Welcome to SECTalk.com
|Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!
You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!
If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 09:03 AM
Which recruiting service is the best?
Posted 26 January 2011 - 09:34 AM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 09:35 AM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 09:40 AM
They are all the same and should all be taken with a grain of salt.
Superman never made any money
Saving the world from Solomon Grundy
And sometimes I despair the world will never see another man
Posted 26 January 2011 - 09:53 AM
but your facts are true of all athletes making it no different for each recruiting service
Posted 26 January 2011 - 10:05 AM
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.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 10:11 AM
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.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 10:12 AM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 10:14 AM
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.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 11:12 AM
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.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 11:14 AM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 11:42 AM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 11:56 AM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 11:59 AM
According to who?
Posted 26 January 2011 - 12:03 PM
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
|Topic||Started By||Stats||Last Post Info|
- 2 replies
- 30 views
- 0 replies
- 39 views
- 0 replies
- 93 views
- 0 replies
- 509 views
- Hot 240 replies
- 4,232 views