Started By
Message
Amateur question
Posted on 6/15/13 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 6/15/13 at 8:13 pm
If a recruit comes in as an early enrollee, does that make him a better recruit?
He gets there in January. You get him for the whole Spring plus 'voluntary' workouts before Summer, and through the summer practices when the rest of the recruits show up and still have to be shown where the bathroom is and where to catch the bus etc.
Administratively, you get to back-count him to open spots on the previous class from anyone that got processed, or you can count him forward to the next year in case you have cap problems.
So, all things being equal, when you get an early enrollee, does that make him more valuable?
Measurably and objectively more valuable?
Do the recruiting ranking services calculate it at all?
If so, should they not?
If not, should they?
He gets there in January. You get him for the whole Spring plus 'voluntary' workouts before Summer, and through the summer practices when the rest of the recruits show up and still have to be shown where the bathroom is and where to catch the bus etc.
Administratively, you get to back-count him to open spots on the previous class from anyone that got processed, or you can count him forward to the next year in case you have cap problems.
So, all things being equal, when you get an early enrollee, does that make him more valuable?
Measurably and objectively more valuable?
Do the recruiting ranking services calculate it at all?
If so, should they not?
If not, should they?
2
Posted on 6/15/13 at 8:29 pm to deeprig9
quote:Yes. The extra experience in the program always helps.
So, all things being equal, when you get an early enrollee, does that make him more valuable?
quote:No. Rankings are based off a recruits ability, measurables, and how they project to the college and NFL levels. Getting in earlier doesn't really change any of that
Do the recruiting ranking services calculate it at all?
Posted on 6/15/13 at 8:32 pm to deeprig9
Yes they are more valuable. No they shouldn't be ranked higher. Rankings are based on their talent.
Posted on 6/15/13 at 8:52 pm to Weagle25
All things being equal...
School AAA has ten 4*'s that all enroll in the Summer.
School BBB has ten 4*'s that all enroll in the Spring.
Would you not rank School BBB's class higher than School AAA?
ETA- I understand you wouldn't rank an individual player higher because of that, but when ranking a school's recruiting, wouldn't or shouldn't that make a difference?
School AAA has ten 4*'s that all enroll in the Summer.
School BBB has ten 4*'s that all enroll in the Spring.
Would you not rank School BBB's class higher than School AAA?
ETA- I understand you wouldn't rank an individual player higher because of that, but when ranking a school's recruiting, wouldn't or shouldn't that make a difference?
This post was edited on 6/15/13 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 6/15/13 at 9:05 pm to deeprig9
quote:
ETA- I understand you wouldn't rank an individual player higher because of that, but when ranking a school's recruiting, wouldn't or shouldn't that make a difference?
I still wouldn't let it affect my recruiting rankings. I would just let that be reflected in the teams preseason ranking (if I think those freshman will actually make an impact)
Posted on 6/15/13 at 9:20 pm to Weagle25
Let me ask the question backwards.
What if a recruit doesn't make his grades in the Spring, so he doesn't join the team in the Summer because he's making up a class in Summer School, so he actually enrolls in the Fall but wasn't around for any Summer practice whatsoever.
Basically, the opposite of an early enrollee.
Would or should that hurt a team's recruiting rank? One guy, probably not, but to get to the essence, what if it was half of the signing class?
What if a recruit doesn't make his grades in the Spring, so he doesn't join the team in the Summer because he's making up a class in Summer School, so he actually enrolls in the Fall but wasn't around for any Summer practice whatsoever.
Basically, the opposite of an early enrollee.
Would or should that hurt a team's recruiting rank? One guy, probably not, but to get to the essence, what if it was half of the signing class?
This post was edited on 6/15/13 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 6/15/13 at 10:07 pm to deeprig9
No, it shouldn't hurt or affect the rankings at all. The rankings are, more or less, a projection of how that player/class will do in their careers. Getting an extra semester of work will help you in the first year, but in the long run, won't make a difference
Posted on 6/15/13 at 10:56 pm to AMM AU9893
No offense, but is there anyone here besides Auburn fans who have an opinion?
This post was edited on 6/15/13 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 6/15/13 at 11:05 pm to deeprig9
quote:
No offense, but is there anyone here besides Auburn fans who have an opinion?
why are you asking the question when you clearly already have your own opinion on it? Don't get mad that me and AMM aren't giving you the answer you apparently want to hear.Posted on 6/15/13 at 11:17 pm to Weagle25
I want to hear more than two opinions.
Posted on 6/15/13 at 11:45 pm to deeprig9
Rankings are based on potential. It does not matter when the recruit arrives because it is all about his potential ability.
Once he is on campus it is about coaching him up. If he arrives early then coaches get the opportunity to work with him and maybe develop him sooner, but that evaluation of potential remains the same.
If ratings would change based on something other than the kids ability and potential then it be something more like WHERE he goes and who is coaching him. If a position coach at school A has a reputation for developing players better than coach at school B, then is ranking would improve with his commitment to school A.
There is a common perception that recruits ranking do go up when certain schools show interest, but I think that is more about people looking at that staffs ability to evaluate, and of course a bit of political maneuvering.
Once he is on campus it is about coaching him up. If he arrives early then coaches get the opportunity to work with him and maybe develop him sooner, but that evaluation of potential remains the same.
If ratings would change based on something other than the kids ability and potential then it be something more like WHERE he goes and who is coaching him. If a position coach at school A has a reputation for developing players better than coach at school B, then is ranking would improve with his commitment to school A.
There is a common perception that recruits ranking do go up when certain schools show interest, but I think that is more about people looking at that staffs ability to evaluate, and of course a bit of political maneuvering.
This post was edited on 6/15/13 at 11:46 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News