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 1:18 pm to mikehoncho69
quote:
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?
The inside rumor is injury and pain got him hooked on injury and pain medication, which is extremely sad if true. Too common. But what do you do, just deny a guy who is clearly in pain, and one whom you are also relying on to be able to play on Saturday?
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 2/4/21 at 11:10 pm to FaCubeItches
Would a 5* RB at a 1A high school be better that a 4* at a 5A school? Doubtful.
Better than a 3* at a top classification school. Maybe not. competition builds quality.
Better than a 3* at a top classification school. Maybe not. competition builds quality.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 5:42 am to AlaCowboy
quote:
Would a 5* RB at a 1A high school be better that a 4* at a 5A school? Doubtful. Better than a 3* at a top classification school. Maybe not. competition builds quality.
HW went to a 1A high school.
Todd Gurley went to a 1A high school.
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 2/5/21 at 11:07 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
HW and Gurley went to 1-A schools
So did Garrison Hearst.
This post was edited on 2/5/21 at 11:08 am
Posted on 2/5/21 at 12:22 pm to AlaCowboy
quote:
Would a 5* RB at a 1A high school be better that a 4* at a 5A school? Doubtful.
Better than a 3* at a top classification school. Maybe not. competition builds quality.
I see that others have answered your post, and I would say that they are correct. The rankings are not based upon the school they go to or the competition they play against. The rankings are based upon the players abilities. It gets a bit tougher to gauge those abilities considering the competition they play against, but that is where measurables (Speed, agility, vision, etc for a RB) come into play as well as camps.
So yes, in theory if the scouting of the player is done well, then the star ranking should tell you which RB is best.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 12:41 pm to AlaCowboy
True enough, often enough - there's a reason for the saying "Big fish, small pond", but it's not an immutable law. When you're dealing with high school kids, an awful lot can change very quickly.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 12:59 pm to Dawgfanman
Gurley was a 4* on the 24/7 composite.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:00 pm to AlaCowboy
quote:
Would a 5* RB at a 1A high school be better that a 4* at a 5A school? Doubtful.
I would say YES
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 BreezyDawg
I wouldnt say mcbride was wrong.
Half of thr .9400 recruits do what mcbride did (contribute on special teams).
For ILB, you want an athlete like McBride (or Crowder). But to play that position at the SEC level, you need a 6th sense (instinct to anticipate the keys). Christian Robinson was athletic but never got play recognition. I think Channing Tindall is still struggling. Quay seems good but has busts in his assignments. People say that the star position is the toughest mentally, but for me it is ILB.
Half of thr .9400 recruits do what mcbride did (contribute on special teams).
For ILB, you want an athlete like McBride (or Crowder). But to play that position at the SEC level, you need a 6th sense (instinct to anticipate the keys). Christian Robinson was athletic but never got play recognition. I think Channing Tindall is still struggling. Quay seems good but has busts in his assignments. People say that the star position is the toughest mentally, but for me it is ILB.
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 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News