Lay your claim then. Many here claim the services rank players simply by offer lists. What're you claiming?
Who specifically makes that claim?
Be specific. What is a hedge and what are they hedging against?
Are you reading responses or just regurgitating the same stuff? Already addressed this.
The NFL draft has 259 picks each year. Each year the recruiting sites will hand out around 430 4/5* ratings. A little less than 100 of those players will be drafted. They are hedging their accuracy in multiple ways.
For one, they arbitrarily limit the number of 4/5* ratings. There are about 3200 FBS scholarships handed out each year. Let's say there's 5,000 or so total if you include FCS, DII, and DIII. They rate about 8% of those players with 4/5* that may "represent" the best players but do not DEFINE the best players in any given class.
Second, if that 5000 number is accurate then not counting the non-scholarship guys around 5% will be drafted. But only 2% of out of that 5% will have been rated 4/5*.
Third, around a million HS kids participate in football each year. The idea that these sites with limited resources are identifying the best 430 players in the country is on its face completely absurd... and we see that played out in reality. Currently 247's composite has 428 4/5* players, 1668 3* players, and 53 that I see with a 2* rating. They've rated 2149 kids... and about 1000 more that they haven't even taken a token look at will sign FBS scholarships. But you are sure they're thorough enough to find the best of the best?
What % am I misusing and how?
The idea that a "low %" of 3* being drafted means the 4/5* ratings are accurate. It is fairly close to the truth that the recruiting sites slap 3* on just about every kid they evaluate with Power 5 offers or multiple FBS offers. They do NOT seriously spend the time to determine if those kids are better than 3* or not. They simply don't have the resources to be as accurate as you think they are. So the denominator in your "proof" is inflated administratively. Even so 5-10% of 3* players... will be drafted.
As for "that's not accurate"...it's very accurate. You standard is the issue. Missing 160 out of maybe 10k, is really good.
No it isn't when you are claiming "accuracy"... and especially when they overrate over 300. The latter is a more powerful proof. They "evaluated" those players carefully... and were simply WRONG.
If they name more players than can be drafted, you can't proclaim they're only hitting at 23% given that they've ranked almost twice as many guys as 4/5* than could possibly be drafted. You're abusing statistics here.
LOL... NO. You just made my point for me and it flew right over your head. They "hedged" by calling 430 "blue chip"... and only had 100 out of 259 selected. I'm not abusing anything. You are just choosing to be obtuse.
The best approach is the evaluate draft rates by each star level. When you do that the success of the recruiting services becomes 100% clear. 20/32 is over 60%. That's really good. Yet you're trying to present it as 100/435 even though we both know 435 cannot possibly be drafted.
No. But they are creating what they say is the "cream" talent in each year... you would think that more than 35% or so would actually end up being "cream". When they describe a 5* as the absolute "elite" each year then no, overrating 40% or so is not "accurate". Try selling that when you get 60% of your job done.
You can't take the 23% number and pretend it's valid. Without missing on any player they're already at 50% just by the fact that the draft only has about 250 players. So it's ignorant to claim "23%" as you continually do.
Good grief. Please tell me you are just being obtuse and aren't genuinely this dense. The 23% is the number of 4/5* drafted divided by the number of 4/5* grades they hand out each year.
Literally no one is following this equation: The recruiting sites 23% of 435 (about 100) projected pros in each class times 4 years minus Bama's 37... leaves enough players total for 8 two deep rosters out of 130 teams...IDK What you're trying to say there.
When you actually demonstrate the desire and effort to understand the rest then I'll try to revisit this more difficult to explain point.
That even if Bama gets all the guys they want, there's still numerous 4/5* players? No one is arguing against that.
Actually there are disproportionately fewer after you take Bama's out. Remove OSU, UGA, and Clemson as well... and then you get a true idea of how inaccurate the recruiting rankings truly are among other 4/5* players.
I am arguing that Bama signs 3*s, Bama does give 435 committable offers, so it's laughable to claim these services are not doing their own evaluations and are rather simply relying on Bama/Georgia.
Again, when you show even a scintilla of effort toward understanding the simple points... we can come back to this.
