Frank Ragow, jeff jomes both move up to 4 stars on ESPN

Donate To GopherHole

dpodoll68 said:
No stars means that they haven't been evaluated. They evaluated him and declared him a 3-star prospect. In order for your comment to make any sense, he would've been a 2-star and then bumped up to 3 after the Gopher offer.

Keep trying.
Click to expand...

Give it up! John Galt's example is a perfect one. There are numerous examples of players that have no stars or haven't been evaluated yet, then get an offer, and all of a sudden Rivals has him ranked a certain way. Look, Jay Sawvel knows more about this in his pinky finger than you will ever know. Your arrogance is astounding.
 

John Galt said:
And why wasn't he evaluated?
Click to expand...

Probably because he received a Gopher offer. But not necessarily - we have had lots of guys who stayed unevaluated for quite some time after receiving a Gopher offer. Nonetheless, all that proves (if true) is that he was evaluated because of a Gopher offer, not that he received 3 stars because of the Gopher offer, which is what you think it proves. I know you're smarter than that.

Keep trying.
 

DMB123 said:
Give it up!
Click to expand...

Why should I "give it up" when I'm the one who's right?

DMB123 said:
John Galt's example is a perfect one.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. I've already explained why it isn't.

DMB123 said:
There are numerous examples of players that have no stars or haven't been evaluated yet, then get an offer, and all of a sudden Rivals has him ranked a certain way.
Click to expand...

There sure are. All that proves is that they haven't had a reason to evaluate them yet. You, too, are smarter than this...at least I thought you were.

DMB123 said:
Look, Jay Sawvel knows more about this in his pinky finger than you will ever know. Your arrogance is astounding.
Click to expand...

About how recruiting services assign rankings? No, no he doesn't. He has far more important things to do. I guarantee he hasn't spent more than a cumulative total of a few hours of his life even thinking about it.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Probably because he received a Gopher offer. But not necessarily - we have had lots of guys who stayed unevaluated for quite some time after receiving a Gopher offer. Nonetheless, all that proves (if true) is that he was evaluated because of a Gopher offer, not that he received 3 stars because of the Gopher offer, which is what you think it proves. I know you're smarter than that.

Keep trying.
Click to expand...

Ok, he hadn't been evaluated for 2 years, and it was just chance that they evaluated him the day after the Gopher offer. Got it.

The fact remains: he wasn't even evaluated, and he became a 3-star recruit the day after he received his offer. Game, Set, Match.
 


John Galt said:
Ok, he hadn't been evaluated for 2 years, and it was just chance that they evaluated him the day after the Gopher offer. Got it.

The fact remains: he wasn't even evaluated, and he became a 3-star recruit the day after he received his offer. Game, Set, Match.
Click to expand...

No one has ever argued that offers don't spur evaluations. They would be stupid if they attempted to advance that line of thinking.

It's quite hilarious how you think this proves anything. Based on reading your posts, I had assumed you had a modicum of intelligence and reasoning ability. I guess I was wrong.

"Game, Set, Match."? Hilarious. Been hanging out with ruppert lately?
 

John Galt said:
Ok, he hadn't been evaluated for 2 years, and it was just chance that they evaluated him the day after the Gopher offer. Got it.

The fact remains: he wasn't even evaluated, and he became a 3-star recruit the day after he received his offer. Game, Set, Match.
Click to expand...

There is another way you could view it though. Lingen also didn't get his first big school offer until late also. Why is that? Maybe he improved a ton and wasn't a big prospect on anyone's board prior to this season. That could be why he wasn't evaluated already.

I don't think one example proves or disproves anything. There could be all kinds of reasons why a player is evaluated one way or another. If you feel Lingen was given a 3-star because of his MN commitment, then why didn't Everret Williams and Steven Richardson become a 3-star after they committed to MN?

I'm not saying where a player commits or what kind of offers doesn't affect the ranking, but there are countless examples that dispute that it is the main factor. In fact, Oregon signed four 2-star recruits last year. They have another one committed this year. You would think those guys would automatically get bumped up to at 3-stars the minute they get an offer from one of the top programs in the country if it was the main way these players are evaluated.
 

die hard gopher said:
It's about time raknow moved up to a 4 star, he has had so may good offers for so long, I think the Ohio State offer pushed over the edge and he is now barley a 4 star on that site, Jeff got moved to 181 on espn who previously had him as a 3 star, on a side note JC hausenauer is right below Jeff Jones at 188 on espn which makes me regret not getting him thatch more, if we had JC, Ragnow,and Connor Mayes(who is a 4 star on scout) all blocking for Jeff Jones we would lead the big ten in rushing and take over Wisconsin's role as the dominant power run team in the big ten
Click to expand...

The whole "star gazing" thing is dumb - very subjective...and the end of the day the staff can either identify and develop the talent that translates in to W's of they can't
 




There are tons of 3 star kids with offers from several helmet schools, lets move on.
 

There are too many prospects for all of them to have an evaluation. If one of the players who doesn't have one commits somewhere, it naturally gives them more motivation to watch some film and make an evaluation so team rankings can be updated accordingly and fans can have an idea of what type of player they just landed.
 

GophersOnTheRise said:
There are too many prospects for all of them to have an evaluation. If one of the players who doesn't have one commits somewhere, it naturally gives them more motivation to watch some film and make an evaluation so team rankings can be updated accordingly and fans can have an idea of what type of player they just landed.
Click to expand...

Yes. Sometimes coaches find them first.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Why should I "give it up" when I'm the one who's right?



No, it isn't. I've already explained why it isn't.



There sure are. All that proves is that they haven't had a reason to evaluate them yet. You, too, are smarter than this...at least I thought you were.



About how recruiting services assign rankings? No, no he doesn't. He has far more important things to do. I guarantee he hasn't spent more than a cumulative total of a few hours of his life even thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to try anymore with you. You can't argue with someone as arrogant as yourself. You've been proven wrong over and over again. If a player gets evaluated after getting an offer, that proves our point. The coaches find these kids first in many cases, and then Rivals jumps in and gives them a star ranking. If that kid never gets an offer, Rivals never even mentions him. It's pretty simple, I thought you were smarter than that.
 



dpodoll68 said:
They don't rate players based on offers.
Click to expand...

Dpo, I frequent this site...uh, frequently, and I admire so much of what you bring to the discussion. However, IMHO you're wrong about this. Look at the 247 rating ranking and rating before and after the Alabama offer (lower right side of web page, link below). Don't tell me nobody reviewed tape etc on this kid prior to his June camp performance and he's rated a 95(!) just b/c he stood out a single camp. That is an incredible leap in ranking/rating. Was the tape on him completely wrong? Are these rating services present at all the camps or are they just looking at tape (serious question)?.

http://247sports.com/Player/JC-Hassenauer-24286
 

DMB123 said:
If a player gets evaluated after getting an offer, that proves our point.
Click to expand...

No, no it doesn't. You're just adorable.

DMB123 said:
If that kid never gets an offer, Rivals never even mentions him.
Click to expand...

Duh. Why would Rivals waste their time evaluating players who aren't likely to receive offers? Their point is to evaluate and rank players who are going to be playing Division I football. My nephew playing 9-man football in SD isn't going to be playing Division I football, so Rivals isn't going to evaluate him. You're right, it is a very simple concept.

I have to ask - do you guys seriously think that what you're saying is even relevant to this conversation? If so, I'm truly starting to wonder how you function daily without assistance. At this point, I have to assume that you're trolling. For the sake of you and your loved ones, I sure hope so.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Dpo, I frequent this site...uh, frequently, and I admire so much of what you bring to the discussion. However, IMHO you're wrong about this. Look at the 247 rating ranking and rating before and after the Alabama offer (lower right side of web page, link below). Don't tell me nobody reviewed tape etc on this kid prior to his June camp performance and he's rated a 95(!) just b/c he stood out a single camp. That is an incredible leap in ranking/rating. Was the tape on him completely wrong? Are these rating services present at all the camps or are they just looking at tape (serious question)?.

http://247sports.com/Player/JC-Hassenauer-24286
Click to expand...

It wasn't a single camp, it was multiple camps. He didn't just "stand out", he won several "Best O-lineman" awards and such, going up against the very best players in the country.

As hard as it may be for some to believe, players do progress and get better, and earn a better ranking based on their improvements, whether those improvements might manifest during the actual playing season or in off-season camps. How people can see a player improve by leaps and bounds in college, yet totally deny and discount the possibility of them getting better during their HS years, is baffling to me.

And if an Alabama offer automatically earns someone 4 or 5 stars, why do Montel McBride and Chris Williams, both with much better offer lists than Hassenauer, only have 3 stars? Williams has been committed to Alabama for 7 months - why are they waiting so long to give him his 4th star?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Dpo, I frequent this site...uh, frequently, and I admire so much of what you bring to the discussion. However, IMHO you're wrong about this. Look at the 247 rating ranking and rating before and after the Alabama offer (lower right side of web page, link below). Don't tell me nobody reviewed tape etc on this kid prior to his June camp performance and he's rated a 95(!) just b/c he stood out a single camp. That is an incredible leap in ranking/rating. Was the tape on him completely wrong? Are these rating services present at all the camps or are they just looking at tape (serious question)?.

http://247sports.com/Player/JC-Hassenauer-24286
Click to expand...

From viewing that timeline it appears that his Sparq results might have swayed his score more-so than his Alabama commitment. Otherwise I would expect to see his rating go up shortly have June 17, not almost a month later.
 

So, according to the logic of some in this thread, Jeff Jones is a 4* merely because of his offer from Minnesota? Or is it the Iowa State offer that did it? For every example of a kid getting offered by a school and then having his rating go up at some later point, there are examples of 3* kids being committed to helmet schools and 4* kids not having any helmet school offers.

Here's one of my favorites, in which the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' line of reasoning tells us without a shadow of a doubt that an offer from Western Kentucky led this guy to get a 4* rating.

h61d.th.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3179/h61d.jpg
 

Maybe there's not a right answer to this argument. I'm sure every case is different. It depends on what player is being evaluated, what his offers are, what site/person is evaluating, etc. I find it hard to believe something subjective like rating a prospect is never influenced by what schools are interested in him and what offers he has. At the same time, if players were rated based only by the offers they have it'd be pretty pointless to rate them at all.

Regardless, it's kind of a dumb topic to argue and make a big fuss about.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I don't care what Jay Sawvel says. He's a coach, and it's in his own best interest to make it seem like he found a 4-star recruit who only didn't have that rating due to lack of offers.
Click to expand...

I admittedly don't know where the truth lies here but just as it is in JS's interest to create the above perception, it is in the interest of Scout and Rivals to create the perception that their high ratings lead big time offers rather than trail them.
 


As someone stated above, it doesn't particularly matter, but FWIW, I tend to agree with Dpo. Players develop, they go to different camps and are evaluated, new game film (perhaps more recent) becomes available, and ratings are updated. To hedge a little bit, I don't think the rating sites live in a vacuum, either. If a kid is getting a lot of big time offers, they may take a chance to re-evaluate a player, or try to find some more recent film to see if they missed something.

As others have stated, what really hurts the position that quality of offers directly and significantly affects the ratings is that many players are not bumped after they receive big offers. Alabama has three star recruits, we often have unrated ones or people who remain two star players despite B1G offer(s).
 

Who cares what star ranking they have coming into the program. The only ranking that matters is the one they have on NFL team's draft boards once they leave the program. To me that means they were more than likely successful in our program and our coaches did a damn good job coaching them up if all goes as planned!
 

dpodoll68 said:
It wasn't a single camp, it was multiple camps. He didn't just "stand out", he won several "Best O-lineman" awards and such, going up against the very best players in the country.

As hard as it may be for some to believe, players do progress and get better, and earn a better ranking based on their improvements, whether those improvements might manifest during the actual playing season or in off-season camps. How people can see a player improve by leaps and bounds in college, yet totally deny and discount the possibility of them getting better during their HS years, is baffling to me.

And if an Alabama offer automatically earns someone 4 or 5 stars, why do Montel McBride and Chris Williams, both with much better offer lists than Hassenauer, only have 3 stars? Williams has been committed to Alabama for 7 months - why are they waiting so long to give him his 4th star?
Click to expand...

I can follow your line of thinking, but what happened between Jun17 and July10 to go from an 87 to 95? That is an incredible leap and could a reflection of a slow turnaround on 247 re-rating the players; ie an echo effect. I don't know what their schedule is on rating players; daily, weekly, monthly? I think it's also clear certain positions don't garner many 4 and 5 star ratings, which could explain the helmet schools listing 3 star players. Who knows, maybe it's a legacy or a favor to the AD or a booster or whatever. The bottom line is, it's pretty incredible that a lightly recruited kid goes from an 83 ~ 900th best player in the nation to the top center, top 300 player overnight. I do recall seeing one link to a camp that he did well at, I will have to look for others unless you can provide links.

You're kidding yourself if you think there isn't an element of groupthink with these ratings. It's human nature for a crowd to attract a crowd. Obviously there isn't a consensus on every player evaluation even at the NFL draft level. How can there possibly be accurate evaluations at the college or high school level? Sure there will always be can't-miss prospects...and then about half of those will miss.
 

justthefacts said:
So, according to the logic of some in this thread, Jeff Jones is a 4* merely because of his offer from Minnesota? Or is it the Iowa State offer that did it? For every example of a kid getting offered by a school and then having his rating go up at some later point, there are examples of 3* kids being committed to helmet schools and 4* kids not having any helmet school offers.

Here's one of my favorites, in which the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' line of reasoning tells us without a shadow of a doubt that an offer from Western Kentucky led this guy to get a 4* rating.

View attachment 2339

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3179/h61d.jpg
Click to expand...

If the 4 star came after a WK commit you might be on to something in relation to the JC angle. The point is that that stars don't really mean as much as some of you want them to, which is great for gopher football at this stage of the game. It gives us hope. All it takes is a few breakthrough talents to turn an average team into a dangerous threat. Sometimes under-talented teams can catch lightning in a bottle. See the example of flash in the pan Boise State with Kellen Moore and Doug Martin. They turned an average team into an elite team.
 

LongTimeGopher said:
Dpo, thanks for ruining another thread.
Click to expand...

Boo-hoo.

Perhaps you should direct your ire instead at the coterie of malcontents who object vociferously every time I dare to make correct and accurate statements on this Gopher football-themed message board.
 

Let's go to the source and read firsthand what Rivals says their rating is based on: http://www.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1

"The rankings are compiled after countless hours of film evaluation, personal observations and input from professional, college and high school coaches."

Is anyone really naive enough to suggest that "input from professional, college,and high school coaches" doesn't include commentary regarding who has offered a kid? And that this doesn't weigh into the decision making process? No one said it is the only criteria and that every Bama kid will automatically get bumped up to 4 stars.

Rivals gets caught with their pants down constantly because they barely know who to evaluate until a kid receives BCS offers. They thought stalwarts such as Kendrick Brewster, Tim Gordon, RJ3, and Preston Woods were primetime players and went out of their way to evaluate them early on, only to realize later no one considered them to be BCS prospects.
 

John Galt said:
No one said it is the only criteria and that every Bama kid will automatically get bumped up to 4 stars.
Click to expand...

When people say things like "X offer got him up to 4 stars or 5 stars", the implication is that offers weigh so heavily to the detriment of everything else that it is effectively the sole determinant.

John Galt said:
Rivals gets caught with their pants down constantly because they barely know who to evaluate until a kid receives BCS offers.
Click to expand...

That's not ridiculous hyperbole or anything.

John Galt said:
They thought stalwarts such as Kendrick Brewster, Tim Gordon, RJ3, and Preston Woods were primetime players and went out of their way to evaluate them early on, only to realize later no one considered them to be BCS prospects.
Click to expand...

They evaluated Kendrick [sic] Brewster? Really? Where is the alternate Rivals where you see this analysis? The Rivals I see shows Brewster with no evaluation. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Kendrik-Brewster-104904 Perhaps you can see some other super-secret Rivals that none of the rest of us can?

The rest of the players you mentioned all have Division I offers. So which is it? Do they give early evaluations to players who are Division I prospects (like Gordon, Johnson, and Woods) or do they "barely know who to evaluate until a kid receives BCS offers"? Which one? It can't be both. You can't even keep your own story straight within the same post. You need to refine your troll game.
 

dpodoll68 said:
When people say things like "X offer got him up to 4 stars or 5 stars", the implication is that offers weigh so heavily to the detriment of everything else that it is effectively the sole determinant.



That's not ridiculous hyperbole or anything.



They evaluated Kendrick [sic] Brewster? Really? Where is the alternate Rivals where you see this analysis? The Rivals I see shows Brewster with no evaluation. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Kendrik-Brewster-104904 Perhaps you can see some other super-secret Rivals that none of the rest of us can?

The rest of the players you mentioned all have Division I offers. So which is it? Do they give early evaluations to players who are Division I prospects (like Gordon, Johnson, and Woods) or do they "barely know who to evaluate until a kid receives BCS offers"? Which one? It can't be both. You can't even keep your own story straight within the same post. You need to refine your troll game.
Click to expand...

It can absolutely be both. Sometimes they evaluate kids who end up with significant D-1 offers, and other times they whiff. What D-1 offers do Tim Gordon and Preston Woods have that warrant a Rivals evaluation? The one offer from North Dakota? Brewster has a full profile and they interviewed him thinking he was a D-1 prospect.

There is no one implying that offers by themselves are used as the sole means to provide a ranking. But they do play a role.
 

Simply because a recruit is bumped in star ranking after receiving a high offer is not an indication that star rankings are decided based upon offers. Conclusions based solely on such is poor logic.

It simply could be the services identify who to evaluate based on whether they've received offers or not. A good business is going to focus on what their customers focus on. Thus, if Alabama or Notre Dame and like offer a kid, well, they provide the most subscribers, so they are going to give the kid an evaluation or maybe it may warrant a reevaluation.

Of course that doesn't mean they are not determined by offer lists either. It's simply is proof of nothing.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom