Started By
Message
How accurate are recruiting rankings?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:10 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:10 am
Roquan Smith and Nate McBride had almost identical numbers on recruiting services. Joe Burrow was a 3-star. Trent Thompson was the #1 player in the 2015 class.
75% accurate? 50?
75% accurate? 50?
10
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:22 am to BrotherDawg84
Generally, they're pretty accurate. Look at the 247 talent composite, then look at teams that are consistently ranked in the top 10 and go to the playoffs. Recruiting rankings are important and exist for a reason.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 12:24 pm to BrotherDawg84
What happened to UGA when they went from Richt who was recruiting at the back half of the top 10 to Kirby, who has been in the top three for what four years now?
That should be your answer. Rankings matter.
Blue Chip Ratio
That should be your answer. Rankings matter.
Blue Chip Ratio
Posted on 2/4/21 at 12:47 pm to BrotherDawg84
Alabama has finished #1 in recruiting rankings nine of the past 11 years. Has that helped them?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 12:53 pm to BrotherDawg84
As an individual player to player measure it's probably only about 70% accurate. It also varies by position- some positions are just harder to grade out than others.
As others have said, the culmination of all your players' grades absolutely correlate to success on the field.
As others have said, the culmination of all your players' grades absolutely correlate to success on the field.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 1:09 pm to BrotherDawg84
quote:
Trent Thompson
What was ever the full story on him? I know he had some off the field issues but I don't remember if concrete details emegered?
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 2/4/21 at 2:57 pm to BrotherDawg84
Because of the pandemic recruits didn't camp. Camps let top recruits go head to head and that's how they got a rated. I wouldn't be surprised if there are tons of diamonds in the rough in this years class.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 7:24 pm to BrotherDawg84
quote:
How accurate are recruiting rankings?
Hard to say, really. Sometimes, they are right on the money; sometimes, they are way off. At best, they give an idea of what a player might become in college, under the right circumstances. However, they are based on relatively low levels of data - guys haven't necessarily been playing that long, or in that particular position; guys are still growing, so size and coordination can change; guys are entering an entirely new world - some will retain discipline and focus, others will lose it all; etc., etc., etc.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 8:17 am to BrotherDawg84
Really good question.
On a player by player basis they can vary widely, but when comparing entire classes they are usually pretty accurate.
Part of what makes it hard to tell is that the recruiting services are pretty reactionary at times and update their rankings based on a number of reasons that are completely independent of a player's actual talent level
On a player by player basis they can vary widely, but when comparing entire classes they are usually pretty accurate.
Part of what makes it hard to tell is that the recruiting services are pretty reactionary at times and update their rankings based on a number of reasons that are completely independent of a player's actual talent level
Posted on 2/7/21 at 8:27 am to BrotherDawg84
quote:
Roquan Smith and Nate McBride had almost identical numbers on recruiting services.
Nate Mcbride was one of yearly ones they get wrong, but who knows what he could've done at another school. A lot of it has to do with the coaching they are going to receive at a certain school. Look what LSU did with Joe Burrow, at Ohio State Burrow looked like a 3 star
Posted on 2/7/21 at 8:46 am to BrotherDawg84
quote:
Roquan Smith and Nate McBride had almost identical numbers on recruiting services.
One was #48, the other was #163, which isn’t really close to almost identical.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News