Gabe Jeudy-Lally to UT

[WaywardVol]

Let's say it's a given that the recruiting services try to evaluate and assign some numerical star value to high school football players. Also, it's a given that those players that the services think have the greatest potential to be successful college and/or pro players, by whatever metric that service employs, are given a 5* rating. Those players that the service thinks are very good players, but not 5* (again using whatever metric that service uses) are assigned a 4* rating.

Given the above, do you believe that the recruiting services try to identify ALL the players that satisfy their 5* (or 4*) metrics?

If they don't and only assign a 5* (or 4*) rating to a some smaller number of players, why would they do that?

I have no idea. It’s sounds like you’re hinting at something, but I have no idea what.

 

[sjt18]

Very few teams consistently finish in the top five in recruiting. Very few. Overall, it still is a very good predictor of top 20 success. Fool proof? No. But it’s better than you are attempting to make it out to be.

Not really. About 25% of the teams that 247 said were the most talented... failed to have a winning record this year.

Very few teams finish in the top 5 of recruiting. By and large... lo and behold... those happen to be programs and coaches with a proven ability to find, sign, and develop talent. Most recently that's been Day, Dabo, Saban, and Smart. But your idea that the recruiting sites are somehow correctly rating players is blown to pieces by the "exceptions" like Miami and Texas A&M. You could throw UF in there too and until just this year USC.

They aren't proving they "know talent" by rating UGA, Bama, and OSU in the top 5 every year. They can prove their accuracy by predicting who will be the 5th most talented team in the ACC Coastal... or when you no longer have schools like Wake Forest competing for a championship while supposedly having the least talented team in their conference.

You and I could pat ourselves on the back by ranking those top 3 or 4 programs... without knowing anything except that those coaches produce winners.

Now you’re drifting into conspiracies. It’s not narrative driven journalism.

Yeah. It truly is. It has become a signal in these recent times that when someone says a reasoned, factual argument is a "conspiracy"... that the person is out of answers and has resorted to trying to dismiss arguments they do not want to deal with.

Yes. I read those articles and they most certainly parse the facts to prove "accuracy" while ignoring or dismissing relevant facts.

These services have an unbelievable task of sorting out thousands of players, and yet we see the same thing every year.

LOL. You really think that's what they're doing? The costs of even attempting that would be many times what they spend combined. It would require a MASSIVE staff with talent evaluation skills on par with the best in CFB.

But that isn't what they're doing. They're producing a product that people like you think is much better than it is. Trump in the Art of the Deal talked about the perception of the person you're trying to make a deal with being much more important than reality. He bragged about using "truthful hyperbole" to essentially con people. He's an expert at it. The recruiting sites aren't accurate nor comprehensive. They can't be. They do not intend to be. They only want to create a perception of "accuracy" in people like you so that they make money.

The top schools going after those players.

And they would with or without the recruiting sites or their "stars". Great programs and coaches found and signed the best talent LONG before the recruiting sites existed.

There is absolutely no way to chicken and egg thousands of players.

You didn't understand that either... did you? The recruiting rankings to the extent they are "accurate" are a trailing indicator. They're not a reflection of their ability to find and evaluate talent nearly as much as "clever" journalists knowing which programs tend to pursue the best players.

Do I think schools recruit based on services? No. But I think they are using much of the same source material to arrive at their conclusions.

There you go. That wasn't quite as hard as you made it.

They actually use A LOT more. Top programs have long used actual recruiting consultants to find and filter recruits. They watch all of those hours of film and gather information about a kid's ability and character. Coaches then select the players they're interested in. Before a kid gets offered, programs know FAR more than the recruiting sites about a kid.

[quote'It’s pretty obvious you’ve got a bone to pick with recruiting services.[/quote] Nope. They have some use and are entertaining. But some just put too much faith and emphasis on them. When Clemson broke through, their recruiting class average was 11th. Afterwards... suddenly Dabo's opinion on a recruit could move him from 3* to 4*... they suddenly became one of those perennial top 5 recruiting programs.

I’m not here as an apologist for recruiting services. So, again, have fun attacking those windmills.

LOL... Anyone who has read this exchange can easily see that's EXACTLY what you've been doing.

 

[Danl]

I have no idea. It’s sounds like you’re hinting at something, but I have no idea what.

OK. Let's make an extreme example to illustrate.

If the recruiting services only gave 3 players a 5* rating every year, would you think they were truly trying to find ALL players that deserved a 5* rating?

What if, out of those 3 5* players, 1 player was consistently a bust. Would you consider that recruiting service to be "accurate"?

 

[sjt18]

Another "interesting" thing you might look at over the last few years. According to the recruiting sites, HSFB talent in California has dropped. They were at or near the top several years back. So what happened? Did the talent levels really drop? Or was it something else?

Two things happened. One, USC without Carroll stopped being a nationally prominent program. Two, Utah and others stepped up and started spreading that CA talent thinner.

 

[WaywardVol]

OK. Let's make an extreme example to illustrate.

If the recruiting services only gave 3 players a 5* rating every year, would you think they were truly trying to find ALL players that deserved a 5* rating?

What if, out of those 3 5* players, 1 player was consistently a bust. Would you consider that recruiting service to be "accurate"?

Have you ever heard of question begging?

 

[Danl]

Have you ever heard of question begging?

LOL. Do you still "have no idea what I'm hinting at"?