I think he's a bit too hard on it. Not because they have qualified scouts looking at guys or do a thorough analysis of guys outside their top 250. Mostly, they don't. But just like Kiper's NFL draft forecast is pretty accurate by draft day, the star system becomes a pretty good indication by national signing day. It's not that the analysis gets better or deeper. It's because they have the offer lists and the ratings of other services so they can all get close to a consensus of where guys should generally be ranked. (It's no accident that CU's class is in the 30s on all 4 sites. Independent analysis of player film in a vacuum would not yield such similar results from 4 different scouting groups.)
Without further ado, here's Dave Plati's take:
Q: Like many, I am concerned that we’re only getting two- or three-star players to commit. What’s your take on the “star” system?
A: (Licking my chops). The star system is perhaps the biggest joke in all of college athletics. Those services assign stars based on who is recruiting them (e.g., they get lists from some of hot schools and make them four or five stars), and also based on schools that heavy subscription bases to their services. I have been told this several times through the years by people who work for these places, so if anyone contests this, they’re flat-out lying. Example: Tyler Hansen commits to CU, is a 1-star QB; Michigan and Iowa show some interest, and he’s a 3-star, or as Tyler put it, he had a heckuva week playing Madden on his couch that week. Most of these guys aren’t the experts they say they are, they have coaching sources slipping them info. Always go back five years earlier and all of these places easily miss on half of their top 100 or 150 players; they just never tell you. Sure Coach Mac built our programs with some top kids, but an eye for talent and potential didn’t hurt either; FACT: since 1989, CU has had 67 first-team All-Conference performers (or better); 34 were high school All-Americans, 33 were not (and those 34 were not all 4- and 5-star players).
Want more proof? I had an interesting conversation with Ted Miller (ESPN.com) at the Rose Bowl. He told me ESPN’s 150 is skewed for the same reason—lists from certain schools and picking more players from areas where the fan bases are rabid about recruiting. This year’s ESPN 150 has 18 players from Georgia (population 9 million) and 11 from California (population 41 million). Statistically, that can’t happen but there are more rabid fan sites in the south than in California, so it caters to that fan base. And if you look at the so-called team rankings, isn’t it amazing that certain schools either have none or at most one two-star (or less) player? They haven’t spotted any one in their camps or on film that’s not a “three” star performer that they have a commitment from?
So don’t be suckered in, it’s a business that recruiting spun off, and apparently, a very lucrative one. But it’s almost all bull, and most coaches will agree with the above assessment.
http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205370317&DB_OEM_ID=600
Without further ado, here's Dave Plati's take:
Q: Like many, I am concerned that we’re only getting two- or three-star players to commit. What’s your take on the “star” system?
A: (Licking my chops). The star system is perhaps the biggest joke in all of college athletics. Those services assign stars based on who is recruiting them (e.g., they get lists from some of hot schools and make them four or five stars), and also based on schools that heavy subscription bases to their services. I have been told this several times through the years by people who work for these places, so if anyone contests this, they’re flat-out lying. Example: Tyler Hansen commits to CU, is a 1-star QB; Michigan and Iowa show some interest, and he’s a 3-star, or as Tyler put it, he had a heckuva week playing Madden on his couch that week. Most of these guys aren’t the experts they say they are, they have coaching sources slipping them info. Always go back five years earlier and all of these places easily miss on half of their top 100 or 150 players; they just never tell you. Sure Coach Mac built our programs with some top kids, but an eye for talent and potential didn’t hurt either; FACT: since 1989, CU has had 67 first-team All-Conference performers (or better); 34 were high school All-Americans, 33 were not (and those 34 were not all 4- and 5-star players).
Want more proof? I had an interesting conversation with Ted Miller (ESPN.com) at the Rose Bowl. He told me ESPN’s 150 is skewed for the same reason—lists from certain schools and picking more players from areas where the fan bases are rabid about recruiting. This year’s ESPN 150 has 18 players from Georgia (population 9 million) and 11 from California (population 41 million). Statistically, that can’t happen but there are more rabid fan sites in the south than in California, so it caters to that fan base. And if you look at the so-called team rankings, isn’t it amazing that certain schools either have none or at most one two-star (or less) player? They haven’t spotted any one in their camps or on film that’s not a “three” star performer that they have a commitment from?
So don’t be suckered in, it’s a business that recruiting spun off, and apparently, a very lucrative one. But it’s almost all bull, and most coaches will agree with the above assessment.
http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205370317&DB_OEM_ID=600