InVOLuntary
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2012
- Messages
- 60,296
- Likes
- 141,271
That's the @Jackcrevol MO. Assume due to star rankings the recruits our coaches want are lower quality. He's either assuming that they are worse at scouting talent than the services, and/or they are incapable of landing who they need. The possibility that the services are slower/worse than our staff at scouting for our schemes just doesn't seem to be conceivable.Unless they think he IS a big time player?
For those worried about his composite rating…just know that all the sites have him as a high 3* (i.e. borderline 4*) except for effin ESPN who puts as much time into scouting HS players as I put into watching water polo
Recruiting services are far from an exact science to say the least. Ive followed recruiting since 2000. During that time, rule of thumb has been more 4/5 star calibre players, more talented a roster & corollary for continued success at a high level.That's the @Jackcrevol MO. Assume due to star rankings the recruits our coaches want are lower quality. He's either assuming that they are worse at scouting talent than the services, and/or they are incapable of landing who they need. The possibility that the services are slower/worse than our staff at scouting for our schemes just doesn't seem to be conceivable.
Maybe one day we can get those recruiting ranking banners hung in the stadium.