Latest Topics

[HobnailedBoots]

Our old pal shanksta wrote this up.

Which recruiting service is the best?

[azamugg]

pretty good stuff.......

[razorhead]

That whole study is flawed.  Maybe the players who were busts were not coached up as well as some who performed.  You can't control for player performance when they are all coached differently from high school through college.  This is not a science and is not at all exact.

[bmccall]

Any recruiting site will be hit or miss. This happens when non-athletes and non-coaches judge from customized highlight videos on how big of an impact the player will likely make.

They are all the same and should all be taken with a grain of salt.

[azamugg]

razorhead said:

That whole study is flawed.  Maybe the players who were busts were not coached up as well as some who performed.  You can't control for player performance when they are all coached differently from high school through college.  This is not a science and is not at all exact.

but your facts are true of all athletes making it no different for each recruiting service

[fernandomike]

azamugg said:

but your facts are true of all athletes making it no different for each recruiting service

I agree.  That problem should exist fairly consistently throughout each recruiting service.  Still, it is a tricky process like how exactly does he define "bust?"  
Anyway, I really like shank.  He was a great contributor here until he got his own deal going and I'm sure he'll have a very successful career as a writer.

[shanksta13]

razorhead said:

That whole study is flawed.  Maybe the players who were busts were not coached up as well as some who performed.  You can't control for player performance when they are all coached differently from high school through college.  This is not a science and is not at all exact.

azamugg said:

but your facts are true of all athletes making it no different for each recruiting service

Exactly. Regardless of the coaching and stuff, each service is just as likely to have these guys. I admitted as much that it's an inexact science in the lead-in.

The bottom line is that the difference between each of the services from year-to-year is so small it's negligible.

As far as how I defined "busts," the grading scale was designed so that it could be rooted in verifiable facts. You can actually check and see the production each guy had in his college career. Depending on how that fit onto the list from 0-5 is how I graded them. You had to really do nothing to earn a 0.

But you guys are right, there's no exact way to determine this stuff. Just a fun look at it based on facts.

[ElephanTideis]

I'm wary of putting too much stock into that study because Rivals and Scout have come a long way since 2007. I'd like to see this study done again in about 4 or 5 years. I don't know that Scout.com will still exist by then. I don't know anyone who prefers Scout over Rivals or ESPN.

[shanksta13]

ElephanTideis said:

I'm wary of putting too much Stock into that study because Rivals and Scout have come a long way since 2007. I'd like to see this study done again in about 4 or 5 years. I don't know that Scout.com will still exist by then. I don't know anyone who prefers Scout over Rivals or ESPN.

I plan on updating it every year. The problem is that the evaluation is always going to be 4-5 years behind where the services are now.

[Herschel Talker]

Again, shanksta has proven that we have a true talent amongst our ranks.  

With an inexact science, all you can show are trends.  It's kinda like the old adage that "I'd rather have a bunch of 2-3 star guys who want to be there"...when you look at the trends statistically, that doesn't pan out.  Sure, you will always have a David Pollack (3* recruit who turned into an All-American) and conversely, a Mitch Mustain.  But those are outliers.  4-5* guys tend to go to the NFL, be All-Americans, etc. at a much higher rate than lower-rated guys.  It's a very inexact science, but statistically, the trends show that there are correlations.

[azamugg]

an evaluation of evaluation

[FloridaGator]

ESPN is quickly becoming the power in recruiting sites.  They have improved every year and with the funding Luginbill and others will get, it will only get better.

[The Playmaker]

Yeah a couple years ago Rivals had a slight edge over Scout and ESPN wasn't there yet now Scout isn't close to Rivals and ESPN has vastly improved.  There isn't a science to it and no one can predict or rank every player accurately.  One player might be better in this system than another and another might have had an injury so he's only a 3* and plays like a 5*.  You just never know but the best these services can do is just rank the talent, might not be in the correct order for best player but like I said no one knows the future.  As much as I love looking at the rankings and seeing us in the top 3 I take it with a grain of salt.  Is Dee Hart a good player?  Yeah he is but doesn't mean he'll be good here at Bama.

[HobnailedBoots]

FloridaGator said:

ESPN is quickly becoming the power in recruiting sites.

According to who?

[Brah]

FloridaGator said:

ESPN is quickly becoming the power in recruiting sites.  They have improved every year and with the funding Luginbill and others will get, it will only get better.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with Espn having Floridas class ranked 10 spots higher than everyone else :D


I'm starting to like 247 sports