Rivals QB Reranking ... Not So Fast

If no one cares, then why did you respond? Jackass.

I think this is a great question. If we are so sure that he is going to be a great player- and I for one feel he has the potential to be one of the best QBs to put on the winged helmet- then why are we so infatuated with the recruiting services agreeing with us? I think that we are too caught up with how other people see our recruits, when we are clearly content with calling Gardner a stud. Just saying, I think that if most people who see Devin Gardner compete at camps come out calling him the most impressive player at Quarterback AND Wide Receiver, then that is enough information to be confident that we have one of the better players in the nation on our hands, regardless of what Scout or Rivals says.

I don't think it matters, but stuff's a bit weird this year. Nick Hill is a 5.7 with offers from EMU/CMU/Stanford/MSU. Austin White is a 5.6 with UM/LSU/Iowa/Wisco offers. That's just...not quite right.

I prefer that the players that are committed do well at camps and against higher rated players. Whether or not Rivals/Scout re-rank them higher is a very low concern relative to their actual performance.

Then hella ignore it. It's a bit like arguing with a child really. People like that don't see reason and logic doesn't matter.

Most of the time the people that are bothered by comments that much are the same ones that would be gloating if the tables were turned.

Wait...people should stop clamoring that Gardner should be a 5-star on Rivals because Rivals named him the best QB at a camp full of the best QBs in the country?

I generally don't give a crap about rankings, but Rivals is definitely in the wrong here. I don't think Gardner is a 5-star (yet), but there aren't 170 players better than him. He is a top 100 prospect (and probably will be when Rivals updates their rankings again next month). Everybody in the state (except the lunatic fringe of the Spartan fanbase) knows that Gardner is a better player and better prospect than Boisture, and Rivals has had them far apart in the rankings for a while now...and then last night the guy they sent to cover the Elite 11 ranks Gardner #1 and Boisture #12. That isn't something that just magically happened overnight. Gardner's always been better than Boisture, and Rivals has refused to acknowledge that until recently.

Neither. If anything, the Rivals guys have been watching these kids longer than anyone else, which should give them the advantage. In that aspect, I would give them more credence.

As someone said before, this stuff is all subjective to someone's opinion. It's hard to say who I trust more, because I don't know anyones track record.

A kid could have a bad outing at a camp, and could affect how people rank him.

The fact is, the kids that were at the Elite 11, were there for a reason. They're all good. I think it's fair for Rivals to rank someone higher off of a good performance, more than it is to ding them for performing poorly. A lot of this is off of potential, so that makes sense to me.