A new way of doing recuit ranking

Andrew

bAndrew
Staff member
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
9,405
I am not a big fan in the way espn, scout and rivals does recruit rankings. A recruits star value should change based off the needs of the team recruiting him. If Lamar bolts to the NFL then Duke is clearly a 5 star recruit for us. It would make more sense to base it off of the teams needs and that players projected impact on those needs.

Thoughts?
 

RiDLer80

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
19,347
I personally like it based on raw talent and first year impact possibilities like it is now.

But they can't get that right either a lot of the time.
 

Andrew

bAndrew
Staff member
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
9,405
I personally like it based on raw talent and first year impact possibilities like it is now.

But they can't get that right either a lot of the time.
That's the thing though the impact possibilities depends on the teams needs.
 

drewFLAK

Fucking Science.
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
10,407
Too hard to tell because the kids on college teams are unknown entities. Lamar leaving would hurt, but what if clements james and hall blew up next year? Then, in hindsight, duke wouldn't have been important at all.
 

ssj4cane

Sophomore
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
1,096
I think the way they rate recruits is fine but Ive never been a fan of the way they rank classes. that should be based on who signed the best players but also filled needs and didn't leave holes at certain positions. Cokers classes were ranked high on raw star power but we could all see the holes he was leaving on the roster. Shannon had some of the same things.
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
17,068
Rankings can't be relative to who a school signs with. That makes no sense, IMO. The same kid could be a 3* recruit to Alabama and a 5* recruit to Auburn, depending on needs? But during the season, a dozen schools may be recruiting a kid, and you don't even know what the various schools's needs will be until after the season anyhow. There'd be no meaning to is ranking meodology. The idea of rankings is to compare kids to each other objectively, if imperfectly. Not to predict which ones will get the most run as a frosh.
 

CaneSB

Freshman
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
348
The ranking will never be more accurate than they are now because there is no way for intangibles to be measured on a massive scale. It is easy to have height, weight, speed, and production as metrics and that is 90% of what they are based on. But off the field issues, work ethic, leadership are just as important but much more difficult to evaluate.
 

Larry

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
13,600
Here is a crazy idea...rate them based off ability, projected to the next level, the pro level. Just take what you see, not all of these exterior factors...but that would involve expansive work by those who know what they are looking at.
 

pcitycane

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
16,292
i disagree. thats overplaying the system a bit, IMO
 

canadianhurricane

Sophomore
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
1,353
The ranking will never be more accurate than they are now because there is no way for intangibles to be measured on a massive scale. It is easy to have height, weight, speed, and production as metrics and that is 90% of what they are based on. But off the field issues, work ethic, leadership are just as important but much more difficult to evaluate.
This.
 

hcanes100

22k+ of useless posts
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
23,681
One of the few times I disagree with you Andrew.
In my opinion, I think the talent of the player themselves should be the ranked individually and not based on the team (other than the team signing will not use them to their skill set, i.e. a WR going to GT)

I do agree that the overall stars on a team should not dictate the team rating. I think your line of thinking would be more prudent in rating a team's overall ranking, not the players.

I will give you an example. Signing 2 4\5-star RBs and\or 2-4\5 QBs in the same (near) class by a team. Both those players are generally not going to play for the team, one will probably wash out\transfer, while the other might florish. I would not grade the team with overall rankings including 2 - 5 stars because it would bump the team ranking artificially. I would also grade the team overall needs of the players they brought in and their quality in filling needs in the team overall rankings. This is the error I see in most ranking services Team rankings, they reward the total 5 stars and 4 stars on a team, and not how they will be used or fit the team need (I.E. Texas and Florida always jamming 5 stars and most never pan out or get playing time).

Individual players should have their own rankings.

Just my 2 cents.
 

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
12,626
Here is a crazy idea...rate them based off ability, projected to the next level, the pro level. Just take what you see, not all of these exterior factors...but that would involve expansive work by those who know what they are looking at.
I disagree with this part. They should be rated off how they project as college players only. The pro level is irrelevant. That has been one of problems with recruiting rankings IMO. A guy like Tommy Frazier or Shoelace should be a five-star.
 

Larry

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
13,600
Joe, I think you misremberin' me.

I'm sayin, I think you should incorporate BOTH. I feel as though they do take into account projectable pro qualities already...which is fine as a factor (if you see a 6'5", 200lbs, 4.4 running WR...its fair to rate him a 4* player even though his college production was meh...Tommy Streeter, for example). Same with the option QBs or small HS runners.

Overall, just trying to say, I want to see real pros, look at some tape, and give them grades based off what they actually see.

Its a daunting task, sure...but not impossible.
 

BigPoppaCane

BIGGIE SMALLS
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
10,470
I like the star weighted system
we need more 5 stars
 
Top