Scout and 247 Sports Updated 2013 rankings
After having scouts from both sites attend The Opening last weekend, 247 sports and Scout both updated their 2013 recruiting rankings.
Significant Michigan related movement on 247 since their last update:
Shane Morris up 2 spots to #19 (now a five star)
LaQuon Treadwell up 14 spots to #58
Kyle Bosch down 23 spots to #75
Chris Fox down 27 spots to #100
David Dawson up 19 spots to #138 (He has moved up a total of 58 spots in two weeks)
You can find the complete top 247 HERE
Significant Michigan related movement on Scout since their last update:
LaQuon Treadwell up from around #75 to #41 (4 spots from being a five star)
Derrick Green up from #126 to #43
Leon McQuay III up from #94 to #76
Jake Butt up from #152 to #137
Taco Charlton up to #267 after not being in the top 300. This also means Taco moved up from a three to a four star.
You can find the complete Scout 300 HERE
for the summary.
I have also updated my rankings of the ranking services. Espn is still last.
ESPN updated theirs yesterday.
Here are all the movers and shakers over on ESPN:
http://www.touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2012/07/espn-300-for-2013-update…
I get the feeling that alot of the re-rankings are to hedge against other recruiting services having a guy really high or low.
For instance, from all reports, I don't think Derrick Green stood out at the Opening. Not that he was bad, but that he wasn't creating much buzz. But Rivals has him as the #1 RB now. So Scout moves him up around 80 spots. Same issue with Taco where all the other services had him as a 4* except Scout.
On the Taco front, people have been hitting Farrell about his assessment and how Rivals had him dropping whereas Scout (and others) had him on the rise. Well, Scout originally had him as the #29 player in Ohio and a 3* whereas Rivals had him ranked as a top 250 player. So you have to consider where he was originally ranked before judging how to evaluate his stock rising/falling.
And of course, none of the recruiting services for a particular school want to tell their fan base that a commitment performed poorly at a camp. You're rarely going to hear it straight up. So it's hard to get an objective evaluation about how these kids perform.
Dude dropped at least a half dozen easy passes that I saw. But I wound never say that to his face because he would tear me in two.
I believe it was posted that he is not as fast as was Isaac so you can throw out the 4.3 forty. He also didn't run a forty at the opening so we don't have a current. Kids like this however always confuse me a bit. He is very mature physically and anywhere from 220 - 230 at about 5' 10" per reports. How does a kid like this mature in college? I don't see anyone getting leaner with age. Any back in the 7v7's is kinda just "there". Not much to do. Hands seemed average, didn't look to catch the ball soft. If I had to choose between him and Isaac for a number one, I'd take Isaac because of the frame and what seems like a higher physical ceiling.
In fairness, there's a difference between a high school 220 pounds and a college 220 pounds. I'm not calling him fat, I'm just saying that even bigger, more physically advanced guys can make a pretty significant leap in a college weight room (See also: Martin, Mike).
Just to piggy back on what you're saying.
I learned this through the Brionte Dunn recruitment because there were questions about his weight.
This is what this staff is looking for, from a runningback out of highschool
5ft7 -5ft9 180-190lbs
5ft10-6ft 190-210
6ft-6ft2 210-215
They then want to add "right" weight to them.
If you get a running back coming in at 5ft10 225lbs as a 17 year old, he is going to balloon up by the time he gets to campus and more than likely change positions.
You never want a runningback to cut weight as an underclassman. That is not a good sign.
Of course, there are exceptions.
I don't see why a site having its recruiting rankings mirror another site's would make any sense...unless Scout realizes that they suck at ranking recruits.
I do think, however, that a site might see someone highly ranked elsewhere and say, "Maybe we should take another look at this kid."
This is possible, but it also becomes a fine line. So if a recruiting service says "we need to re-evaulate a player" there is already a bias towards improving his stock in my mind. So then this becomes semantics (is re-ranking based on other site or "re-evaluation").
And again, its merely a hedge. Rivals still has Green much higher. But Scout is at least making Green a top player now.
I actually think that ESPN uses the most independence in its rankings. For better or worse.
It works both ways, I think. Sites that have major outliers in either direction likely have a tendency to question why. I am way too lazy to do the research, but I am sure final rankings have a much lower variance than initial rankings. This is both due to exposure and maybe a slight tendency to "re-evaluate" as you say.
These rankings come out earlier and earlier...so less eyes are on the recruiting crop as a whole. It's certainly understandable for services to compare their rankings and find the outliers to re-evaluate. Maybe someone has scouts/researchers that can see a kid in high school a little more than the next service. So they rank him higher. The other service just sees film. Then that kid hits the camp circuit and proves what he did in high school was no fluke and the second service takes another look and bumps him up.
I agree that it might mean improving someone's stock...but for every guy who moves up, someone has to move down. If Derrick Green suddenly becomes the #1 running back, that means the former #1 running back then drops to #2 or #3 or #4.
And I'm not trying to defend Scout here, really. I've let it be known that I prefer Rivals to the other sites. But I feel like there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there (hedging bets, playing up to teams with large fan bases, moving up kids who are undecided), and...I dunno...sometimes I just choose to believe that people/sites are making an honest effort.
When it comes down to it, the 2012 rankings don't mean anything right now. Sites can hedge their bets all they want, but the thing that matters (to me) is whether these sites are correct in 3-5 years when the 2012 kids finish their college careers and move on to the NFL. It's a feather in Rivals' cap that we can sit here and say "Rivals has been the most accurate over the last several years." I would guess that leads to more respect, more site hits, and more subscribers on their part. But if Scout, 247 Sports, ESPN, etc. aren't right when they put out their final rankings in January (or whenever), their business is presumably going to suffer because of it.
I don't think his 40 was disappointing.