How much do recruiting services impact a coaches assessment of a player?

[SNAFU]

"If you’re a good coach, recruiting rankings don’t influence your recruiting board at all. If you’re a bad coach, you use recruiting rankings and you track which players other colleges are offering and allow that to influence your recruiting board — which is basically like cheating off of your neighbor’s paper during a high school quiz. Given how much money is out there for coaches’ salaries, we tend to think that all of them are the best of the best. But like every other profession, there are lazy, mediocre coaches who don’t like recruiting or the work that comes along with it."- Ari Wasserman, The Athletic

 

[nicksjuzunk]

 

[VolFreakJosh]

Pruitt is a good talent evaluator.

 

[sjt18]

Recruiting sites or recruiting services?

All big time programs use private recruiting services that help them identify and evaluate recruits. Their info isn't public except the offers coaches may give because of those evals.


The recruiting sites do some "evaluations" but they could not possibly evaluate every HS player who has the ability to play college ball. They do some of what that quote says- some portion of the rating will come from who wants them and how bad. Coaches with proven success (or using paid services with proven success) will get extra attention. If Saban is pursuing a kid hard then that kid is going to have 4 or 5 stars.... simply because Saban has been so successful in finding talent.

Camps et al IMO play a disproportionately big role in determining ratings.

 

[tn4elvis]

"If you’re a good coach, recruiting rankings don’t influence your recruiting board at all. If you’re a bad coach, you use recruiting rankings and you track which players other colleges are offering and allow that to influence your recruiting board — which is basically like cheating off of your neighbor’s paper during a high school quiz. Given how much money is out there for coaches’ salaries, we tend to think that all of them are the best of the best. But like every other profession, there are lazy, mediocre coaches who don’t like recruiting or the work that comes along with it."- Ari Wasserman, The Athletic

Never been a more true statement.

 

[SNAFU]

Recruiting sites or recruiting services?

All big time programs use private recruiting services that help them identify and evaluate recruits. Their info isn't public except the offers coaches may give because of those evals.


The recruiting sites do some "evaluations" but they could not possibly evaluate every HS player who has the ability to play college ball. They do some of what that quote says- some portion of the rating will come from who wants them and how bad. Coaches with proven success (or using paid services with proven success) will get extra attention. If Saban is pursuing a kid hard then that kid is going to have 4 or 5 stars.... simply because Saban has been so successful in finding talent.

Camps et al IMO play a disproportionately big role in determining ratings.

Wasserman states further in the article that 1. The lack of spring visits, 2. The non-existent camps, 3. The likely reduced fall visits and overall interaction with the coaching staff, and 4. The real possibility of the easing of the transfer rule is going to lead to the flooding of the transfer portal next spring. Coaches will put too much emphasis on recruiting services out of necessity. This makes sense to me.

 

[keenobserver]

Of course coaches use them, but most dont rely solely on those evaluations. Looking back, it seems like that was Coach Butch Jones' approach.

The highly successful programs compile their own databases using national ones as a useful tool. Hudl film evals as a staff, camp performance, and trusted relationships with high school coaches are generally some of the most effective methods of targeting players.

 

[greenbacknative]

"If you’re a good coach, recruiting rankings don’t influence your recruiting board at all. If you’re a bad coach, you use recruiting rankings and you track which players other colleges are offering and allow that to influence your recruiting board — which is basically like cheating off of your neighbor’s paper during a high school quiz. Given how much money is out there for coaches’ salaries, we tend to think that all of them are the best of the best. But like every other profession, there are lazy, mediocre coaches who don’t like recruiting or the work that comes along with it."- Ari Wasserman, The Athletic

you mentioned coach salaries but failed to say anything about player salaries. (see Auburn)

 

[FlyFishnVol]

"If you’re a good coach, recruiting rankings don’t influence your recruiting board at all. If you’re a bad coach, you use recruiting rankings and you track which players other colleges are offering and allow that to influence your recruiting board — which is basically like cheating off of your neighbor’s paper during a high school quiz. Given how much money is out there for coaches’ salaries, we tend to think that all of them are the best of the best. But like every other profession, there are lazy, mediocre coaches who don’t like recruiting or the work that comes along with it."- Ari Wasserman, The Athletic

I think they provide the scent, but a great coach knows who to hunt.

 

[sjt18]

Wasserman states further in the article that 1. The lack of spring visits, 2. The non-existent camps, 3. The likely reduced fall visits and overall interaction with the coaching staff, and 4. The real possibility of the easing of the transfer rule is going to lead to the flooding of the transfer portal next spring. Coaches will put too much emphasis on recruiting services out of necessity. This makes sense to me.

Recruiting services or recruiting sites? There's a big difference. Any coach that's going to Rivals or 247 to find out who to pursue is an idiot. It would be like planning your day based on yesterday's weather report.

 

[tnutater]

you mentioned coach salaries but failed to say anything about player salaries. (see Auburn)

see Alabama, Auburns daddy that taught them everything about paying players.

 

[keenobserver]

I think they provide the scent, but a great coach knows who to hunt.

This is great.

 

[Vol8188]

"If you’re a good coach, recruiting rankings don’t influence your recruiting board at all. If you’re a bad coach, you use recruiting rankings and you track which players other colleges are offering and allow that to influence your recruiting board — which is basically like cheating off of your neighbor’s paper during a high school quiz. Given how much money is out there for coaches’ salaries, we tend to think that all of them are the best of the best. But like every other profession, there are lazy, mediocre coaches who don’t like recruiting or the work that comes along with it."- Ari Wasserman, The Athletic

Idk who Ari is but Urban Meyer 100% disagrees with him. In an interview recently he said he would check recruiting rankings daily and “over the years I found a couple dozen players because I wasn’t aware of them until I checked your (247) recruiting site”. Seems Ari is just trying to do a hot take for attention

Here’s the interview and the comments start at 14:15

 

[GojiraVol17]

Idk who Ari is but Urban Meyer 100% disagrees with him. In an interview recently he said he would check recruiting rankings daily and “over the years I found a couple dozen players because I wasn’t aware of them until I checked your (247) recruiting site”. Seems Ari is just trying to do a hot take for attention

Here’s the interview and the comments start at 14:15

Hot takes for attention? Who would’ve ever thought it? Lookin at you Skip Bayless, Shannon Sharpe, Jemele Hill, and lest we forget Stephen A Smith.

 

[FlyFishnVol]

I will and never will trust, like, respect, or listen to his dribble about recruiting.

He is a bad person

 

[Vol8188]

Hot takes for attention? Who would’ve ever thought it? Lookin at you Skip Bayless, Shannon Sharpe, Jemele Hill, and lest we forget Stephen A Smith.

Unless you’re a full blown Marxist, ESPN is unbearable.

 

[butchna]

Chip Kelly sucked at recruiting and after losing Scott Frost to his own HC gig, employed a shifty recruiting service guy. If he wasn’t already on his way to the NFL, that would’ve been his downfall. As it was, he got a show cause out of the deal. Hire real coaches who really are good at evaluating talent. Was never a fan of Bill Parcells, but he knew how his type of players looked and performed...and they’d be the foundation types for his teams. David Meggett, Curtis Martin, Richie Anderson etc. Bill Belichick is even more successful but used a version of Parcells approach. That inspired Saban who hired a guy named Pruitt. You always start with the obvious talent and work your way down your evaluations... but it needs to be YOURS. If you’re resorting to eggheads telling you what fits your coaching, you’re starting a slide. That’s what happened to Fulmer imo. When he started, the most obvious talent was on a Max Emfinger 200 list and everybody offered. Outside that 200 were plenty of star talent that you needed to use your own contacts and scouting and evaluation to shake out. When camps and sites started dishing out stars and weighting those who attended, Fulmer resorted to that on his focus and missed out on a lot of what would’ve been his former glue types that made his teams special...JMO.

 

[GojiraVol17]

Unless you’re a full blown Marxist, ESPN is unbearable.

Ain’t that the truth. I’ve had to watch games on mute