Maybe it's just me, but general whining about X recruits' ratings on X sites seems to be on the rise. 98% of this whining is coming from posters with no experience evaluating football talent. The overwhelming number of complaints fall in one of following categories:
- outlier service X is CRAZY to have commit x ranked so low (they are an outlier, after all)
- the only service that gets commit x is outlier service X which has him ranked highly (my advanced highlight film scouting skills put this on good authority).
- commit X has offers from schools X and Y, it is CRAZY that they haven't been given X stars.
If you find yourself making these arguments stop. It's embarrassing.
Recruiting services or people like Magnus who are experienced evaluating talent are evaluating talent independently and will naturally come to different conclusions sometimes. If they all copied each other or coaches' evaluations they'd have no reason to exist.* So conclusion 1: learn to accept differences in evaluations.
Between now and signing day talent evaluators will gain the benefit of summer camps, combines and senior year film. Players will emerge, players will fail to develop and scouts both coaches and not will have more material and time to evaluate. On these bases recruits will move up and down. So conclusion 2: there are 11 months until sigining so don't get worked up about where a recruit stands on a site today.
This may all seem obvious, but it hasn't been observed and it's a point on which I'd like to see this forum distinguish itself from the general internet rabble.
*When there's a discrepancy between a site's ranking and an offer sheet, I'll side lean towards the coaches, but that doesn't mean a site's evaluation is wrong or of no vaue.