- Mar 22, 2016
- 394
- 697
I found this this article and while reading it I started to wonder just how much of the "star hype" these ranking generate is really valid based on what is really behind these rankings and, more importantly, what isn't.
https://www.seccountry.com/florida/...ommits-proving-to-be-better-than-their-rating
It turns out there is a pretty wide range of scoring evaluations per service and on all of them there tends to be a pretty wide range of scoring mapped to each star level which is especially interesting at the 3 and 4 star levels. A quick spot check of some of these values showed that the actual scores for a lot of highly offered three stars end up being just a few points short of the 4 star threshold and some less heralded 4 stars are often just over that threshold. Therefore without further digging to get the actual evaluation numbers and methodologies involved, these star ratings can end up being pretty misleading since all 3s and all 4s are not even remotely created equally.
These rankings also do not fully take into account the varying levels of competition across the high school spectrum which is clearly different depending on where the athletes happen to live. They also don't fully take into account the competitiveness of a particular team which, for instance, can lead to "statistic stuffing" for the few capable skill players on a bad team. They also don't necessarily account for scheme differences either so a kid like Trask ends up as a lower tier recruiting candidate because he had the misfortune of being a pro style prospect zoned for a team that ran a spread.
That's why no coach in his right mind should ever be concerned about these recruiting sites for anything but quick stats gathering and film viewing because the data they are already collecting for themselves, especially once they get locked in on a potential player, should be far superior in assessing both scope of ability and level of fit for their specific program. The good coaches also pride themselves on their formula for evaluating talent and recruiting talent so they have their own "secret sauce" embedded in their processes. Coach Mac's unique approach clearly includes assessing the mental and psychological make up of these kids which is another area missing from the Star ratings. I think that is a very important set of criteria too because at the end of the day these kids are just that - kids - and attributes like character, integrity and passion are much better indicators for determining how well a kid will fare when leaving home to come into a large college environment complete especially with the myriad of demands and temptations that come with being an athletic recruit at a major university.
This somewhat cursory review has only reinforced my theory that these recruiting evaluation entities are even less dependable as evaluation resources than Mel Kiper's Big Board and the like from the NFL (and we all know how accurate those can be!). I therefore believe more strongly than ever that the identification of "blue chip" players that is offered by these sites is to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism given that their rating criteria are not standardized across services, are focused predominantly on physical traits with little offered around character, and incorporate game stats and team success related evaluations that do not fully account for talent fluctuations across teams, schools and regions.
(In other words we just might have to be patient and wait to see how these recruits work out before actually declaring the class a failure or success (like we did in the old days
ldman:).)
Now, let the
begin... 
https://www.seccountry.com/florida/...ommits-proving-to-be-better-than-their-rating
It turns out there is a pretty wide range of scoring evaluations per service and on all of them there tends to be a pretty wide range of scoring mapped to each star level which is especially interesting at the 3 and 4 star levels. A quick spot check of some of these values showed that the actual scores for a lot of highly offered three stars end up being just a few points short of the 4 star threshold and some less heralded 4 stars are often just over that threshold. Therefore without further digging to get the actual evaluation numbers and methodologies involved, these star ratings can end up being pretty misleading since all 3s and all 4s are not even remotely created equally.
These rankings also do not fully take into account the varying levels of competition across the high school spectrum which is clearly different depending on where the athletes happen to live. They also don't fully take into account the competitiveness of a particular team which, for instance, can lead to "statistic stuffing" for the few capable skill players on a bad team. They also don't necessarily account for scheme differences either so a kid like Trask ends up as a lower tier recruiting candidate because he had the misfortune of being a pro style prospect zoned for a team that ran a spread.
That's why no coach in his right mind should ever be concerned about these recruiting sites for anything but quick stats gathering and film viewing because the data they are already collecting for themselves, especially once they get locked in on a potential player, should be far superior in assessing both scope of ability and level of fit for their specific program. The good coaches also pride themselves on their formula for evaluating talent and recruiting talent so they have their own "secret sauce" embedded in their processes. Coach Mac's unique approach clearly includes assessing the mental and psychological make up of these kids which is another area missing from the Star ratings. I think that is a very important set of criteria too because at the end of the day these kids are just that - kids - and attributes like character, integrity and passion are much better indicators for determining how well a kid will fare when leaving home to come into a large college environment complete especially with the myriad of demands and temptations that come with being an athletic recruit at a major university.
This somewhat cursory review has only reinforced my theory that these recruiting evaluation entities are even less dependable as evaluation resources than Mel Kiper's Big Board and the like from the NFL (and we all know how accurate those can be!). I therefore believe more strongly than ever that the identification of "blue chip" players that is offered by these sites is to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism given that their rating criteria are not standardized across services, are focused predominantly on physical traits with little offered around character, and incorporate game stats and team success related evaluations that do not fully account for talent fluctuations across teams, schools and regions.
(In other words we just might have to be patient and wait to see how these recruits work out before actually declaring the class a failure or success (like we did in the old days
ldman:).)Now, let the
begin... 
