Funny that you mention this... @CokeGreaterThanPepsi and I have been debating this over the last year or so. My thought is to rate guys only after they have exhausted their eligibility. We've looked at it a few ways including something similar but everything is so arbitrary based on the person actually evaluating. We thought about creating some sort of equation (like in fantasy football) using stats but that is really hard to rate some defensive players.I would love to hear solutions.
And @chuck, we should compare spreadsheets someday, might get new ideas. Although, @MrsPetersen is the one who built the spreadsheet we use.
Agree @chuck, using stats makes rating OL virtually impossible. We also thought about assigning point totals for things like All Conference, All American, Position award.... etc. But at the end of the day I think I agree that there isn't a way to take the "human" element out of the equation. So maybe polling 10 people or so to get a good cross-section and hopefully remove some of the bias.
What about adjusting the scale to make 0 the flameout, never got into school grade?
So I was just thinking about this and I've never actually seen a 1* on Scout, has anyone else? 2* seems to be as low as they go. So if we maybe did give a 1 to non-contributors that might help even out the numbers for tracking variance in a recruiting class. Instead of a zero. IDK, but I'm a dork and this stuff is fun. I love to see a good old 2* contribute at a 5* level....
I agree with a lot of those ratings, however guys like a Pio Vatuvei or Colin Porter who basically played for 1 year and then didn't contribute again (for whatever reason) shouldn't be highly rated. There has to be a subtraction because even they were awesome players it takes away from the program because they only contributed for 1 year. So in that case they usually get a 1 from me (on a 0-5 rating scale. But it's also why we usually don't give them a "final" rating until they exhaust eligibility. For example Andrew Hudson, he probably gets bumped up a bit for this year since contributed more. DiAndre Campbell would stay the same, because meh.
As two esteemed members of this bored and I discussed last night ... if you assume that you send 5 guys to the NFL each year, then you're looking at 20% of a full class that is going to play in the NFL. Even if you take the LSU's and Alabama's of the world that may send 10 to the NFL every year, that's only 40% of a full class.What does that mean?1) Regardless of how good of a class you sign, most of the guys aren't going to go pro2) The ultimate success of a team isn't often driven by the minority of guys that go pro, but driven by the majority that don't go pro. A popular name in this thread that drives the point home is Andrew Hudson. He's surely not going to go pro. But he's also a very valuable player on this team. The more Andrew Hudson's that you have on a roster (older, experienced player who has no illusions about playing professionally, love the game, and recognize that they are getting a great deal in a free education, contacts, etc. for the rest of their life as a trade off for playing football), the more likely you are to have a successful team.
this is a fun experiment but at the end of the day just reinforces that recruiting sites don't know shit about how these kids develop and are merely in it for $$$. There is a massive hole in how to project talent, drive, and development(either physical or by coaches). It's why i laugh when people get soooooo caught up in the recruiting. most people who are gung ho can't name 25% of a class from 2 years ago.