A Few Stats on the Recruiting Class
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
-
I'm not sure you can compare average star per recruit year to year like this. 3.26 average would have been ranked
#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 think the only difference year to year is number of 5 star players, it used to be 50 5 stars every year, now it is however many they think there are (no more than 50 though). Pretty sure that's how it works now, correct me if I'm wrong.The_Undertaker said:I'm not sure you can compare average star per recruit year to year like this. 3.26 average would have been ranked
#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. -
This is something I have noticed as well. It seems a lot of the guys that used to be 2 stars are now low 3.The_Undertaker said:I'm not sure you can compare average star per recruit year to year like this. 3.26 average would have been ranked
#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. -
Nope, you're right.The_Undertaker said:I'm not sure you can compare average star per recruit year to year like this. 3.26 average would have been ranked
#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! -
What's crazy is our 2013 class was ranked 14th with a 3.26 average (ranked by points, not average). Looking through the commits, I see John Ross, Troy Williams, a couple others playing, but not much else. So either they all left (string), they all suck, or they will step up this year.
-
The fans are PISSED off
-
Scoot's star system is kind of fucking retarded.
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. -
If Scout had any sense whatsoever, they would just hire a grad student in machine learning to put together a dynamic algorithm that rates kids based on offers. The idea that Scott Kennedy and Brandon "Danny Shelton takes plays off at Auburn High so I'm downgrading him to a 3-star" HuffandPuff have more scouting expertise than the TOTAL KNOWLEDGE off all the staffs on the West Coast (which is what goes into cumulative offers) is LAKE LUCERNE insane.HeretoBeatmyChest said: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.
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!
-
"I can feel it, down in my pluums."
-
To find the y-intercept, simply solve for "SUCK IT! I CAN EVALUATE!"
-
@Dennis_DeYoung - You are absolutely right. The TBS crowd getting boners over 7-on-7 competitions is worthless. Demand for a kid (offers) is a much better way to do it. The problem is that "offers" are reported by the kids, not by the schools, and some of them are likely bogus.
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.
-
Stars mean very little in the grand scheme of things ...
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. -
The thing is, sure, some people report bogus offers, but that is equally distributed across all levels of players. So, for instance, guys that are West Coast guys (ASU, UCLA, UW) sometimes lie about having top 'national' (ND, TEX, FLA) offers. Guys that are regional guys (UW, WSU, OSU) sometimes lie about having 'West Coast' offers...HuskyInAZ said:@Dennis_DeYoung - You are absolutely right. The TBS crowd getting boners over 7-on-7 competitions is worthless. Demand for a kid (offers) is a much better way to do it. The problem is that "offers" are reported by the kids, not by the schools, and some of them are likely bogus.
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.
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. -
For what it's worth, our class rankings when sorted by average star per recruit:
-- 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)
...
-
By that the class is the 3rd best since Neuheisel era.The_Undertaker said:For what it's worth, our class rankings when sorted by average star per recruit:
-- 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*. -
As far as avg. ranking goes, we get hurt by the fact that we have a long snapper (they only get 2 stars) and a probable greyshirt (Rice) who was hurt for most of the year and was not evaluated. They pull our average down. Sterk committing will further pull it down. Every 2 star you grab averages one of your 4 stars into a 3 star.The_Undertaker said:For what it's worth, our class rankings when sorted by average star per recruit:
-- 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)
... -
Ranking 1000s of players across the entire country is a fools errand, especially for football.
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. -
So it's a fool's errand that does well in its intended purpose?BallSacked said:Ranking 1000s of players across the entire country is a fools errand, especially for football.
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!!! -
Thank you math superiority guy.bananasnblondes said:
As far as avg. ranking goes, we get hurt by the fact that we have a long snapper (they only get 2 stars) and a probable greyshirt (Rice) who was hurt for most of the year and was not evaluated. They pull our average down. Sterk committing will further pull it down. Every 2 star you grab averages one of your 4 stars into a 3 star.The_Undertaker said:For what it's worth, our class rankings when sorted by average star per recruit:
-- 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)
... -
-
I have no idea what any of this means. I'm just happy someone decided to recruit decent looking OL this year.
