Our class recruiting class is great. No its not.
In all the discussions on mgoblog concerning "where does our class rank?" I notice a common theme. People often disparage Scout's ranking, or ESPN's, or Tom Lemming's concerning our class, as being whack or wrong or stupid. i read very few criticisms of Rivals. But other than criticisms like "ESPN is evil" or "Scout is whack" or "Lemming over-rates Midwest talent" one thing I never read is any fact or evidence that proves those opinions. One guy on another thread said Todd McShay sucked and was terrible at this job, and supported it with the fact that ESPN had Campbell rated as the #21 OT. Ahem.
Now since as far as I can tell, Rivals is the only service (before today) that ranked our class top ten, it begs the question: are most people here hopeless homers that endorse a service (Rivals) that agrees with our prejudices? Or is there actual evidence that Rivals' past predictions are more accurate than Scout's or ESPN's or Lemming's?
It seems that the only rational response to a clear lack of evidence is to answer "it looks good" or "we think" rather than to be definitive on such an inexact science as recruiting projections. The sober response might be to say that I hope that Rivals is right and Scout is wrong. Or does this stance just prove I don't know what I'm talking about?
Breaking news: On ESPNU a guy from Scout's Inc. (ESPN's recruiting service, not the Scout website) said that the best pickup for the system on signing day was Michigan's pickup of Denard Robinson and Jeron Stokes. Still think ESPN sucks? Or are you reconsidering?
EDIT: Some posters have misunderstood the diary to either be an ad-hominem attack on homer posters, or that I somehow do not like this class. On the contrary, I do like it, and was actually 1- asking if there was actual evidence of one service or another being better or worse at predicting recruit's success, and 2- arguing that if there is not clear evidence, then if a service disagrees with Rivals lofty ranking we should at least acknowledge that others disagree without trashing the source.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:59 AM ^
What was your support for your opinion that he sucks "at his job" again?
February 5th, 2009 at 9:27 AM ^
just so damn smug! And there has to be some mathematical explaination for how bad his ties are.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:28 AM ^
If you look on USA Today this morning 3 out of the 4 services listed have us ranked in the Top 10.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:51 AM ^
When recruiting rankings start making a difference on the scoreboard, maybe then I will care. Its an industry. A mill. Its useless and takes advantage of the appetites of rabid fans with available cash.
Yeah, its obvious RR reeled in a good class. Where it is ranked by a bunch of blood suckers matters nada to me.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
If you read about how scout ranks teams you'll notice they use "balance" and "need" as factors. I am NOT saying that this is wrong, in fact it seems fairly reasonable. However, this perhaps explains why UCLA is ranked ahead of USC and why Penn State and Texas A&M are somehow in the top 10 whereas Florida, Florida State and Miami are not.
Scout seems to lean towards teams with larger classes since they are more likely to have "balance" and fulfill "needs" in certain positions. Of course this doesn't apply every time, but it does explain a lot.
BTW I don't know Rivals' method so my entire point might be moot if Rivals places a similar amount of weight on those factors.
Comments