Unbiased, statistical look at team recruiting rankings

[To Be Named Later]

This is not written by me, though I love the objectivity of it. I hope we can all agree that getting more highly-ranked players is probably, though NOT definitely, a sign of increased talent. That being said, this article explains some of the biases that go into recruiting rankings.

http://www.insidetheshoe.com/2012/01/burn-it-with-fire-or-sour-grapes.html#disqus_thread

At the end of the day, the debate of whether or not recruiting rankings matter is completely useless because there is no one definite answer. I just found the article interesting. Enjoy.

 

[husker70]

Add to those factors, the subscription rates by state. If a 4star recruit choses Alabama he more than likely will draw attention and a 5 star rating. So school following, subscription to the site or magazine, are definite factors.

 

[TLHGO4]

If I read the article correctly the 3-star recruits from Minnesota may potentially be better than the 3-star recruits from the southern states. That bodes well for this years class, particularly since three of the nine in-state Gopher recruits (McDonald, Nelson and Pirsig) were at one time ranked as 4-stars. The remainder are 3-star except for Fruechte, who is a 2-star.

 

[To Be Named Later]

People sometimes forget that these are businesses. Again, I think that higher-ranked players are typically better, but there is a bias.

 

[50PoundHead]

Nice article, but kind of "dog bites man." I sense more bias (but maybe my sense of bias is biased) in Rivals, but I think the author did a really nice job of describing the differences between the two services. I follow recruiting fairly closely and like To Be Named Later, I think the higher-ranked players are going to show up in similar places in both services' rankings. But there are nuances in the two services. I basically use them as shorthand and a way to simply get an idea of how are recruiting is going (at least from a 30,000 foot level).