Why Talent/Recruiting Rankings Matter

Donate To GopherHole
If we lose a lot in the 2018 season, I don't think it will affect recruiting too negatively yet because much of the sales pitch will be around all of the good young players red shirting or in their first year.

I'd say by 2019 winning will matter for securing the 2020 class.

Most of the 2019 class will be committing prior to or during the early part of the 2018 season, some before more games are even played.
 

We need a count down thread to Signing Day, with photos of recruits in their high school uniforms counting it down, like a Gopherhole advent calendar! I'm not talented enough to pull that off, but I know several regular posters on here are!
 

Face The Facts said:
If we lose a lot in the 2018 season, I don't think it will affect recruiting too negatively yet because much of the sales pitch will be around all of the good young players red shirting or in their first year.

I'd say by 2019 winning will matter for securing the 2020 class.

Most of the 2019 class will be committing prior to or during the early part of the 2018 season, some before more games are even played.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The promise of what can be will still ring true after next season just as it did after this season. But if 19 is a dud, that will spell major problems. Gotta be trending up in a significant way after year 3 ... otherwise it all starts falling apart.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I don't see either Wisconsin or Iowa as a threat to pass us. Both had small SR classes and appear to be near capacity. Nebraska also just lost their highest rated recruit today.

I don't think this will be the high water mark at all. I think Fleck will at least be consistently in the 30s nationally. Even though it will be smaller, next year's class has the potential to be better with a number of highly rated recruits.
Click to expand...

Their Sr classes were about the same size as the Gophs. Two of Wisc last three recruiting classes were under 20. Last three of Iowas classes were below 25.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Their Sr classes were about the same size as the Gophs. Two of Wisc last three recruiting classes were under 20. Last three of Iowas classes were below 25.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with this year? Look at who’s graduating and looks who’s committed. Both are around their limit.
 




salzie said:
I think we need to win 6-8 next year and I think we will
Click to expand...

At 6-7 wins, assuming Gophs do not drop a non-conf game, all the conference losses really need to be competitive and not lopsided IMO.
 

I don’t see how redshirt freshman (17 signing class), and especially true freshman (18 signing class), should be expected to help you win games in 2018.

Transfers (including JUCOs) perhaps.

I will allow 18 to be like 17 without abandoning him, with the caveat of no blowout losses.
 



MnplsGopher said:
I don’t see how redshirt freshman (17 signing class), and especially true freshman (18 signing class), should be expected to help you win games in 2018.

Transfers (including JUCOs) perhaps.

I will allow 18 to be like 17 without abandoning him, with the caveat of no blowout losses.
Click to expand...

Depends on position, IMO. Fr can absolutely make a big difference at some positions (ex: WR) - but takes a freak athlete to help at other positions (ex: OL).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


MnplsGopher said:
I don’t see how redshirt freshman (17 signing class), and especially true freshman (18 signing class), should be expected to help you win games in 2018.

Transfers (including JUCOs) perhaps.

I will allow 18 to be like 17 without abandoning him, with the caveat of no blowout losses.
Click to expand...


You don't think young players can help

Wisconsin probably wouldn't have been that good had they not had a freshman RB breakout
 

Maybe one or two ... but what you're essentially saying is that the newcomers for 2018 (the 2018 signing class true freshmen, plus any transfers) are that much better than the players who left the program after the 2017 season, either due to graduation or transfer, that we should expect better results.

Would be fun to go down the line showing everyone lost and everyone coming in, and making the case that the newcomers in 18 are better than the outgoers of 17.
 



MnplsGopher said:
Maybe one or two ... but what you're essentially saying is that the newcomers for 2018 (the 2018 signing class true freshmen, plus any transfers) are that much better than the players who left the program after the 2017 season, either due to graduation or transfer, that we should expect better results.

Would be fun to go down the line showing everyone lost and everyone coming in, and making the case that the newcomers in 18 are better than the outgoers of 17.
Click to expand...

Are you essentially saying we would cover all the needed on the field positions with roughly 45 players? I would expect many RS FR to see a fair amount of playing time with more than a handful of them contributing significantly. That's why most were RS.
 

Ok fair enough. It was silly of me to limit it to just true freshman. There could well be new starters (or significant contributors) who are RS Fresh in 18, to go along with any transfers that make an impact in 18.

Will there be a lot of those? I guess we will see. But if the starters and major contributors stay mostly the same as in 17, then you'd expect the results to be similar.

Obviously a massive factor is the play at QB, and that's not a RS Fr stepping up either.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Ok fair enough. It was silly of me to limit it to just true freshman. There could well be new starters (or significant contributors) who are RS Fresh in 18, to go along with any transfers that make an impact in 18.

Will there be a lot of those? I guess we will see. But if the starters and major contributors stay mostly the same as in 17, then you'd expect the results to be similar.

Obviously a massive factor is the play at QB, and that's not a RS Fr stepping up either.
Click to expand...

As in past years, I expect the staff to develop them into better players. Most will get better, those that don't will get replaced with someone else who has gotten better. Each of the past 4-5 years, many players have improved and stepped up when the opportunity is presented. I don't see that changing, and actually expect with this staff for that to be more evident.

Don't see how the QB position does not get better.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Don't see how the QB position does not get better.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this. However, if I had a nickel for every time the same thing was said leading into this season....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
I don't disagree with this. However, if I had a nickel for every time the same thing was said leading into this season....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

From 2016 Gophs dropped 10 spots in passing offense to 121st. 15 spots in total offense to 122nd. Rushing offense was pretty much a push.

The teams ranked below Gophs pretty much don't pass. I think Gophs have pretty much hit bottom with passing offense.
 


Spoofin said:
I don't disagree with this. However, if I had a nickel for every time the same thing was said leading into this season....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Especially from the person you quoted
 

PMWinSTP said:
Add Neb to the list. Frost and staff are hitting it hard.
Click to expand...

An yes, the continued downplaying of everything Fleck does. First it was they aren’t going to get any 4*s, now they’re going to get passed by Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa. And you keep trying to label others as trolls...
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
An yes, the continued downplaying of everything Fleck does. First it was they aren’t going to get any 4*s, now they’re going to get passed by Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa. And you keep trying to label others as trolls...
Click to expand...

There you go again..massaging. I never said Fleck wouldn't get any 4*, never. I've posted numerous timesthat he needed to get at least one 4* to have a class in the top 40. Said I thought his class would end up in the 40s and I'd be very happy...under 40 and I'd be extremely happy. I'm not downplaying anything, he exceeded my expectations recruiting this 2018 class. I am extremely happy.

Wishing that Neb and Wisc do worse than usual in recruiting rankings so Fleck looks better is just silly. Just win.
 

Interesting ....

I have a friend who played at my alma mater - University of Florida - now makes his living working & training high school kids for "the next level." You can check out his business if you want ... www.EliteRecruit300.com . . . . I would bet the coaching staff knows him.

What he knows is the whole "star" business - and it is a "business," it's not a "neutral rating service designed and intended to provide unbiased evaluations of high school seniors eligible to sign college football scholarships."

So, while there is some correlation between "stars" and ability, anyone selling it as "scientific" or even "extremely significant" is overstating the case by a wide margin.

Look at ratings. They're one tool among many, but they're nothing more than an opinion of how kids will turn out two and three years down the road; they're far from fool-proof, and hardly worth a "table pounding defense."
 

BradDad said:
Interesting ....

I have a friend who played at my alma mater - University of Florida - now makes his living working & training high school kids for "the next level." You can check out his business if you want ... www.EliteRecruit300.com . . . . I would bet the coaching staff knows him.

What he knows is the whole "star" business - and it is a "business," it's not a "neutral rating service designed and intended to provide unbiased evaluations of high school seniors eligible to sign college football scholarships."

So, while there is some correlation between "stars" and ability, anyone selling it as "scientific" or even "extremely significant" is overstating the case by a wide margin.

Look at ratings. They're one tool among many, but they're nothing more than an opinion of how kids will turn out two and three years down the road; they're far from fool-proof, and hardly worth a "table pounding defense."
Click to expand...

Heard someone mention the other day, that the ratings system has a lot of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your's" to it. "I'll give you a scoop on these players, if you rate them what I think they should be rated." IMO, it's all eye test, getting coaches evaluations on them, and seeing who is offering them.
 

Interesting last couple of posts. I personally look at the amount of offers, in general the more offers the better the player seems to be with meeting those expectations (in general...there is always anomalies, I always think of safety Brandon Owens 5* with offers from all over, man he was good, he would have been in the NFL if not for that bad Penn St. QB collision)
 

NotAFanOfBecky said:
Interesting last couple of posts. I personally look at the amount of offers, in general the more offers the better the player seems to be with meeting those expectations (in general...there is always anomalies, I always think of safety Brandon Owens 5* with offers from all over, man he was good, he would have been in the NFL if not for that bad Penn St. QB collision)
Click to expand...

I was at that game. Brutal. Haven't heard an update on Owens in years, but I know he was still struggling years after that hit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Maybe ... but if a player already has five offers from Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Ohio State, etc. ... and if none of those programs have just had a major coaching change ... why other programs bother to offer him? They know they're not going to win.

So that is a counter-argument to a player with more offers being better, in my opinion.
 

BradDad said:
Interesting ....

I have a friend who played at my alma mater - University of Florida - now makes his living working & training high school kids for "the next level." You can check out his business if you want ... www.EliteRecruit300.com . . . . I would bet the coaching staff knows him.

What he knows is the whole "star" business - and it is a "business," it's not a "neutral rating service designed and intended to provide unbiased evaluations of high school seniors eligible to sign college football scholarships."

So, while there is some correlation between "stars" and ability, anyone selling it as "scientific" or even "extremely significant" is overstating the case by a wide margin.

Look at ratings. They're one tool among many, but they're nothing more than an opinion of how kids will turn out two and three years down the road; they're far from fool-proof, and hardly worth a "table pounding defense."
Click to expand...

It's not scientific in its basis, but if you look at outcomes the math checks out.

I'm also wary of any advice from someone looking to get in the exact same industry about how terrible it is. What most folks really mean by that is "I want to get in on some of that terribleness!" ;)
 

I'm an idiot so I don't know this, but what are the rankings based on?

Is it just one amateur scout's opinion?

Or is there at least a grading card of some sort where scouts include some tangible data like...

Speed, bench press, ability to jump, turn, etc?
Or is it just some overweight guy like me that volunteers to watch some football games, (who happens to be affiliated with a scouting website), then says, "Hey, this kid for Eden Prairie is pretty good". In which case I write 3-5 sentences that says:
"Covers receivers well. Good size to cover tall WR's. Top end speed. Tends to not wrap up when supporting the run. 3 stars!"




And then after the entry is made in the scouting service, do coaches agreeing with your ranking help the ranking?


Or are the rankings increased by the number of offers?
Or are they supposed to be completely independent of offers.

In theory, can there be such a thing as a 2 star kid who gets offers from every Big Ten school and SEC school, or is the ranking composed so that essentially can't happen?
 

The evaluations are subjective with the exception of the top 200 or so who have attended a camp and competed without pads against peers. They typically have 40 times, bench press and similar drills to the NFL combine. The top 200 outperform their peers who attend other camps. The process usually works like this:

Sophomores who have good pub will be viewed on film. If they are aggressive, or in the south near a camp site between their sophomore and junior years, they will go to the Nike camps or one of the Rivals eval camps, where they will be evaluated against other kids their age. This is one reason kids in Minnesota and Wisconsin typically don't have ratings, is that the only camp is in Chicago area. Michigan is similar with 1 camp in Detroit. Contrast those camps to Dallas, LA, Miami etc, which typically have 2 or more camps.

Junior year game film becomes a big thing. If a kid is dominant in junior game film and had good camp , they typically will get a big rating. Most offers come junior camp season and the "player rankings" are based on the junior year tape plus junior year camps. The performance in the sophomore camps plus junior year film are the biggest basis for player ratings of the top 200 players.

Senior year. The struggle, and the hole in the system, is the kid who develops late i.e. late junior year and junior-senior summer, who then blows up as a senior. Those kids are not highly rated because the Rivals/247 system doesn't really re-rate until the end of senior year. There are some coaches who hold back a bunch of scholarships until late senior year for this reason. The reason is you are evaluating a more finished product then the kids after junior year. ****My opinion. This is why some of the NFL draft picks are not top recruits. They are late developers who don't get offered until late in the process. I have zero stats to base this on, just an opinion****

The evaluators at Rivals and 247 typically have had some small school college experience as coaches or high level high school. To my knowledge, none of them are former pro scouts and only a couple coached D1 football. That said, it doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. The challenge for players who are not top 200, or don't go to the camps, is that the "evaluator" might be a local guy who knows someone at rivals. He alerts them to the player and they view some highlight tape (i.e. Hudl) The evaluators then give them some ranking. The rivals camps are effectively pay to play, where you attend and get a ranking

For example, Josh Helmholdt of Rivals played at Grand Valley State(was a 2nd string player), then became the recruiting guru for The Wolverine Magazine and now Midwest recruiting analyst for Rivals. He has never coached at all nor played above Division 3.

Mike Farrell, the top dog at 247, is considered a top recruiting analyst, never eve played college football at all while attending Central Connecticut State. He started evaluating as a college kid as Rivals and rode the train to become the top recruiting analyst in the country.

It doesn’t mean these guys are not smart and can’t evaluate given that they are doing it every day, but I don’t think Nick Saban is bringing them in to become his chief talent evaluators at Alabama if that is what you are wondering.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom