Strong argument for Relevance of Recruiting Rankings

[skinnykilmer17]

Good Read. Don't overlook the tables.

Mister Relevant: Why you shouldn't dismiss recruiting rankings - Dr. Saturday - NCAAF - Yahoo! Sports

 

[Saginawbay]

Interesting read for sure.

 

[ISUhawk]

A point I tried to make and all I received was some awesome reputation list...aka very angrrrrrrrrrry comments. The odds are better with higher stars enough said

 

[spudhawk]

It is true to a point. Many 5 stars are that way because they may have physically developed early or already peaked. They may not have a whole lot of physical potential left to flash. They can still receive superior coaching and become better football players. These are the 1 in 15 who become high draft picks or All- Americans. What our staff has done a good job of recently is projecting players at certain positions and developing them. We also have one of the best strength and conditioning programs in the country. The 2 and 3 stars who become high round draft picks may have played a different position in high school or were tougher to evaluate because of the competition they faced, or they may not have attended the scouting combines, etc. Our recruiting seems to be well on track.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

There has pretty much always been that correlation. The two biggest keys to recruiting that dictate if a kid is "can't miss" or not relies upon TALENT and WORK ETHIC. However, even then, sometimes injuries or off-field issues can derail the careers of "can't miss" guys.

Furthermore, key factors that undermine MUCH of ANY analysis based on recruiting rankings are the following:

- Recruiting "stars" are still rather subjective
- Recruiting "stars" are rather a coarse measure of "talent"
- There are simply too many talented players out there and too few good talent evaluators ... there just aren't enough hours in a day for every kid to get adequately evaluated
- The "resolution" of team recruiting rankings is only accurate to about the top 10 or 15
- Considering that even casual fans could guess which teams are most likely to land the top talent in the recruiting game, the correlation is rather TRIVIAL.
- Such "star-based" analysis doesn't account for individual coaching staffs who have a particularly keen eye for talent. Such coaching staff's, in many respects, are not the norm. I'd count Ferentz and Co as being such "anomalies."