Bitching about recruiting rankings

Submitted by mejunglechop on

Maybe it's just me, but general whining about X recruits' ratings on X sites seems to be on the rise. 98% of this whining is coming from posters with no experience evaluating football talent. The overwhelming number of complaints fall in one of following categories:

  • outlier service X is CRAZY to have commit x ranked so low (they are an outlier, after all)
  • the only service that gets commit x is outlier service X which has him ranked highly (my advanced highlight film scouting skills put this on good authority).
  • commit X has offers from schools X and Y, it is CRAZY that they haven't been given X stars.

If you find yourself making these arguments stop. It's embarrassing.

Recruiting services or people like Magnus who are experienced evaluating talent are evaluating talent independently and will naturally come to different conclusions sometimes. If they all copied each other or coaches' evaluations they'd have no reason to exist.* So conclusion 1: learn to accept differences in evaluations.

Between now and signing day talent evaluators will gain the benefit of summer camps, combines and senior year film. Players will emerge, players will fail to develop and scouts both coaches and not will have more material and time to evaluate. On these bases recruits will move up and down. So conclusion 2: there are 11 months until sigining so don't get worked up about where a recruit stands on a site today.

This may all seem obvious, but it hasn't been observed and it's a point on which I'd like to see this forum distinguish itself from the general internet rabble.

*When there's a discrepancy between a site's ranking and an offer sheet, I'll side lean towards the coaches, but that doesn't mean a site's evaluation is wrong or of no vaue.

MGoBoard
Football

Vivz

March 20th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

One source of money: All star games. In some way most of them are connected to one or the other all star games. You will see towards the end of the year a lot of people complaining that X was at the Under Armor game and ESPN loves him or Rivals overrated Y who is going to the Army All-American bowl.

They then have sponsors for these bowls/TV revenue.

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 1213

WolvinLA2

March 20th, 2012 at 2:45 PM ^

Care to elaborate, or just name call behind your computer? I have no Magnus affiliation, but he generally knows what he's talking about, has coaches HS football for years, and gives his opinion to the board in addition to his own site. Now, if you don't like his opinion or disagree with it, that's certainly your prerogative. But his comments are certainly more constructive than that post of yours.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

Vivz

March 20th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^

and having a problem with his tone but not his opinions seems to be a bit contradictory. It's the internet, his tone and opinion is going to be linked by the limites on what can be written/read.

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 1213

mgowill

March 20th, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^

blog

  [blawg, blog] Show IPA noun, verb, blogged, blog·ging.
noun
1. a Web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.  
 

fo·rum

   [fawr-uhm, fohr-uhm] Show IPA
noun, plural fo·rums, fo·ra  [fawr-uh, fohr-uh] Show IPA.
1. the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people.
2. a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
3. an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.
4. the Forum, the forum in the ancient city of Rome.  
 

com·mu·ni·ty

   [kuh-myoo-ni-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1.a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
2.a locality inhabited by such a group.
3.a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually preceded by the ): the business community; the community of scholars.
4.a group of associated nations sharing common interests or a common heritage: the community of Western Europe.
5.Ecclesiastical . a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule. 
 
I applaud your effort at trying to make all three of these things better, but think that you will fall short of that goal.  If only because you are antagonizing people.  It would be more constructive to try to help people understand how talent is evaluated, what system it pertains to, and where they can find that information.  I'm not an evaluator of talent, but there are some good sites that are.  I like Touch the Banner, Brice's Recruiting, up until recently mgorecruit.blogspot, and of course mgoblog.  I don't complain about rankings by sites because I don't know enough about talent evaluation to do so.  I do read the articles from the aforementioned sites and do gain some insight as to why a player might get dinged.  I would reccommend to anyone who is unhappy about recruiting sites such as Rivals, Scout, ESPN,  and 24/7, and is a novice such as myself, to check out some of the links provided on the left side of this blog.
 

Joined: 08/31/2011

MGoPoints: 18545

frankblue

March 20th, 2012 at 4:47 PM ^

Magnus is someone with way too much time on his hands to post as much as he does in order to have that many points. He knows no more about football than any other unemployed guy sitting in front of his computer all day looking high school kids game tapes. Also we will bitch about anything we damn well please, don't come on the site if it bothers you.

Joined: 11/10/2011

MGoPoints: 29

MaizeMN

March 20th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^

I think the point of dicussion is simply that: an echange of information, ideas and opinions to allow for more informed conclussions.  The debate involved is a means to the end and it's clear that X number of stars is no guarantee of any success, in the same way that  the actual game is played on the field and not on paper. 

I suggest MGoBlog discard the "stars" system and adopt something more pragmatic: "The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread" ratings system. 1* = crouton, 2* = english muffin, 3* = Bagel, 4* = Bagel with cream cheese, 5* = Sliced bread (hopefully with homemade jam.) I actually prefer the bagel with cream cheese, but "sliced bread" seems to be the analogy of choice earlier in the thread.

/s

Joined: 01/28/2012

MGoPoints: 4590

BlueRude

March 20th, 2012 at 9:18 PM ^

Hoke and Co. know talent. They didn't get this far in their careers by accident. Stars are made by the Law of Probablities and Comparitive Analysis based on the theorum of current eventualities. So while everyone is doing a mental masterbation on starz " Let's Wait a Few Years until the Fat Lady Sings 

 

Joined: 11/17/2011

MGoPoints: 1540