2/3 of the 300 or so guys who are 4* or higher prospects. But there are a huge number of 3* and 2* players and a huge range to how well scouted they are by the services. As you said, some may have gotten no more than a brief look at a highlight tape, or maybe were seen at a camp, or maybe were given an obligator 2* for signing with someone. When you're talking about upwards of 2,000 guys in that category, there are going to be a lot of misses by the services and a huge opportunity for programs to do better (or worse) than their rankings. As a general guide, the rankings are good. But there is really no way they can possibly do a full analysis of everyone. The programs who work harder at recruiting these under-the-radar guys and have a continuity of system they are able to recruit to will consistently pull off better results than the services expect from their classes. Boise State is a great example of a program that has done this. Doesn't mean that many of their players could start for the Virginia Tech team they beat last year, but it does mean they can have pretty good talent that fits their system perfectly and, coupled with a winning culture + good coaching + a chip on their shoulders, they win a lot of the time when they match up against the better teams on their schedule.
I would rep you too! Rudy is the worst movie in the world.
I thought Wally was Rudy.
Other way around. Wally thinks he's Rudy.
So then that opens up another question. How closely do college recruiters look at rankings? Or are ranking services looking closely at whose getting recruited? Chicken or the egg?
It varies. The good recruiters use it as just another piece of information as they're building their board, but they don't make offers based on what someone from Rivals thinks. Some programs have actually gotten into trouble by putting too much emphasis on recruit ranks.
Miami is the prime example. While they were pulling in an unprecedented number of 4* prospects, their program went downhill. Instead of focusing on building a wall around Miami/Dade/Broward and overwhelming opponents with their speed, they tried to recruit nationally and paid a lot of attention to the ratings in order to build their board. The upshoot was that they got guys that didn't fit their system or culture and allowed lots of programs to gain recruiting footholds in their back yard.
Lesson to be learned: coaches need to make their own evaluations and trust themselves, focus on building and sustaining pipelines to areas that will continue to pay long-term dividends, and focus on players that fit their system and culture.
To apply that to CU, give me a 3* TE from Mater Dei or Skyline or Mullen who fits our system over a 4* TE from a small town in South Carolina who has offers from the entire SEC. It doesn't make headlines, but it's the better approach for our program.
Stars are overrated. Speedy was a 2* and Darrell Scott was a 5*, I'm pretty sure that's all there is to it. Ok, so you're telling me the rest of our 2*s actually kind of aren't that good? Well. Speedy still rocks.
That's crazy talk. No Stoudt for you!
Yeah but can she make a highlight tape for them?
fify. You're slipping.
2* players work harder than 4* and 5* players.
Some of that's individual determination, but some is coaching - these are still kids, after all. I'd have loved to see DS's skills developed to their potential, but that wasn't happening in the old regime where all they did was talk w/o the walk. Speedy has been great for us, but DS could have been a Heisman type guy.
I think it's amazing that people cite individual players to discuss the validity of a system that deals with thousands of prospects every year. There are plenty of good two- and three-star players. There are plenty of busts that are four- and five- star players. However, there are relatively very few highly-rated players, and the proportion of them that end up being great players is substantially higher. That is the value of recruiting rankings.
Are teams good because they recruit highly rated players? Or are players rated highly because of the teams that recruit them?
Separate names with a comma.