Recruiting presser tidbit

The recruiting experts know which athletes the coaches are most interested in by the time the kids are juniors in high school or before and assign the recruit rating stars accordingly. The more talented and athletic the recruit, the more they are sought by the big schools with the best coaching and the habit of always being in the Top-10 or Top-25. It's the mass of average recruits with 3-star or lower rating where the recruiting experts are mostly guessing and on which the best recruiters work the hardest to eliminate guess work. The coaches who most every year recruit the best classes cannot guess and typically rely on their own evaluations. If Petersen is the head football coach we think he is, Husky Football can only get better in the win column and I expect his recruiting classes will be higher rated starting next year. This will not just be the result of better athletes with greater potential wanting to be Huskies, but also because UW recruits will be more esteemed by the recruiting experts simply because they've been offered by Petersen. The rise in Husky Football will more directly lift the star-ratings for local in-state recruits as UW once again becomes what we should of always been...... a football power on the west coast and nationally.
For those who are hung up on star-ratings for recruits and the fact that the more stars a recruiting class accumulates the higher it must be rated by the recruiting experts,....... the reality is that any class can be better or worse than expected in terms of future contribution depending on how it's members develop as football playing athletes in the 3-5 years before graduation. The experts who assign a 5 thru 2-star or no-star rating to each recruit actually don't know enough about football or what makes a football player good, great, or otherwise to predict how well recruits might turn out as they develop from prep teenagers into collegiate men. But the good coaches do know because their livelyhood depends on it and that's the true relevance of OKGs.
Comments
-
Disagree. Any fat fuck with a computer and an internet connection can evaluate teen boy hips, length, body lean, and pad level. I quit playing football after 8th grade and I have this dialed in. Coach Pete would be wise to call me. I can also tell him which kids are too edgy and which ones are OKG.
-
What I love is that they nab high-ceiling guys / NFL guys the star-fuckers miss.
On the middle / low 3-star side, scout gets very lazy as it gets closer to signing day and increasingly mails it in on the evaluation side since they are too busy deep-throating 5 star guys to be the first to have the "scoop". -
Nice post tailgetter, but It is about stars often. Stringfellow will go on and be a legit all American at USC. Of course there are exceptions but a lot of 4-5 stars pan out, and their numbers are far lower than NR to 3 star kids.. I'm sure there's a basement dweller who can crunch star/success rates. Isnt there a consensus that 3 - star kids aren't considered scrubs?
-
Meds dialed today. What a relief after witnessing last night's meltdown.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Nice post tailgetter, but It is about stars often. Stringfellow will go on and be a legit all American at USC. Of course there are exceptions but a lot of 4-5 stars pan out, and their numbers are far lower than NR to 3 star kids.. I'm sure there's a basement dweller who can crunch star/success rates. Isnt there a consensus that 3 - star kids aren't considered scrubs?
I vaguely remember someone doing some simple math. I think it was Yaledawg. 5* recruits panned out at about 20%. Too bad I can't remember how "panning out" was determined. I think it might have meant that they played in the NFL. 3* recruits were something like 2%-5%.
I could actually be pretty far off on those percentages, but the gap was that wide. -
Thanks. Yah, I'm too lazy these days to research what actually happens to the 5,4,3-star, etc recruits after they start their college careers, but it is an interesting subject. What I recall from the last time I looked into it, most recruiting classes have about 50% or less of the student-athletes who sign LOI's actually contribute something to the football programs they select. "Contribute" would mean they become part of the team core as starters and backups or the top 50 or less players in the program at any given time. If you spread that 50 over 5 classes assuming all new recruits will redshirt, the average real contribution for each class would be around 8, probably not more than 10 to 12. So, the collegiate football system is mathematically set up to keep perking along even when probably half of each recruiting class will not contribute fully to the program due to not making it in the classroom or even into school or due to attrition such as injury, drop-out, or being simply not good enough to ever get off the bench for some PT. That's not so bad when considering that only about 60% of the general student population survive academics far enough to graduate with a degree.
-
Year in and year out I would trade for Alabama or USCs class staight accross. Coaching matters more, but year in an year out having that talent to work with sustains programs.
A great coach and highly rated recruits = abundance. -
Only if they bleed purple and gold!!1!!!!1!!MikeDamone said:Year in and year out I would trade for Alabama or USCs class staight accross. Coaching matters more, but year in an year out having that talent to work with sustains programs.
A great coach and highly rated recruits = abundance. -
And you forgot they must have feces in their throatDerekJohnson said:
Only if they bleed purple and gold!!1!!!!1!!MikeDamone said:Year in and year out I would trade for Alabama or USCs class staight accross. Coaching matters more, but year in an year out having that talent to work with sustains programs.
A great coach and highly rated recruits = abundance.
-
Still got Sarks dick in your mouth. Shut up already. You're king of the fucking doogs. Sick of it.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Nice post tailgetter, but It is about stars often. Stringfellow will go on and be a legit all American at USC. Of course there are exceptions but a lot of 4-5 stars pan out, and their numbers are far lower than NR to 3 star kids.. I'm sure there's a basement dweller who can crunch star/success rates. Isnt there a consensus that 3 - star kids aren't considered scrubs?
-
This is where politics come into play. Scout does fine with the 5 star guys (hard to miss), but the middle/low 3 star guys get rated because they go to camps, play ball with interviews, always answer texts/calls, etc. A kid I went to high school with was a three star TE and he didn't even start for our team and probably caught 5 balls all season. He was 6'4" 225 and ran a 4.7 at a camp, which was solely the reason he was a 3 star.HFNY said:What I love is that they nab high-ceiling guys / NFL guys the star-fuckers miss.
On the middle / low 3-star side, scout gets very lazy as it gets closer to signing day and increasingly mails it in on the evaluation side since they are too busy deep-throating 5 star guys to be the first to have the "scoop".
There are some guys who are better athletes that are two stars and unranked, but they don't want to drop the three star kids they have gotten to know even lower. Guys who get missed in earlier evaluations because they didn't go to all the camps get royally fucked by the ranking system. No matter how well they do in games, they aren't rising higher than three stars because the guys that know the other kids, don't want to drop them too far.
-
Then there are the promo videos the recruits put together with the help of parents and I assume their HS coaches to mail out to everybody: coaches, recruiting experts, fan sites, etc. Must be some money made somewhere in all this. I don't suppose there might be some parents willing to purchase their kid a bump with another star or two........ nah, probably not.RoadDawg55 said:This is where politics come into play. Scout does fine with the 5 star guys (hard to miss), but the middle/low 3 star guys get rated because they go to camps, play ball with interviews, always answer texts/calls, etc. A kid I went to high school with was a three star TE and he didn't even start for our team and probably caught 5 balls all season. He was 6'4" 225 and ran a 4.7 at a camp, which was solely the reason he was a 3 star.
There are some guys who are better athletes that are two stars and unranked, but they don't want to drop the three star kids they have gotten to know even lower. Guys who get missed in earlier evaluations because they didn't go to all the camps get royally fucked by the ranking system. No matter how well they do in games, they aren't rising higher than three stars because the guys that know the other kids, don't want to drop them too far.
-
Just give them to Ivan for a couple of years and watch what happens. They'll go around punching Seahawk fans and get arrested.DerekJohnson said:
Only if they bleed purple and gold!!1!!!!1!!MikeDamone said:Year in and year out I would trade for Alabama or USCs class staight accross. Coaching matters more, but year in an year out having that talent to work with sustains programs.
A great coach and highly rated recruits = abundance. -
When it comes to punching Seahawk fans,....... beer me while I woof.
-
Peterman just got his star ass kicked by Sark... seriously, what do you fucking Dogs expect Peterman to say?
-
Great apples to oranges comparison as alwayssarktastic said:Peterman just got his star ass kicked by Sark... seriously, what do you fucking Dogs expect Peterman to say?
You can find the comparison between their work here on this board -
Fact is, the battle was waged and Sark won... if we aren't going to keep score, why count stars and award recruiting trophies?
-
Guys, according to ECK-Tard we had at least 39 5* recruits that were all silent verbals that wanted Sark so bad. I mean shit, Joe Mixon loved Sark, wanted to be a part so bad that when Sark wenT to USC Mixon said that is great and went to OU. Round of applause for our TBS staff that literally has no fucking clue (give me my $10.95 for that). Sochi's 4 ring olympics are better run than TBS.
-
USC has recruited higher rated players than the UW for 50 years, and always will. What a riduculous comparison.sarktastic said:Fact is, the battle was waged and Sark won... if we aren't going to keep score, why count stars and award recruiting trophies?
The UW did better than USC on the field sometimes, by developing players better. But USC has always had better raw material in terms of recruiting players. It has nothing to do with Sark. Kiffin also outrecruited Sark when it was USC versus UW. The comparison between schools is almost meaningless.
Sark is a good recruiter though. That is also not the issue. The problem is that he does not develop players well. We will see the difference in 2-4 years. Petersen's lower ranked recruits will be beating Sark's top 10 recruiting class in 2-4 years.
-
Shut the fuck up kimsarktastic said:Fact is, the battle was waged and Sark won... if we aren't going to keep score, why count stars and award recruiting trophies?
-
Fact is Sark didn't recruit that well at all to UW. Petersen showed in year one, with two months to move in, assemble a staff, and establish new relationships, that he could outrecruit Sark with his hands tied behind his back. It's not what one guy does at SC versus the other at UW that matters. Compare what they both did at UW and Petersen has already kicked the shit out of him in the apples to apples comparison.sarktastic said:Fact is, the battle was waged and Sark won... if we aren't going to keep score, why count stars and award recruiting trophies?
-
I think it's your responsibility to provide Star stats on the last 50 years of recruiting classes before making these incredible claims.Global said:
USC has recruited higher rated players than the UW for 50 years, and always will. What a riduculous comparison.sarktastic said:Fact is, the battle was waged and Sark won... if we aren't going to keep score, why count stars and award recruiting trophies?
The UW did better than USC on the field sometimes, by developing players better. But USC has always had better raw material in terms of recruiting players. It has nothing to do with Sark. Kiffin also outrecruited Sark when it was USC versus UW. The comparison between schools is almost meaningless.
Sark is a good recruiter though. That is also not the issue. The problem is that he does not develop players well. We will see the difference in 2-4 years. Petersen's lower ranked recruits will be beating Sark's top 10 recruiting class in 2-4 years.
-
http://al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/ranking_the_rankers_revisiting.html
I saw this article on stars. Does a decent job summarizing. 5 stars give you 40-50% chance of getting to the NFL. That's pretty good. The rest is a crapshoot. -
Until somebody can tell me how many recruiting stars John Wayne had before he starred at USC, I say all star ratings have to suck for credibility. Anything goes in Hollywood.
-
Really? I don't think so, because anyone who knows squat about college recruiting and the PAC12 knows that USC has the easiest job of recruiting due to location, and pedigree.sarktastic said:
I think it's your responsibility to provide Star stats on the last 50 years of recruiting classes before making these incredible claims.
So no, I don't have to prove that USC has generally recruited better than everyone else in the PAC12 for decades, because it is common knowledge. Except for a few years around the NC, even DJ had to beat USC with lesser talented raw material, and he often did.
So if you want to prove me wrong, give it a shot. BTW, there have not been stars for 50 years. I said USCs players were more highly rated.
Knock yourself out, and learn something in the process. Here is the last 12 years. Show us all how many times the UW had a better recruiting class than USC, and for that matter when anyone in the PAC12 had a better recruiting class than USC. UCLA does occasionally, and while USC has had sanctions they have not done as well so Stanford has also challenged.
But educate yourself even with recent history, then if you still insist on being stupid, we can go back further in history.
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2014/all/all
Sark whatever - year by year, do some homework before shooting off your mouth. -
In the olden days when Race was young, they wrote letters that got delivered by the Post Office. And they read newspapers with stories about HS kids written by reporters. Nobody had any idea what was going on in other parts of the country. They had to use telephones plugged into the wall and call the operator to call long distance. I don't know how they did it.
-
You may want to stop posting for awhile until you get a feel for this place. If you need a hand, just PM Irish doog, he has this place dialed in.Global said:
Really? I don't think so, because anyone who knows squat about college recruiting and the PAC12 knows that USC has the easiest job of recruiting due to location, and pedigree.sarktastic said:
I think it's your responsibility to provide Star stats on the last 50 years of recruiting classes before making these incredible claims.
So no, I don't have to prove that USC has generally recruited better than everyone else in the PAC12 for decades, because it is common knowledge. Except for a few years around the NC, even DJ had to beat USC with lesser talented raw material, and he often did.
So if you want to prove me wrong, give it a shot. BTW, there have not been stars for 50 years. I said USCs players were more highly rated.
Knock yourself out, and learn something in the process. Here is the last 12 years. Show us all how many times the UW had a better recruiting class than USC, and for that matter when anyone in the PAC12 had a better recruiting class than USC. UCLA does occasionally, and while USC has had sanctions they have not done as well so Stanford has also challenged.
But educate yourself even with recent history, then if you still insist on being stupid, we can go back further in history.
-
Nice try at avoiding everything I said which shows you to be ignorant.sarktastic said:You may want to stop posting for awhile until you get a feel for this place. If you need a hand, just PM Irish doog, he has this place dialed in.
I have been posting here for 13 months. I have a feel for this place, and dumb shits like you are part of the feel.
-
Now I'm thinking you should REALLY check out your health insurance coverage and find a counselor and some meds for your depression.
-
Global is just another Doogman troll trying to make HH look bad.