AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
When do 2012 recruit rankings come out?
- Thread starter DBT
- Start date
They want to wait to see who are the leans and early commits to Notre Dame, Texas, Florida, Nebraska etc. all the schools that have big subscription bases that are willing to shell out huge amounts of money to tell them that they have the next group of all-americans on the way.
Not really but the truth is that with the thousands of kids out there playing HS football every year spread out all over the country the rating system is a farce. It is amazing to see when a kid gets reported offers from the schools on the list above they automatically get bumped at least a star if not two.
At the same time how many years in a row has Notre Dame been in the top ten in recruiting and sucked on the field along with only having a few guys drafted into the NFL. It will be interesting to see our early commits get stuck at 3*'s (or less) because they don't have reported offers from the big recruiting schools with the big subscriber bases.
Not really but the truth is that with the thousands of kids out there playing HS football every year spread out all over the country the rating system is a farce. It is amazing to see when a kid gets reported offers from the schools on the list above they automatically get bumped at least a star if not two.
At the same time how many years in a row has Notre Dame been in the top ten in recruiting and sucked on the field along with only having a few guys drafted into the NFL. It will be interesting to see our early commits get stuck at 3*'s (or less) because they don't have reported offers from the big recruiting schools with the big subscriber bases.
buffalo_bob
New Member
Many moons ago, I asked one of the main evaluators at Rivals why Texas recruits always got bumped up in the rankings after they verbal with the Horns. He replied that Texas wouldn't recruit anybody who was less than a 3 star player. Right then and there I knew the rankings are bull bleep. I pay way more attention to who's offering a kid.
By the way, my very first post. I love this site!!
By the way, my very first post. I love this site!!
Welcome, bob.
I think I'm caught in a Catch-22 here. I always say that I value offer lists more than I do star ratings (even though star ratings do correlate with likelihood of making all-conference teams or getting drafted highly).
So, if the star ratings are influenced by the offer list shouldn't I be in agreement with adjusting ratings to reflect big dog offers?
I do hear what you guys are saying. I totally agree that a guy who has no BCS offers and then gets a UT or ND offer shouldn't automatically become a high 3* prospect. But the other side of it is a guy like Lake Koa Ka'ai. Rivals and ESPN never budged him from their 3* evaluations after he picked up offers from the likes of USC, Oklahoma, Oregon, Nebraska, us and others (he signed with the Ducks). Scout bumped him to a 4*. I feel like Scout did it the right way.
I think I'm caught in a Catch-22 here. I always say that I value offer lists more than I do star ratings (even though star ratings do correlate with likelihood of making all-conference teams or getting drafted highly).
So, if the star ratings are influenced by the offer list shouldn't I be in agreement with adjusting ratings to reflect big dog offers?
I do hear what you guys are saying. I totally agree that a guy who has no BCS offers and then gets a UT or ND offer shouldn't automatically become a high 3* prospect. But the other side of it is a guy like Lake Koa Ka'ai. Rivals and ESPN never budged him from their 3* evaluations after he picked up offers from the likes of USC, Oklahoma, Oregon, Nebraska, us and others (he signed with the Ducks). Scout bumped him to a 4*. I feel like Scout did it the right way.
Well, your first post sucks! But keep working at it and you'll get better. :lol: Welcome aboard.
Hi.O
Well-Known Member
I actually think those can be useful and accurate, but usually only after a profile get 30+ votes in.
What the **** is bull bleep? Bull ****? Maybe bull ****? Or bull ****?
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Whoa, chill. Wait 'til after he's made everyone a sammich....
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
I dont think the stars are useless. I guess maybe overrated a bit imo.
Enough with the nice nice comments. Go get met a ****ing beer and samich and then we can talk. And why don't you get more original with your name? :bounce:
I think the stars are more of a response to the team recruiting than an indicator. The teams with a fan base that is willing to spend major bucks to be told how wonderful they are (sound familiar those who wear red) also tend to support their teams directly financially and insist on results. Quality teams will attract quality recruits and the recruits should look good because they are on quality teams.
The problem with this is two-fold. One is that the fact that a kid gets recruited to Texas, Florida, LSU, or another high profile school doesn't automatically mean he will be a great player. Look at the results that Notre Dame has had. They have had at least ten years of being in the top 15 recruiting classes with some of those ranked top 5, results on the field have been terrible and very few players have gone to the next level (again not a perfect indicator but gives an idea of playing ability.) At the same time TCU has rarely been ranked as high as the 30s and they have some 2* guys getting drafted after winning on the field in college. By all accounts Texas should have been a top rushing team last year, they had 4* backs running behind 4 and 5 * linemen. They tried but just weren't good enough.
It always amazes me however when a guy is a 2* up until the middle of his senior season and when a couple of the big programs start paying attention to him (or it gets reported because they were on him from the start, or they really aren't on him but it gets reported anyways) and he jumps to a high 3* or low 4*. On the other hand a quality kid commits early to a school with a lower profile and even though he is dominating against higher ranked players his senior season since he isn't in play for the money schools he stays a 2* or maybe a low 3*.
I do look at the stars because they can give an indication of what other people think about a player. I also think it is more important to look at who is offering, where and how well the kid is playing, and what his upside is. A lot of these top HS kids had a full beard at 15 and have stopped growing, won't get bigger or faster, and dominated because they were physically ahead of everyone else. Others get missed because they are late developers, don't get seen because of injury or just playing at a school that doesn't get looked at, or don't have a coach or anyone else pushing them to the services.
Bottom line is if I have to decide between a running back that has 4*'s or a running back with 3* that EB thinks will be a potential star I take the 3* every time.
buffalo_bob
New Member
I'm feeling the love, guys. Makes me wonder why it took me so long to post. 
Actually I don't. I see times when they seem like they are desperate for a guy at a certain position, or that they fall in love with something about a guy and ignore the obvous defects in his game like a big WR who can run like the wind but couldn't catch the ball if it was handed to him. The pros make these mistakes with a lot more objective data than college coaches have, mistakes will be made. My point is that the stars are based in large part on the level of fan interest in which teams are offering. Are you trying to say that since it is Texas or Florida or USC that they don't make mistakes. The evidence shows that that is not the case.
The stars are interesting and a good place to start to get an idea but they are also flawed and don't give a highly accurate view of what is happening. Remember that Oregon played for the national championship last year with a bunch of recruiting classes that Rivals and Scout didn't consider to be top 10 or even top 20. Lots of five star kids were at home watching Oregons 3*s and even some 2* play for the championship. They did lose though so I guess the Oregon coaches should have consulted Rivals and Scout before recruiting those kids.
I'm feeling the love, guys. Makes me wonder why it took me so long to post.
:lol:
Are you asking for the noob hazing to be taken up a notch to the JRK/Creatini level?
Of course the big-time schools miss on some prospects, but so does every school. My point is, far too many people find ways to justify poor recruiting results. The star system is usually the easiest scapegoat.
BTW, Oregon has had three of its last four classes ranked in the top 20 by Rivals, so I think you might want to tap the breaks on that team dramatically overachieving.
One thing with Oregon's recruiting as well as programs like Wisconsin that consistently achieve great results without Top 5 classes... they understand recruiting to their system. Miami used to be the prime case study in that, but they got away from it and fell off. There are a lot of times that a 3* prospect will fit your style of play and team culture much better than a 4* prospect. In general, the 4* is the better prospect. But specific to your program, the 3* is the better prospect.
This is why I trust offer lists more than the star system. If other big dog programs that run a similar system as CU are offering a guy, that means more to me than if he got a 2*, 3*, 4* or 5* rating from ESPN. But the other offers with the high rating makes me even more confident in the prospect. Finally, a big part of it is trusting your coaches. Embree and staff have the backgrounds that give them instant credibility with me. So I give them the benefit of the doubt on recruits, but I don't think they've earned the right for their evaluations to silence any doubt. That comes from winning, winning consistently, and winning big.
This is why I trust offer lists more than the star system. If other big dog programs that run a similar system as CU are offering a guy, that means more to me than if he got a 2*, 3*, 4* or 5* rating from ESPN. But the other offers with the high rating makes me even more confident in the prospect. Finally, a big part of it is trusting your coaches. Embree and staff have the backgrounds that give them instant credibility with me. So I give them the benefit of the doubt on recruits, but I don't think they've earned the right for their evaluations to silence any doubt. That comes from winning, winning consistently, and winning big.
One thing I would add is to pay attention of when a coaching staff is offering players. Early, early offers generally show that the coaching staff is treating those prospects as Plan A prospects. Bringing in prospects for junior days and on unofficial visits during the spring before the prospect's senior year is also a sign that the staff is pretty high on a particular prospect. Then you have the prospects that are granted immediate offers during camps, when the coaches of a particular school have a chance to see players up close and personal-those players are going to be high on the staff's recruiting board as well.
If the majority of a given recruiting class is comprised of players falling into the above categories, the coaching staff is getting the players it wants. They are getting the players that have either been offered or on their radar for months or even years. OTOH, if a coaching staff is tossing out lots of offers in November and December, the coaching staff is scrambling and has moved on to Plan C or Plan D type players. The latter situation is where we have been for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 classes.
BlackNGold
Club Member
The recruiting rankings are an inexact science but some of the criticism is a little off target also. I tend not to look at individuals too closely but do look at the overall class rankings. You do not need a top 5 class every year but if you are ranked top 25 for 5 years in a row you are going to have a lot of good players in your program. Oregon as an example - they have been ranked top 25 recruiting for 4 of the past 5 years and were ranked 26th the other year according to scout.
Yes rankings are impacted by who is recruiting and signing a player but is that wrong. If USC signs a 3 star lb out of LA I start taking a closer look at that player because I know that USC is probably better at evaluating talent than Scout or Rivals is. But on the other hand lets look at a player like Andrus Peat...he has not committed to anyone but if he signs with USC they really cannot increase his star ranking. Most of the guys are 4 or 5 star players before they sign with USC or Florida or Ohio State.
Yes rankings are impacted by who is recruiting and signing a player but is that wrong. If USC signs a 3 star lb out of LA I start taking a closer look at that player because I know that USC is probably better at evaluating talent than Scout or Rivals is. But on the other hand lets look at a player like Andrus Peat...he has not committed to anyone but if he signs with USC they really cannot increase his star ranking. Most of the guys are 4 or 5 star players before they sign with USC or Florida or Ohio State.
**** you. Now rep me, maggot.I'm feeling the love, guys. Makes me wonder why it took me so long to post.