An article that puts a theoretical dent in HS "star ratings"
If you have a moment, please read the following, with interesting quotes from a South Carolina defensive line coach about high school player "star ratings:"
http://www.thestate.com/gogamecocks/story/799999.html?RSS=gogamecocks
While I get all the arguments in favor of star rankings, future predictions of pro success, and the importance of "good players" begetting more "good players," comments like this from college coaches are a possible reason to pay little mind to what scouting services perceive the players' rankings to be. Instead, we could just trust the scouting acumen of the coaches of the maize and blue team we support?
Also, the article has a few Michigan targets listed (Donnal, Grimes, etc.) Definitely worth a read.
EDIT: I see this article has been MGOLICIOUS'D. Proper credit to Brian. My apologies.
I don't think any of us don't trust RR's ability to identify talent. We know that every guy in each class is good enough for a Michigan offer. What we don't know is how those guys match up against each other, and against the guys we offered and didn't get. Kinard holds a Michigan offer, as does Jeff Luc. If we had Luc in there in place of Kinard, our class would look much different, yes? So "trusting RR's scouting acumen" does little good for us in this case.
It makes a big difference if RR got all the best players he offered or if all of his first choice guys signed elsewhere and he settled for the next level down. The star rankings help us know the difference. I'm not saying we should get all hung up on the ratings and rankings, but I don't think we should throw them out the window either.
I agree that the rankings are just a vague guess at how well an athlete projects at the next level. How a coach uses these players could be an even more important factor than how skilled they are. If you have a player that is great at MLB, and a coach has tons of guys at that spot he might move him to fullback. That player might not ever really get a chance to show what he can do in his natural position. I see running backs that are amazing in highschool get moved to WR in college and are never heard from again. Figuring out the specific skill sets of players and how they fit into your scheme is an art. This is what I think RR does so well - identify where players excel and put them in the best position to succeed. He has a detailed idea of the skill sets needed for every position on the field, and he doesn't just recruit the "best players available." (Whatever that means...)
I went to Ocean City with my family for the long weekend. In my father's car, sandwiched betwixt the back seats, I found an Athlon Sports magazine previewing the 2004 college football season. I read, with a mix of bewilderment and nostalgia, predictions of days gone by, like "Mark Dantonio will make a fine coach at the University of Cincinnati for the next twenty years," "Brad Smith will win the Heisman Trophy," "David Baas is the best offensive lineman in Division I," "Matt Gutierrez and David Underwood should have no problem replacing John Navarre and Chris Perry," and, by far my favorite, "Bill Callahan was a genius hire for Nebraska."
We all know the following statement is true, and I am not reiterating it just to be an asshole, but: one never knows what will become of these young men. The first team All-American quarterback and reigning Heisman winner in that magazine is now 29 years old and has made a career entirely outside of football.
Sorry if this went way off the track established by the OP, but I just got such a kick out of that magazine.
Of those claims, not many of them were off base. Gutierrez could have been a star at M had he not been injured, giving Henne a chance to shine. He did make it to the NFL, after all. And David Baas wasn't exactly the best lineman in the country, he was arguable the best center, and was one spot away from being a first round draft pick, if I remember correctly.
OK, perhaps those were fringy, not-totally-unfulfilled predictions. But others were, in hindsight, undeniably laughable, like the claim that Bobby Ross would lead Army to a bowl game in his first of what would become three boring, crappy seasons.
I believe that. But you can also say that in the past there have been some Vegas odds makers who have made some laughable outcome predictions. This doesn't mean that as a rule they aren't quite accurate.
Racking up quite the point total aren't we? Showoff.
this coach is full of crap, man:
http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/24703/coa…
That guy is a piece of work. Ego much?
....however, what if he's right? I don't think he's right on the kid he references because (1) Brian accurately pointed out that the kid had great camps and was rewarded for that, and (2) I'm pretty sure the coach is recruiting said kid and wants to act like he has pull.
But, what if Les Miles and Urban Meyer and other coaches are doing this behind the scenes? It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it wouldn't shock me if a coach like Weis-my-butt-so-big would, while toying with his Super Bowl ring that Belichek earned for him, would tell a recruit, "Give me a week and you'll be a four-star."
The end results that come out of this are two-fold:
(1) it makes big program recruiting possibly look better than it is as to certain recruits; but
(2) it makes big programs look foolish when they underperform, or get destroyed by a team of "three star" recruits in the Sugar Bowl.
that guy sounds like a lose
I thought the exact same thing that Brian pointed out in the article when I read those quotes - this guy is trying to simultaneously cover his ass in recruiting weakly ranked classes and if they happen to get a 5 star that the expectations for their ability to coach the kid shouldn't be very high either. Not to mention the fact that he looks like uber-creepy in that picture.
Thought this would be as good of a place as any to point out that they switched your TSB archive link to http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/author/BrianCook.tsn so that you can update the sidebar.
He ought to think about starting a blog or somethin'
I don't understand all the negative hubbub about recruiting/star rankings. Those websites provide a service to fans and, to a lesser extent, the programs themselves.
It's like going to Trip Advisor and then saying, "Should we really trust what they say about the Marriott in Myrtle Beach? Shouldn't we put more stock in how many people stay at the hotel rather than what Trip Advisor says or who reviews it on the site?"
It's a service provided to customers who want to use it. Nobody's telling you that you have to use it or that it's The Bible. It's a guide. This constant recruiting-sites-are-useless-no-they're-not argument is just kind of annoying.
Highly rated recruits have a better chance of being successful than lower rated recruits, whether those ratings are chosen by the quality of offers or just from scouting reports.
End of story.
From now on when this comes up (it seems to every month or so) just copy and paste this, and throw in a gratuitous head slap every now and then.
I think as fans we are always looking for fresh info on our team. The scouting services do provide some fresh info which is why people subscribe to them.
The accuracy on the scouting of the majority of players, is dubious at best IMHO, which is one reason why many **** and *** recruits never make much of an impact.
Height, weight, 40 times, are often inaccurate and even if they are accurate don't really add up to squat anyway. My goodness, Lalota, once a *****, somehow misplaced about 40 pounds, not very impressive scouting going on there.
Michigan had 17 **** recruits based on rival rankings in 08, 3 of them are already off the team, Witherspoon, Hill, and McGuffie. Wermers a *** is also gone. Omameh a ** is now considered the top OL prospect.
I look forward to what Rivals and Scout have to say on potential recruits, even as I take it with a grain of salt. I think the coach who said he can make a *** into a ***** is full of it. If he is that good he should become an agent instead of a coach.
I agree with some of what you said, but I don't think the examples of the guys off the team have anything to do with star rankings. Rivals and Scout don't take into account how good of a fit a kid is for a particular school, nor do they predict their ability to qualify. That's like saying Brandon Smith shouldn't have been a 4 star because once he got here he had appendicitis. They have nothing to do with one another.
And as far as Omameh, Magnus will echo this I'm sure: For every 2 star who emerges as a contender for a starting position, there are 10 others who never see the field. It's not 100%.
Agree, my point is many of these kids are not going to work out for a myriad of reasons, and it doesn't matter what their star ranking is.
Out of 21 kids in a recruiting class it seems nearly half of them are washouts or underachievers based on their rankings. I could be totally off base on my assessment, but looking at Michigan's classes since 2002 on rivals, there is mucho attrition and underachievement.
been proven (despite what people think) that higher star rankings indicate a higher chance at succeeding and making it to the NFL.
Or other documentation.
Serious question, BTW. I suspect it is true, but am curious to see the numbers.