So did I. Of the guys that graduated HS from 2008 to presnet 75% of them were 4 stars or higher. No one is saying the recruiting services were gerat back in 2004 when most of these guys were in HS. We are talking now. Present. That is all that matters.
I don’t think anyone is saying, 3 star > 5 star kids.
I think what can reasonably be evaluated with recruiting services is built-in bias. They’re artificially biased towards larger OL. Why? It reduces risk. Those players have already shown the capacity to gain that weight, hold it, play with it, move at it etc. A large percentage of 250 OL will always be exactly that: too small to play at the highest levels. Even the best evaluators will miss on which kids are going to weight and strength and keep it on.
They’re biased towards offers. They use the coaches as proxy’s to do the real evaluations for them. It’s no secret the SEC top programs have built-in bumps for players who get offers to those programs.
The NFL also gives inherent bias towards 5-star recruits. Teams have a specific scouting notation for former 5-star players and they love to take them as if they have higher upside or untapped potential that they believe NFL coaching can get to.
If we were living in a perfect world we’d only recruit the very top guys, and we’d hand select every 5-star kid we wanted each year and do quite well.
But we live in a world where that’s only feasible for a few programs- one of which we are not among. That means Miami has to use the pitch they have right now (be a part of TNM, make the crib great again, early playing time, create a legacy etc.). That works on only a certain percentage of kids. Usually one marquee guy at a position (like they’re trying to do with Flowe). You aren’t getting five marquee guys at one position with that pitch. So, what do you do? Evaluate. Develop. Use data to identify the types that most often hit higher than their ranking.
I believe that’s what Miami is doing.
theathletic.com
