Ratings are flawed

Donate To GopherHole

This definitely means every single ranking is completely wrong and none of them will ever mean anything.
 


I'm glad you pointed this out. I never realized that coaches and recruiting services missed on prospects.
 



Smart asses are missing the point. Relax until we see how recruits pan out is the point, not that every rating system is always wrong.
 

First of all, Brewster was 45th, not 33rd.

Second, I want to know what their evaluators were smoking to put him that high. I trust Rivals and Scout far more than ESPN (especially in rankings) and they both had him a lot closer to 450th than 45th. I'm dumbfounded at how terrible that ranking was.

Lastly, this proves absolutely nothing.
 


I'm so relaxed, I slipped between the couch cushions last night. Or maybe I'm just gaining weight.

Anyway, you're right Halsey. I was just tweaking you. I think it's alright to do a basic "sort" by stars, but there is more than one step in the journey. It doesn't hurt to start with talent though.
 



Halsey Hall said:
Smart asses are missing the point. Relax until we see how recruits pan out is the point, not that every rating system is always wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the only people worried about Kill's class this year not have 5* guys are those that just like to get under the skin of Gopher fans. Trolls!
 


Johnny Olson said:
I ignore the stars and look at the other offers.
Click to expand...

I do that too. While it might be nice to see us ranked higher on the recruiting services, and realizing there is some correlation between rankings and future success, it all means jack at kick off.
 

This class will probably be ranked in the lower half of the Big Ten by the recruiting sights. Still, you look at a team like Boise State who virtually have mostly two and three star recruits and that puts a monkey wrench in the system. I think Coach Kill will prove the rating system wrong IMO
 



ruppertflywheel said:
This class will probably be ranked in the lower half of the Big Ten by the recruiting sights. Still, you look at a team like Boise State who virtually have mostly two and three star recruits and that puts a monkey wrench in the system. I think Coach Kill will prove the rating system wrong IMO
Click to expand...

Respectfully submitted, as much their conference schedule puts a monkey wrench into their yearly record.
 

What people seem to be missing is that all models are wrong but some models but are useful. To determine whether recruiting rating systems are good predictors you need to measure how well they correlate with future actual performance. This has been done several times and it has been shown that the more stars a recruit receives the greater chance he has of being drafted by the NFL in the future. This would be helpful if you are placing bets on whether a player was going to be drafted by the NFL but is only of marginal use for most schools.

For three stars and below recruits actual performance results become quite a bit less predictable. Casinos in Los Vegas may make a very good living with odd that favor them by as little as 2% but for college coaches that want to keep their jobs, it is not good enough. Therefore, good coaches like Jerry Kill, do their own analysis to increase the predictability.

But remember, it is not a totally useless tool since at a macro level it may give a fan some insight as to what the future might hold. I don't know if anybody has ever measured the correlation coefficient at the macro level to determine this, but it would be interesting to find out. Boise State and Nevada would be examples of exceptions for sure. Their star ratings are often quite low which begs the question "Why do they do so well?" Could it be the blue turf at Boise State?
 

I don't necessarily disagree killjoy. 4- and 5-star guys just aren't anointed. There's a reason for the buzz around these guys and someone in here last year or the year before posted some research that showed the percentage of five-star guys going on to play in the NFL to be much, much higher that it was for three-star players.

And talent matters. A lot. What I was trying to say is that--and it appears you agree with me somewhat--is that if you can't get four- and five-star guys, a coach usually tries to cull out lower star-rated recruits that fit what they are trying to do instead of simply looking at 40 times and bench press results.
 


fekz1y.jpg
 

"Ratings are flawed.

Overall no, they're not. While there are some programs that rise and fall on a season by season basis the teams that stay on top year after year generally recruit more four and five star players and the teams that usually lose don't.

It ain't the Pros. Talent isn't passed out. High School players with a lot of talent can choose where they want to go to play college football and generally they want to go to a place where they can win or go to the NFL. The only "leavening" agent here is academics. Bad teams can get some of these guys if they don't qualify to get in the better schools.

The problem is these guys often flunk out or are bad guys. Sound familar?

Or they get offered into the SEC, but that's another story :p

Only teams that get to play a very lousy conference schedule year after year can win while playing a whole lot of 2 and 3 star players. Does anyone think that those schools don't want four and five star kids if they could get them. Does anyone really think they aren't trying to get them?

Hopefully Kill is a good enough coach that he can put together a winning season or two and then start appealing to a few of the better players. The last six guys for a number of reasons couldn't.

I hope he can.
 

I believe the statistics would show that there is a strong correlation between recruiting class rankings and success, however there is also grade inflation when recruits go to helmet schools in some circumstances.
However, I think the points Coach Kill makes are the same that apply to ACT and SAT scores which are a lot more fact based than football recruit rankings are. Higher college admission scores generally predict success in school, but there are a lot of exceptions. They are less effective in predicting professional success, even though there is some correlation, because they do not evaluate social intelligence and motivation.
Given that recruit rankings are more subjective than college entrance exams, and that the recruits success is greatly influenced by their fit in the system used at the school, there are a lot of reasons why a kid going to a specific school may do considerable better or worse than their ranking would predict. When you look at a school like us that has had a different "system" every year there is no system designable by man that could effectively predict success in our program the last four years.
I think kids being recruited to the wrong system could explain a lot about why kids are misevaluated, plus some kids have a lot more potential for physcial development after high school, and others are pretty mature physically. I am always amazed at how old some of these kids look in high school. Jenkins looked like he was 28.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom