Let’s start at the bottom:
Hooker should’ve been a 3* transfer. He was benched and had not really shown anything prior to getting here to make anyone think he would be elite.
That's not what the recruiting sites purport to be doing. They are selling the idea that they can project talent and success.
But showing that some guys did not live up to expectations and others overachieved, does not “prove” anything. I can find examples of Saban and Kirby being wrong on players too. That’s not “proof” as you’re claiming.
Wow. Seriously. Yes. That is ABSOLUTE proof. That is the definition of their inaccuracy. And the fact that the overrate so many and underrate so many just compounds that proof.
You for whatever reason do not want to see the obvious here.
I never said that Saban or Kirby or anyone else was infallible. But their success demonstrates they are exceptionally good.
One of the 50% numbers I was getting was roughly 200/400. I should have been doing 259/435 for 59.5%. That number is in reference to the fact that when you quote 23% as how often they’re accurate you’re immediately penalizing them by roughly 40%. It’s an unfair metric that doesn’t show what you claim. You pretend to be upset that they cap the number of blue chip players while simultaneously applying a cap (259) on the number you will ever accept as elite.
Unfair? There's nothing "unfair" about it. And what does 259/435 prove? There are 259 draft choices. There are 435 4/5* roughly. Only 100 or slightly less of those 4/5* players will be drafted. The DIRECT implication of that FACT is that the recruiting sites (in the comparison of 3* to 4/5*) underrate 159 guys and overrate about 335.
Elaborate on “who is copying”…you believe it’s impossible for them to arrive at the same opinion? Because if they were just copying Saban and Smart, those two would sign way more than 9/32 of their top guys. That’s where your argument falls apart.
Impossible? No. Unlikely and "unsafe"? Yes. They do sometimes come to "independent" opinions that differ from what top recruiters think. We see it. And when they do their accuracy about the talent and success of those particular players goes down. Go to On3 or 247 right now and check out who the 5* players are committed to. It isn't Montana State or even mid-majors.
Without any doubt or hesitation, I'm going to predict that there is somewhere an unrated guy who signed with an FCS or DII school who is also a future NFL star.
No I’m not claiming they watch all 250k players. But neither does the UT scouting department, Bama, Georgia, etc. Everyone involved in only watching a small % of players. Yet you cite that as a reason to doubt the services while praising Saban/Smart who are watching even less film of recruits.
Personally? I could not say. I strongly suspect they watch MORE film on kids before accepting their commitment but maybe they delegate that task to people they trust. At one time, Dooley apparently did that very well for Saban.
Also, major programs have staffs that thoroughly review film of recruits. In fact, schools like you mentioned including UT have in the past or currently employee REAL recruiting "services"- professional consultants that do deep dives on recruits on behalf of a particular program or else develop profiles that they can offer to different clients. Coaches provide profiles that those services match with potential recruits.
Now to your specific point. Those coaches are not trying to project the impression that they are evaluating and ranking the nation's best talent. They are simply looking for the best talent they can find with interest in playing for them. Often, those players send THEM video... the player comes to the coach. The recruiting sites on the other hand hand out "5* ratings" and list the top 247 players in the country... and sell it to fans.
Again something that you and others seem to constantly lose sight of is that the recruiting sites are NOT in the business of actually finding the best players or even being "accurate". They have to be accurate enough that consumers forget their misses. When was the last time you heard an ESPN broadcast showing some RS Sr who isn't on the travel squad saying, "Former 5* Joe Doe sits the bench for Alcorn State"? They only point out the successful 4/5* players... because that's what keeps fans signing up or clicking. The recruiting sites make their money from FANS... not coaches. So do you then understand the motivations they might have to rate the commits and classes of rabid fan bases higher than others if all other things are at least somewhat equal? Even confronted with a long list of overrated players... you tried to rationalize for the recruiting sites. That's what they count on.
