Hah! For those of you that live for recruit rankings....

[boomersooner28]

This is proof of how bogus the system really is.

Justin McCay was Scouts.Inc's #4 overall player in the country...untill he committed to us. Now he has dropped to #16. A Notre Dame commit has moved into the top 5...imagine that.

These kids haven't even played a football game this year! How could they change that drastically all of sudden?

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=88&yr=2010

[CK Sooner]

Lovely.

[Curly Bill]

They base it upon camps and such over the summer.

McCay is also likely being marked down because most of the services, and college coaches too, think his best position is linebacker, but he insists he wants to play receiver, and thus has been recruited as such.

...and why did I know this thread would appear at some point.

[CK Sooner]

He looked better at receiver than he did at linebacker from all the film I saw. He is going to be REALLY good.

[Curly Bill]

Since we recruited him I have faith that he'll be a good player as well. I certainly put more stock in that than I do the recruiting rankings, though I do like to follow them.

[TahoeSOONER]

If the kid looks this athletic with his Kansas coaches developing him then I'm confident Stoops will know where to play him, based on team needs.

I'm sure work ethic plays a major role in why these players want to come to O K L A H O M A.

[Curly Bill]

He looked better at receiver than he did at linebacker from all the film I saw. He is going to be REALLY good.

He may be better at receiver right now, but the projections are he could end up a monster linebacker if pushed down that path. FWIW

[CK Sooner]

Yep, but Norvell recruited him and everything I have heard has him ending up at receiver. Of course no one knows except the coaches and I am sure they don't even know yet, but right now I am thinking they want him at wide receiver.

[Curly Bill]

Yep, but Norvell recruited him and everything I have heard has him ending up at receiver. Of course no one knows except the coaches and I am sure they don't even know yet, but right now I am thinking they want him at wide receiver.

He has supposedly stated he wants to play receiver, and would likely not consider anyone who recruited him as anything but a receiver. When a top 100 player wants to play receiver then that's what you recruit him as. I'm just saying that the recruiting services, and many college coaches as well, think his best position would be linebacker.

...and he may end up the best receiver of all time, I already said he looks like a young TO to me, so we shall see.

[Little Al]

Heck, let's play him on both sides of the ball...

[CK Sooner]

Heck, let's play him on both sides of the ball...

That would be pretty rare, but pretty cool.

[FULLSTERKER]

This crap happens, Penn State recruited Jim Kelly solely as a LB, wouldn't take him as a QB. I had a buddy play against Jason White in an HS all-star game and he played S most of the week and was a hard hitting dude, he was convinced he would fail as a QB. I now have to remind hm he has a stiff armed trophy in some closet somewhere that begs to differ. Sometimes a coach or scout sees a guy in a certain role and no matter how good he is in a different position they can't see him any where else.

[Eielson]

Heck, let's play him on both sides of the ball...

The problem with that is that it makes him a worse player on both sides of the ball. In high school there are kids so far ahead of everybody else that they are still the best at both positions so the team is still better. In college, most teams are usually talented enough that this isn't the case.

[boomersooner28]

snp, would you like to elaborate since I don't know what I'm talking about?

[w0lfe]

Look what you will have to work with next season Sam :)

[snp]

snp, would you like to elaborate since I don't know what I'm talking about?

Sure.


This is proof of how bogus the system really is.

An enlightening subject you have broached here. A subjective rating system that attempts to make an amalgamation out of thousands and thousands of still maturing young football players who play at varying levels of competition may not be 100% accurate. What a scoop you have uncovered, based on a sample size of 1.



Justin McCay was Scouts.Inc's #4 overall player in the country...untill he committed to us. Now he has dropped to #16. A Notre Dame commit has moved into the top 5...imagine that.

These kids haven't even played a football game this year! How could they change that drastically all of sudden?

Drastically? I don't think you understand what that word means because a 12 spot drop isn't drastic. Chris Martin is a stud, btw.



Everyone who follows recruiting acknowledges that recruiting rankings are first and foremost to sell subscriptions. They are not to be treated as the ultimate truth and I don't understand why people who don't follow recruiting pretend that those of us who do, rely so heavily on them.

But they do happen to be accurate as schools who compete for the highest rated players also compete for conference and national championships. Sometimes these players fail, whether it is the fault of the player, coach, system, injuries or other external factors that couldn't be accounted for.

Recruiting rankings are accurate. They're not infallible but neither is the NFL draft which invests incredibly more amount of money into their recruiting services. There is no system that is perfectly able to project a player from a lower level of competition to the next level. It's impossible. But those 5* players would be getting the OU, Texas, USC, Florida offers with or without recruiting services. Recruiting services just make it easier for the casual fan to get an understanding of which players will likely succeed at the next level.

[boomersooner28]

Can you not explain how Justin McCay dropped 12 spots in recruiting rankings by doing nothing? Not a HUGE drop by your calculations...but why the drop smart guy?

[boomersooner28]

Oh, and my point is that the rankings are FLAWED! As you point out! They are flawed! Thats all Im trying to say!

[boomersooner28]

Everyone who follows recruiting acknowledges that recruiting rankings are first and foremost to sell subscriptions. They are not to be treated as the ultimate truth and I don't understand why people who don't follow recruiting pretend that those of us who do, rely so heavily on them.








Recruiting rankings are accurate.



:confused: :confused: So which is it? :rolleyes:

[snp]

Can you not explain how Justin McCay dropped 12 spots in recruiting rankings by doing nothing? Not a HUGE drop by your calculations...but why the drop smart guy?

Do you think I work for Scout? More film could have been sent in, they might have reevaluted their opinion on him and the other players, he might not have had a good camp this summer, other schools may have backed off or rescinded their offer, I don't know.

Or...they shuffle the rankings up to drum up interest. And since this post has 600 views now, you're doing Scout's job for them. Congratulations, you're helping the same system you hate.



Oh, and my point is that the rankings are FLAWED! As you point out! They are flawed! Thats all Im trying to say!

They are FLAWED. We know that. Anyone who follows recruiting gets that but they still compile a better list of potentially good players than you or I could come up with.

Did you think you came up with some sort of revelation, again, based on 1 example? I assure you that the few dozen posters we have here who follow recruiting understand this system far better than you.


:confused: :confused: So which is it? :rolleyes:

There is nothing contradictory in that post. You can be accurate without being 100% correct. I said they are accurate but not to be taken as the ultimate truth. How that confuses you, well, I understand now.


There are dozens, maybe hundreds or thousands, of factors that go into what makes a good college athlete. It's impossible to account for every one of those as college coaches themselves often guess wrong. Recruiting rankings are a guideline for us fans. Use the recruiting rankings, the offer list, the videos (if you know how to properly scout players) to form your own opinion on the players.

[Desert Sapper]

This isn't the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. All of the services play this game. Scout, in particular, has a seemingly unquenchable infatuation with Notre Dame and USC. Regardless of the circumstances, it's not as though this couldn't have been predicted.

Recruits commit to those schools and they leap in the charts. Watch for the next time. It will definitely happen again.

[Desert Sapper]

That being said, I'm not bouncing all over the country visiting these kids and I'm not evaluating thousands of videos, so I think it's probably safe to say that these services do a decent job of identifying the top players and recognizing their potential.

It may be that they leap players that go to SC and ND because those are both former NFL coaches in the Head Coach seat. It is recognized that they will develop the potential, so it stands to reason that the recruiting services will hedge their bet by moving the kid up the charts. This way, in ten years, when the kid has a couple pro bowls under his belt, they can say 'I told you so'.

That's my theory.

[boomersooner28]

Sapper, I just started this thread for those that live and breathe these damn publications...to let them know there IS a lil bias. Anyway, a certain coward decided to neg me for it.

I still love to follow the recruiting gurus, and yes they are right about a lot of the studs. It just frustrates me that for example, Texas has "out-recruited" us for the last 10 years, yet when we step on the field with them we have just as much if not more talent than them.

I trust the way Bob and the staff recruit more than I trust what scout.com, rivals.com, and espn.com say.

[Hella Sideburns]

it's not a bias, it's how the system goes. Sometimes guys move up sometimes they move down.

[snp]

Sapper, I just started this thread for those that live and breathe these damn publications...to let them know there IS a lil bias. Anyway, a certain coward decided to neg me for it.

Keep whining because I negged you. Grow up.



I still love to follow the recruiting gurus, and yes they are right about a lot of the studs. It just frustrates me that for example, Texas has "out-recruited" us for the last 10 years, yet when we step on the field with them we have just as much if not more talent than them.

More ignorance! Texas outrecruits OU for prospects in the state of Texas. This is a fact. Look up and down the lists and Texas wins these battles probably at a 3:1 ratio.

OU recruits the rest of the nation well enough to offset this.

As far as the recruiting rankings go:

Scout
OU/UT
10/7
13/16
30/3
7/3
5/13
7/10
3/14
2/1

Average rankings of Scout 9.6/8.4
OU drops to 8 if you take out that outlier of 30 which I think is very fair considering the subjectiveness of the rankings.

Rivals
OU/UT
13/5
6/14
14/5
9/5
3/20
8/10
4/15
7/1

Average ranking: 8/9.4

Both teams tied for years with better recruiting rankings at 4 each.

Stoops and Schmitty are also known for getting the most out of their players while Mack and Maddog achieve less. Less with players who Stoops offered first and then the player committed to Texas.


I trust the way Bob and the staff recruit more than I trust what scout.com, rivals.com, and espn.com say.

And absolutely no one in the entire world has ever argued to the contrary of this. You have so many misconceptions about how recruiting works that your bias is causing you to err in this matter.

[boomersooner28]

snp, you are so retarded that I am done with this matter. Apparently, you cannot read and comprehend simple English so this subject is done as far as I am concerned.