forums

Justin Flowe

Naked Gun Panic GIF
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
kryptonite said:
I don’t know why people think that because the internet sites weren’t ranking players nobody was. There used to be magazines that did this, and even back then few of these guys really got missed. I’m sure people knew who Ed Reed was, it’s just that LSU passed on him. Doesn’t mean he was an unknown.
Click to expand...


All of this is true. But it was certainly regional. Nobody had the resources to rank recruits from coast to coast. @SWFLHurricane and I have discussed the great Bill Buchalter, but he was based in Orlando, so anyone he ranked outside the southeast was based on word-of-mouth and the occasional videotape. Bill was great at talking to guys from all over, but he still had a limited radius, just like everyone else (though he had some of the best info of anyone at the time, an amazing memory, and a @Liberty City El like ability to compile the facts and stats and recall it all.

So, yes, there were rankings before Rivals/Scout, but they were inherently limited in scope. The "Parade All Americans" were based on hype. Not that there wasn't some accuracy, but that the Parade kids were the product of "this is the best kid in our area" and was not an exhaustive list.

It's hard to compare apples-to-oranges when you look at the pre-internet era and the Rivals/Scout era and beyond. Obviously, there were "highly-recruited" kids even in the pre-internet era, but it's misleading to call them "2-star" or "5-star" when there was no consensus. That's why it's funny to hear guys referring to star-ratings for recruits who never had star-ratings.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
All of this is true. But it was certainly regional. Nobody had the resources to rank recruits from coast to coast. @SWFLHurricane and I have discussed the great Bill Buchalter, but he was based in Orlando, so anyone he ranked outside the southeast was based on word-of-mouth and the occasional videotape. Bill was great at talking to guys from all over, but he still had a limited radius, just like everyone else (though he had some of the best info of anyone at the time, an amazing memory, and a @Liberty City El like ability to compile the facts and stats and recall it all.

So, yes, there were rankings before Rivals/Scout, but they were inherently limited in scope. The "Parade All Americans" were based on hype. Not that there wasn't some accuracy, but that the Parade kids were the product of "this is the best kid in our area" and was not an exhaustive list.

It's hard to compare apples-to-oranges when you look at the pre-internet era and the Rivals/Scout era and beyond. Obviously, there were "highly-recruited" kids even in the pre-internet era, but it's misleading to call them "2-star" or "5-star" when there was no consensus. That's why it's funny to hear guys referring to star-ratings for recruits who never had star-ratings.
Click to expand...
@Cryptical Envelopment touched upon this...
 
SWFLHurricane said:
How was Grassy Posters ****ed at Reed when we signed him in 97???
Click to expand...
Most on Grassy weren’t too ****ed, lol. IIRC, it was like, “This kid can actually play. He’s way underrated”. To the ever present “If he’s any good, Why is LSU not in play with him? If LSU don’t want him, why do we?” That was most of the peanut gallery. But most of us was like, “With our recent NCAA issues (probation), we not in no position to turn down talent. This guy can play. Sign him up.”
 
Advertisement
Back
Top