Recruiting rankings and QB battle

So, 3*** freshman qb trevor knight beat out a 5***** junior qb with playing experience for the starting position at OU.

Looks like the recruiting rankings might not mean a whole lot .... or .... Stoops doesn't know what he's doing. :friendly_wink:

 

I think both of them were Rivals 4*.

 

The rankings I listed were from Scout.

 

Yeah, Scouts has him lower than Rivals.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that recruiting ratings/ranking mean ****. But, it's always fun to look back and see just how wrong they are.

 

To say they mean sh*t is a stretch. I seem to recall Alabama's recruiting rankings have been pretty good lately, and seems their on-performance has been pretty good as well.

 

.

I don't know CB, I think a strong case can be made for them being ****. I mean if you and I were to go watch a high school football game, we could both pick out the kids that are going to be playing at the next level. If there were an elite kid playing, then you and I would also be able to point that kid out. So, from the perspective of identifying the talent that is out there, yeah, they do a decent job of that, but for being able to separate the level of talent, I think it's a big guessing game.

As for Alabama, well what does that say about Texas? They've certainly had plenty of top 5 classes in the past 5 or 6 years.

For the average fan, with no real interest in recruiting, the services and their rankings/ratings mean ****. For the fan with interest (even passing) in recruiting, then I would concede that the services and their ratings/rankings can sometimes offer good insight.

 

I know the services are often full of crap: a 5 star flops, a 2 star makes it to the league, I get that. Saxets problem, at least one of em, is that no matter how good the kid is he's gonna be coddled and under-coached when he gets there, so they usually underperform. Alabama recruits topflight talent, coaches em up, and best I can see doesn't baby em and make into softies while they are there.

So...the services are often wrong, but they're also often right, and in that case I don't think you can argue that they're sh*t.

 

...but yeah, I won't argue it's somewhat of a guessing game.

Just look at the NFL and how much time, effort, and money they spend on evaluating talent and they still often miss in the draft, even on 1st round guys.

 

Recruiting rankings are not bunk. Sometimes they don't pan out, but more often than not, they do. QB is the toughest position to predict in that regard. A QB can have a 2 cent head in HS and put up gaudy stats that don't translate to the next level. Both Bell and Knight were highly ranked out of HS.

 

texas won the recruiting battle every year, for like 10 year straight.

What'd it get them?

 

Fair enough, but I still contend that to most people (that don't follow recruiting) they are junk. I say this because of all the times we heard about Texas' top class (from Texas fans), or we heard from fans about the next coming of [insert elite player].

For the folks that actually follow it, and look at more than just the stars, they are not ****.

So, I'll agree that they are half ****.

 

How do we determine if a recruit panned out? Most believe (myself included) that there isn't much of a gap between a 3 star kid and a 4 star kid. So, if a 3 star kid comes in and contributes does that mean he panned out? And if a 4 star kid comes in and plays the same amount (with similar stats) as that 3 star kid, does that mean he didn't pan out?

Here's my point:

Anyone that knows what they're looking at can go to a high school game and identify the players that have the ability to play college ball. Same can be said for identifying the elusive "elite" or 5 star player. It's not brain surgery.

I know that the services, for the most part, do a decent job of evaluating kids (some better than others). They give you an idea of what to expect from a kid. Where I think they fail is when they project a kid's impact. There is just no way to know enough about a kid (from their perspective) to be able to project how a kid will adapt to the college game. Coaches even miss, and they know much more than the services know.

I suppose my biggest issue with the services is in the "Class rankings". I put much more stock in the individual player rankings than I do the class rankings.

 

Did you not read the part where I talked about how they're coddled and under-coached once they get there? Reading is your friend.

 

And most people are dumb asses, but that doesn't mean we all have to be!

 

This I have no issue with at all.

 

It's just so hard having such a big brain, amirite?!

 

It does frustrate me that the general populace definitely does not, and yet I have to halfway try and coexist with em.

 

Heh...

 

Rivals sucks.

 

A little recruiting stars/rankings story:

It was reported that Miami under Larry Coker was not doing actual, honest to goodness college football recruiting, but rather, reporters and others were seeing computers in coaches offices open to recruiting sites, or they just pursued who the big boy programs pursued without knowing much else about the players.

If you missed this hilarious 2009 story about the true cause of the downfall at Miami, read it here. (via Orlando Sentinel)

In a nutshell, **** recruiting rankings.