Started By
Message

re: I know there are a lot of people who don't buy into "stars"

Posted on 2/3/11 at 11:26 am to
Posted by MattP598
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
1920 posts
Posted on 2/3/11 at 11:26 am to
quote:


Boise only needed one matchup against OU to win the Fiesta; Utah only needed one matchup against Bama to win the Sugar; TCU only needed one win over Wisconsin to take the Rose. When do these teams play again? Don't think they'll see 10 matchups. So take your overall series record while they take the title.

Where does coaching come into play?

Do you think that your coaches place stars on their prospects? Really?

So you trust the services more than your HC and staffs' 60+ years of hands-on experience and knowledge?


Yea Boise, Utah, & TCU can beat a team like OU every now and again. Do you really think they could go through the SEC without losing 4 or 5 games? They don't have the quality of depth teams from the SEC have and that comes from signing a full class of talented players. That is why I said 8 out of 10 times.

Of course coaching and development matter. Discipline, chemistry, etc. do as well. It's why a team as talented as Texas can have a losing season. However, recruiting is also why a team like Texas normally wins 10 games a year pretty much all the time.

Do I think coaches follow recruiting services? Absolutely not, but I do think they look for the best players. And most of the time the best players have a higher star rating. I also think recruiting services look at who coaches are recruiting. It's not uncommon to see a player commit to a high profile school, then get evaluated, and then get a bump in ratings.
Posted by better
Member since Jun 2009
236 posts
Posted on 2/3/11 at 11:39 am to
quote:

recruiting is also why a team like Texas normally wins 10 games a year pretty much all the time.

Talent and playing in a weak conference contributes heavily to 10 wins in their case.
quote:

most of the time the best players have a higher star rating.

I'll respectfully disagree. There's a higher number of lower-rated recruits (by recruiting services. not the coaches) playing in the NFL than those that were rated 5*. That's been researched an proven. GB and Pitt's rosters have a number of these guys.

I agree that talent on the roster is important.

Where we disagree is who determines the value of that talent when a program chooses to recruit a prospect.

Example: Coaches have already started accepting commitments from 2012 while recruiting services are still chasing Cyrus and Clowney of 2011. You know why? because your are PAYING for a Subscription and want Cyrus and Clowney information. Recruiting services have not created their top 250/100/200/300 lists for 2012. Have coaches waited for those lists prior to making offers and accepting commitments?
This post was edited on 2/3/11 at 11:41 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter