BBrown: Informal Rating Scales
After talking with Brian and Seth I have decided to employ a bit of a rating scale when it comes to offered prospects and prospects I outline in the "Names To Watch" series.
I noticed that I almost always end my mini-interviews and introductions with a sentence that looks something like, "I think Michigan's chances with him.....", but with no actual level of measurement. From now on, offered prospects will be rated on the following scale:
Offered Prospects
0 - Not interested
1 - If he visits, let's talk
2 - Probably Top 15
3 - Probably Top 5
4 - Probably Top 2/3
5 - True Blue Lock
This gives a bit of a measurable value to where a recruits interest level is, but isn't concrete and is also easy to adjust as visits happen, other offers roll in, and relationships are built.
The "Names To Watch" scale could be a little tougher to nail down, but I'll still attempt to put some value on how serious the interest is from both parties. A lot of kids love Michigan but don't really have much of a chance to earn an offer. On the flip side, sometimes the coaches would love to have a kid, but the chances just aren't very realistic so an offer may not materialize.
Names To Watch
0 - Not going to happen
1 - Doesn't look good right now, but we'll see
2 - 50/50, yes or no, wouldn't be surprised
3 - It looks like an offer could come in the future
4 - I fully expect an offer to come
5 - Guarantee this kid is offered
As I said above, this could be a little harder to gauge because I'm not in the war room with the coaches. I have some contact with the staff, but it's limited and it's against the rules to really talk about the kids before they sign anyway.
I hope these numerical values give some insight as to what I have been able to learn first hand from the recruits, their coaches, or their parents. I am open for suggestions involving the scale but plan to start using this, or some version of it, moving forward.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:38 PM ^
It'll be interesting to see how these pan out over time.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^
February 24th, 2014 at 10:44 PM ^
The offered prospect scale will be solely from the recruits perspective. The Names To Watch scale will have to factor in both a little bit.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
February 24th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^
It took some convincing, but I got him on board.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:13 AM ^
Pics or it didn't happen.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^
I like the smiley-face rating system that was used in the increasingly archaic Recrutiing Boards.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:52 PM ^
And we talked about re-instating them but after some discussion we decided that given my frequent contact with the recruits, referring to them as possibly a "sad Josh" or "nefarious Eduardo" probably wasn't a good look.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^
That seems like a good idea. Will there be a list kept somewhere though for people to refer to?
February 24th, 2014 at 10:47 PM ^
February 24th, 2014 at 10:55 PM ^
Nefarious Eduardo is my homeboy.
February 24th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 5:30 AM ^
He asked about using those guys, but we agreed it's probably not a good idea to be calling kids "Sad Josh" while they're waiting on an offer.
I suggested they be:
0: Not interested
1: Just looking
2: Come back to me
3: Send me your catalog
4: Put this on hold for me
5: Does it come in blue?
February 25th, 2014 at 8:33 AM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 8:57 AM ^
February 24th, 2014 at 10:49 PM ^
February 24th, 2014 at 11:56 PM ^
Scandinavian-language edition. I think it's already there, "Oofer Boatd" being listed under "Yoosvul Stolf".
February 25th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
most underrted post 2014.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
I approve.
February 24th, 2014 at 10:59 PM ^
Brandon, thank you for all the updates you provide around here. I think this new scale is an excellent idea. Keep up the great work!
February 24th, 2014 at 11:24 PM ^
I think you should post into the diaries so that your posts are visable longer.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:15 AM ^
Diaries do not get bumped up on the MGoBoard when new comments are made, which is why I don't read diaries very often. I mean, I'll look at them once, but I rarely go back to rejoin the discussion.
February 24th, 2014 at 11:24 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 12:31 AM ^
Actually, I have no idea what the "Names to Watch" series is, so maybe your way makes sense. And I think I've read that we, as people, are terrible with estimating probabilities anyway.
February 25th, 2014 at 7:57 AM ^
I was wondering the same thing actually, and this could even keep a scenario in which "0" might be ascertained if their lack of interest is definitely known. As for the rest, it could be something along these lines even despite the subjectivity of the rating:
1 - less than 20%
2 - 20% to 49%
3 - 50/50
4 - 51% to 79%
5 - 80% or greater (heavy lean to lock basically)
If there was a true desire to separate "heavy lean" and "lock", that could be made even more granular. All the same, using a rating scale here is an interesting idea.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:07 AM ^
My first thought was to use percentages as well, but then I realized that they could become a little arbitrary. For instance what would be the difference, and how would I determine if a kid was say, 25% compared to someone who is 44%? Those are just random numbers but they would fall in the same range with a pretty big gap in the percentage.
I just thought a simple 0-5 would be a little easier to follow and not look like such a precise number because let's face it, I would've given Hand a 4/5 which would've looked pretty spot-on, where if I would've tried to give him a specific percentage it would beg the question of what exactly that particular percentage means. If he's a 90% why not just make him a 95%? Also, we all know that recruiting is a very inexact science so leaving a little wiggle room is not a bad thing. Plus these rankings could be thought of as percentages if that's how your brain works.
0 - < 5%
1 - 6-20%
2 - 21-40%
3 - 41-60%
4 - 61-80%
5 - 81-100% .....essentially.
Does that make sense?
February 24th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
For example, I would be a 5 on the first scale, and a 0 on the second.
February 25th, 2014 at 2:51 AM ^
Ain't we all, man. Aint we all.
February 24th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
Brandon can you or Brian put this under the "Useful Stuff" header. Also is there going to be an easy way to locate past interviews or updates. Thanks for the hard work sir!
February 25th, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^
I like this concept. Would love to see the data aggregated for current offerees and prospective offerees. And I agree that the numbering system is less offensive/sophmoric than the smileys.
I will miss you Eduardo; may you rest in peace.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:48 AM ^
For a site that was worried about users calling a prospect "young", I think a contributer ranking prospects on a numerical going to get offered scale is quite hypocritical.
February 25th, 2014 at 7:52 AM ^
fits, even though "clown post" would be the ulitmate. I would love to see your logic and how you came to the conclusoin on that post.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:10 AM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 8:18 AM ^
Even though you're getting negged quite heavily, I agree.
I fail to see how "He looks young" is too offensive for random MGoReaders to post, but "He's not going to get offered" is acceptable for an MGoWriter to post.
I'm not saying one way or the other is the way to go, but having it both ways seems contradictory.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:29 AM ^
I'd probably leave it as the first rating system as well, and just worry about that when/if they get offered.
I'm not sure I can explain why, but it seems like if Brandon thinks someone will get offered (a 3-5 on the second scale) I think it would be fine to say as much just as a one-off sentence, but I'm not sure it needs a rating 0-5 for that one, and I'm not sure you really want to list the kids that are less than a 50-50 shot (I'm not sure by doing so, Brandon is helping himself stay in contact with the prospects anyway).
Another suggestion I'd give (and I know first hand that this is a bit of busy work, but it's extremely helpful for readers) is to hyperlink a recruit the first time to a recruiting profile or just put (LINK) after it and hyperlink that. For example, if you link their 247 page, then it's an easy way for readers to get directly to a couple rankings for that player and highlight videos. Again, I know it's a pain and only minor extra work for us to look up the recruit, but it would be a nice touch.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^
Agreed. Now get out of my head.
February 25th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
But the fact is that saying someone isn't going to get offered could be because of dozens of reasons and is in no way offensive. A player might not quite be the right fit, a little undersized, buried on the depth chart, not within scholarship numbers, at a disadvantageous location, not interested in Michigan, academics could be an issue, etc.
Attacking them personally for any reason outside of football rationale is an entirely different story.
These kids know the deal. It's football, it's competitive. They aren't going to get 124 D1 offers and that's just the reality. Michigan stopped by high schools of dozens of players during the eval period and most of them won't be offered. I'm not telling them anything they don't already know and deal with from many other schools.
Every site rates and ranks kids. Not all recruits are 100's and 5-stars. They can go on any recruiting site and see, "Wow, there are 25 QB's listed better than me." It's how it is, these guys are ranked and evaluated from an early age, they'll be fine.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
"A player might not quite be the right fit, a little undersized, buried on the depth chart, not within scholarship numbers, at a disadvantageous location, not interested in Michigan, academics could be an issue, etc.
Attacking them personally for any reason outside of football rationale is an entirely different story."
I agree entirely, but I'm not sure I see the difference. (And keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who rates players, criticizes their on-field behavior, skills, etc. So I'm not one of those guys who thinks criticism is always bad.)
The boldfaced reasons above have nothing to do with football. Saying a kid "looks young" is no more offensive than saying "he is unlikely to get an offer because of academics." On the one hand, you're questioning the lack of facial hair. On the other, you're questioning a kid's intelligence or classroom work ethic.
Again, I'm not saying that these ratings are bad, but I stand by my belief that it's inconsistent. If a kid can withstand "He's not good enough to get an offer," he should be able to withstand comments like "He looks young." The fact is that players who are unable to withstand the latter comment without getting bent out of shape are also likely to take offense at the former comment. If blog policy (banishment, sent to Bolivia, etc.) is going to be based upon how one kid reacts to being called "young looking," then it stands to reason that some other 15- or 16- or 17-year-old kid is going to be bummed when you suggest that he won't be offered because his parents live too far away or he failed his math class or he just doesn't run fast enough.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
I agree that they're actual reasons.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
I think there is a difference between talking about how the kid looks and talking about his prospects of getting a football scholarship. One is purely personal, the other is an analysis on him as a player.
There are already a lot of sites that rate these kids' abilities, so I can't imagine one more will put them over the edge.
February 25th, 2014 at 5:27 AM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 8:05 AM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 8:57 AM ^
Are we worried that some 16 year old kid will be butthurt if we rate him wrong?
just rate everyone 0 and then National Signing Day will be like christmas, albiet with more crying and swearing, and drinking.
February 25th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
Gosh, you're so cool and edgy.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
Wait, more crying, swearing and drinking than Christmas? I'm not sure I can drink that much.
February 25th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^
If a recruit has not been offered and Brandon says he has not been offered and probably won't, how does that compare to a kid who has been offered and being told he looks young? or he looks like he is eight years old, and fifteen other people chiming in on what a peach fuzz face he has. This is Brandons call and thats it. Its up to posters to take that and piss the recruit off by saying they fart in his general direction. Or they can say wow he looks like a mans man and I thought he deserved a shot.
EDIT- Oh yeah thanks Brandon for your continued effort in trying to make your job easier for everyone to understand, which makes it more fun for everyone.
