There's certainly members here who actually pay for memberships to the recruiting sites who believe otherwise. You can tell who they are because they get butthurt when you tell them that the websites are just fan fodder and no actual coache gives a **** what they say.
[/QUOTE]
You started by contending that you think it’s necessary to prove to people that it’s not impossible for a low rated HS kid to make it big in the NFL. Yet no one here thinks otherwise, and if you think they do, it’s likely you who is challenged.
Now you’re defending your argument by claiming anyone who pays for a premium subscription to a site must believe the nonsense you claim. You’re digging yourself deeper at this point.
It ain’t your business nor mine if someone here wants to pay for a premium subscription to football sites. It surely doesn’t mean they believe anything like what you say about rankings.
The entirety of the dumb disputes about rankings is because both sides of the discussion both overstate their arguments and misunderstand or misstate their opponents’ arguments.
The pro ratings folks use average information as if it proves the sites are right as to all or most kids. That’s just flawed math. The sites are directionally accurate, and for lack of better more reliable information as a fan, that tells you something. But directionally accurate on average doesn’t mean they’re right about all kids, or even most. They can and do overrate some kids and underrate others. Anyone who doesn’t grasp that is an idiot.
The anti ratings folks love to point to kids who were over rated or underrated as proof that the sites are wrong (as you did). That too is just awful logic. There will always be outliers in a large data set. That doesn’t tell you that the sites aren’t good on average.
If anyone here thinks our coaches or any coaches should be recruiting off ranking sites, then lmao, they’re insane. But as fans, you can form directionally accurate views from the rankings — and from other available information, to be sure.
