Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
A Few Stats on the Recruiting Class
HeretoBeatmyChest
Member Posts: 4,295
Average Stars/Recruit is currently 3.26 which is tied with the 2013 class which was our best class since Neuheisel era.
We are currently ranked 25th in that category but there are 7 schools above us with fewer 4&5* guys.
Add another 4* and thats the best class outright since Neu era. If not it will probably drop a tiny bit.
We are currently ranked 25th in that category but there are 7 schools above us with fewer 4&5* guys.
Add another 4* and thats the best class outright since Neu era. If not it will probably drop a tiny bit.
Comments
#25 class in 2015
#21 in 2014
#20 in 2013
#18 in 2012
#18 in 2011
#15 in 2010
#17 in 2009
I may be wrong but it looks like scout is just increasing the number of highly rated guys, and so average ratings are going up across the board.
I wrote about this last year, but Scout is inflating the rankings of kids each and every year.
Over the years, Scout has drastically inflated their star system, either as a means to appraise the kids they talk to "oh, they value me more than other sites" or to drive interest in their site because "oh hey, look, this kid is a 3*, that's AWESOME!".
If you look back during the Gilby and Ty years, Scout ranked the top 50 as 5*s, top 300 as 4*s and top 1000 as 3*s. Now, you have a metric ton more 4*s and 3*s. For example, Isaiah Renfro and Chico McClatcher, our 4* WR recruits, aren't listed in the top 300 for Scout. The last ranked S in the Top 300 is the #23 S. Renfro is #29. Under their old system, he'd be a 3*. The last ranked WR in the Top 300 is the #40 WR. McClatcher is #45. Under their old system, he'd be a 3*. But now, because Scout wants us to be excited for the kids, they're both a 4*.
What's even worse are all the 3*s now. The top 1700+ HS kids are ranked 3* by Scout. That's right. 1700 3*s. What's the point? They inflated the ranks to add 700 new 3*s. The used to be only 700 3*s, now there's almost 1400+ of them in Scout's database. Is there really no measurable difference between kid #500 and kid #1100 and kid #1700? How is the 225th best WR in the country a 3*? Or the 153th best DE? Or 138th best OLB? If you take these numbers and go back to Sark's 2010 class, all those 2*s would be 3*s now. Yes, Atoe would've been a 3* if he were a recruit this year.
Again, this goes back to the tired argument that stars are useless and the best way to gauge ability is to look at what the team needs and how the kid fits into the system. Or look at BCS offers. Who knows?
Either way, Petersen knows what he's doing and the most important thing is that he has a staff that knows his system and knows what type of kids to recruit. Stars are meaningless and I don't care about stars. At all. Unless we get a 5* recruit. Then that'd be AWESOME!
I try to look at measurables whenever I can (I don't have the time to watch film, even when it's out there, usually) and competing offers can give you a pretty good idea. Also remember that Scoot actually let Fatters participate in the star ratings back in the mid-00's (they don't anymore) and that resulted in the infamous "King County All-Stars" teams that UW recruited then.
Also, I really only pay attention to recruiting between the bowl games and signing day, because I can get free premium memberships to the TBS sites which I can then turn off after NSD.
For these butt-hats to be self-fellating enough to think they should be ranking players requires a smorgasbord of clown logic that they are doubtlessly engaging both randomly and furiously:
1) No offer algorithm could ever account for things like early commitments or hidden gems!
2) What's an alog-rhythm? Huh?
3) y = mx + SUCK IT! I CAN EVALUATE!
4) I took algebra once and got a D, so yeah, we won't be doing any of that nerd-ball stuff!
5) Football is about toughness not numbers!
6) I know enough about agloroddems to know that it's not a straight line relationship. Additive, transitive... wait, ...? Never mind. When's the next 7-on-7?
7) YOU CAN'T KNOW HOW GOOD SOMEONE IS BY SIMPLY COUNTING OFFERS!!! WHAT ABOUT EXCEPTIONS!?!?!
8) My eyes are as good as @GrandpaSankey's!
9) That would be hard.
10) How do I meet people that went to grad school when I got this job after being a tire salesman?
11) That would invalidate our amazing ability to tell a 4-star from a 5-star!
12) We are so smart.
13) Even if we didn't have coach offers to tell us who to scout, we would still know which players are awesome!
14) 7-on-7s matter DANG IT!
15) Technology can't replace intuition! Humans are right about stuff! Especially moron-humans that get a job doing TBS for a living!
At the end of the day, anyone with a bit of intelligence who is interested in TBS looks at:
#1 - Offers
#2 - Video
#3 - TBS site rankings
.....in that order.
The one thing that amuses me is the cookie cutter process that every player fits every system the same.
It all comes down to building the best class possible with guys that fit what you are trying to do. It's easiest to get in-state guys but they shouldn't be had at the expense of superior talent.
But you could easily do a weighting system to counter that. You could also easily enter a term for glaring absences of offers (like us not offering Lemieux) and weight offers from staffs that have a better eval record with more importance in some senses.
It's not like this level of math has never been achieved. It's basically stuff any grad student could do. Sure, the average person can't do it, but if they are running a gigantic business off the idea they rank recruits... it might behoove them to actually provide quality content that the average person cannot deliver. Instead they've got fat, bald dudes trying to be Scouts sniffing each others' chodes, wafting the smell in the air and clapping when the aroma pleases the crowd.
What it would force these dingleberries to do is actually be reporters and see who has really offered (uh, fact check, maychance?) instead of 'would-be' scouts. I say that as a person who is a committed and enthusiastic would-be scout.
It's just that I would never RANK kids on my evals.
7-on-7s are so worthless it hurts, though. I used to get in fights with Huffman (who is a GOB STOPPING moron, by the way) about the importance of 7-on-7s. Them thinking they can tell a 'true 5-star' from a 'high 4-star' is a complete and mind-meltingly diabolical level of hubris.
It would take a team of 10 good grad students a month to do they and they'd probably have to pay each of them like a grand. Maybe less if it's publishable.
-- Petersen
2015: #25 national (#5 Pac)
2014: 36 (7)
-- Sarkisian
2013: 20 (4)
2012: 31 (6)
2011: 22 (5)
2010: 20 (5)
2009: 51 (9)
-- Willingham
2008: 21 (5)
2007: 37 (8)
...
The recent rankings are inflated a bit because they've given out more 3* but not more 4* and 5*.
I think Scout does a fairly good job. Better than ESPN, who uses rankings to placate their SEC investments and has zero west coast presence. Ditto Rivals although to a lesser extent. I think it's a bit naieve to assume rankings and offers aren't inter-related. They influence each other to some extent.
There is a correlation between rankings and on-field results by college teams, the rankings aren't gospel but overall I think they paint a good picture of a teams overall raw talent level.
Great poont.
Derek, close the gates!!!