Time to Start Respecting ESPN's Recruiting Rankings
I have been sitting on a much lenghtier version of this post and someday I still hope to take the time to finish the full research and write an entire diary on the subject but...ESPN's recruiting rankings are solid. In fact, with respect to Michigan players, they've been much better than Rivals and Scout. Go player by player and compare.
I point this out because another recent thread mentioned ESPN's team rankings (all team rankings are a bit silly since they employ an arbtirary measure of quantity vs. quality and usually overvalue class size). This prompted some criticism of ESPN's rankings.
A lot of Michigan fans think ESPN's rankings should not be taken seriously because ESPN was much less enthusiastic than the other sites about a number of recent super recruits, including:
- Will Campbell (ESPN: #22 OT; Rivals: #5 DT; Scout: #6 DT)
- J.T. Turner (ESPN: #21 Athlete; Rivals #3 S; Scout: #3 CB)
- Cissoko (ESPN: #24 CB; Rivals: #4; Scout: #3)
I take no pleasure in declaring that ESPN was right about these guys, but....it might be time to swallow hard and consider that possibility.
Here are some of the super recruits ESPN thought more highly of than the other sites:
- Craig Roh (ESPN: #4DE; Rivals:#7; Scout: #8)
- Taylor Lewan (ESPN: #12 OT; Rivals: #16, Scout: #20)
- Mike Martin (ESPN: #8 DT; Rivals #16; Scout #12)
- Denard Robinson (ESPN: #7 Athlete (#101 overall); Rivals: #14 (#188); Scout: #16 CB (#159))
There are some examples where ESPN was not as good, but--at least with respect to Michigan's recent talent--they have been overwhelmingly better than the other sites.
ESPN, via Scouts Inc., does very thorough analysis of player strengths and weaknesses. Their notes are detailed. And they often peg a player's best position better than the the competition.
It is time to stop laughing off ESPN's rankings just because Campbell did not make their top 100. They do a great job. And, fortunately, they like a lot of our players. I am still praying they are proved right on Isaiah Bell ("great instincts and plays outstanding zone coverage").
UPDATE: The point of the post seems to have been lost. It was not that ESPN is always right, or that recruiting sites' evaluations are good/bad generally. I am addressing ESPN's comparative worth and whether it is true that, among the three main recruiting sites, ESPN trails in credibility. The answer to that question is no.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
Edit: Wow i'm dumb
October 20th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
I actually think Tom Luginbill does a good job for ESPN. I like his analysis and like listening to him during HS games on ESPNU. I think the best thing to do is to take all three sites rankings and average them. This might be the most accurate way to judge talent.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
you are cherry picking. I agree, for these guys, ESPN seems to have got it right. However, each recruiting site evaluates 1000's of kids a year, so your sample size is just not large enough to be meaningful at all.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^
These are all guys near the top, not down near 1000. Might just be a coincidence but he isn't really cherry-picking, just talking about our guys. May be just a small sample size but for us ESPN has been pretty accurate.
October 21st, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
I think he has a valid point!
October 20th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
Nice work. Keep at it -- I'd like to see how the three sites do.
Here's an example of where ESPN (and likely others) missed:
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/recruiting/player?id=27571&…
October 20th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
There are some examples where ESPN was not as good
Such as?
October 20th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
Dann O'Neill (ESPN: #4 OT; Rivals: #10; Scout: #14)
October 20th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
Have been spot on for a while, hope that holds true because they loved Smotz, Hardaway, and Morris
October 20th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
They were the only site high on Hardaway. I think they rate Brundidge higher than the other sites as well.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^
There seems to be a be slight discrepancy between the 3 sites on Tim Jernigan. Scout has him their #2 overall prospect, rivals at #53 overall, and ESPN at #32. Can someone enlighten me as to why Scout has him as such an elite talent and the others have him as a good prospect?
October 20th, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^
If I'm the 53rd best football player in the country, you better call me elite.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:21 PM ^
It's still early in the cycle for him. The rankings will settle down after the high school season and the high school all-star games. Only then would I start to legitimately question large descrpencies in the recruiting rankings.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
I've been saying this for a while now on here. Another great example...Pryor. ESPN was much more skeptical of his ability as a passer and didn't think he was the can't miss stud Rivals and Scout did. Pryor has been ok, but if he wasn't on the really good teams he was on, no one would consider him for the heisman.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
Can we really take much away from the JT Turner and Boubacar examples? I mean these are two guys who left the program after 1 year. Think we need a larger sample size. Also, the discrepancy with Roh is so miniscule it's basically splitting hairs. Not saying the point here isn't valid, but it's not supported with these examples.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^
As I said, I've gone through every Michigan player for 4 years of recruiting. ESPN had the best accuracy rate.
I'm not arguing that the above examples conclusively prove ESPN is always smarter. I cited Campbell, Turner, and Cissoko because, at the time, each was cited as proof that ESPN was clueless. I cited the second group because I consider those to be our four most talented players. And on those guys, ESPN was not miles apart from the other sites, but they had a 1/3 chance to be the most accurate and went 4 for 4.
(By the way I share the skepticism many have about UA game participants.)
October 20th, 2010 at 10:13 PM ^
IIRC CIssoko was rated highly and consistently by all three sites until the the UA game that ESPN promotes. ESPN tends to change their recruiting rankings after the game or raise some recruits higher because they chose the UA game. Cissoko got BURNED badly and thus suffered in ESPN's final rankings.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
I think this might be the first time I have seen the word respect in the same sentence with ESPN.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^
A lot of it is because ESPN only grades mostly on measurables and speed. Rivals and scout factor in technique a lot more. So when the guys ESPN rates high get on campus they are coached and then there raw athleticism takes over.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I remember specifically seeing a chat on ESPN where someone was making fun of ESPN for having Cissoko so low in their rankings and the explanation was something like this. "He does well in camps, and has great athletic measurables, but when we watch him on film and project his talent to D-1 football, we don't think it translates as well as other sites. Measureables aren't everything."
That's obviously from memory and not a direct quote, but it's the exact opposite of what you just said.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
I know it is not everytime. But I often hear ESPN analysts say things like, "He is very talented, but raw" or "He has great size and speed but needs to work on his technique." And then those players are fillng their top 100.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:49 PM ^
Well, look at Will Campbell. The guy came in raw as uncooked bacon but had the frame and potential agility of a rabid mastedon. ESPN was perhaps least enthralled by his measurables when it alone concluded he was unlikely to become an elite DT, presumably because they had seen him, you know, play DT.
October 21st, 2010 at 2:32 AM ^
And they also saw him play OT.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^
Dorsey is a prime example. The guy was a playmaker with elite athleticism but he was nowhere near the 12th best player in the nation last year.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
because of the way they over-promote kids that choose to attend their UA game. Kids that commit shoot up in the rankings without adequate justification. They have a financial interest in these recruits so there's a definite conflict of interest.
Note: that's not to say the others don't have perverse incentives driven by money rather than a neutral analysis of abilities (see uncommitted kids having higher rankings, etc.). None of the 3 are perfect but ESPN seems to be the most egregious offender.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^
FWIW, Taylor Lewan is the real deal. If he gets more disciplined he will be special. Did you see what he was doing to Clayborn?
October 20th, 2010 at 8:12 PM ^
Any man with a tatoo of a moustache on his finger is destined for glory.
It doesn't hurt that he could pass for Jake Long's brother either.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:21 PM ^
Another player where the rankings are all over between the 3 services. I don't have them with me now (iPhone) but that is an interesting one to watch.
<br>Can anyone post them?
October 20th, 2010 at 8:50 PM ^
Scout - 3 star #20 OLB, Rivals - 4 star and #33 overall #4 athlete, ESPN - 4 star, 80 rating and #25 athlete.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^
IMO, the recruiting sites give us some fun analysis to look at, but they all have their flaws. RR and his talent analysis are really the only thing that counts. If ESPN and the others all call a kid a 3 star, but RR feels like he fits the system, then RR will go out and get him without losing any sleep over star ratings.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^
Well, I am willing to bet that if RR didn't have to compete for recruits, our commit board would have a lot more stars next to names than it does right now. Obvious post is obvious.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:41 PM ^
I'm just saying the kid has to fit the system. Ryan Mallet was a 5 star (and continues to be a top QB), but he didn't fit the style QB RR wanted. They had a meeting and decided to part ways. I think if RR had told Mallet that he was willing to change the system around him, Ryan would have stuck around, IMHO.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
And who's to say that Rich Rod didn't tell Mallet that? At the time of the coaching change there were also rumors of Mallet being a total dick and no one on the team respecting him. I think he had one foot out the door and the hiring of RR gave him all he needed to make up his mind. Mallet most likely had his mind made up before talking to RR.
October 21st, 2010 at 2:50 AM ^
RR said in the beginning he wouldn't change his system to suit a particular player. He did the right thing and fully implemented his system from the start, despite the available talent.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
Hi, can I get the cherry-picked post with a smaller sample size please? thanks.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:00 PM ^
All of these ranking systems are flawed with certain players - ESPN has a strong preference both for kids that play in their all-star game, but also those kids from the Deep South. I remember watching a HS game recently where they said CA produces less ESPN 150 guys than Georgia, which blows my mind because CA can apparently produce enough kids to supply the bulk of the roster for most of the Pac-10 plus provide good talent for other elite teams across the country. Georgia may be improving, but you are seriously discounting talent in CA to say they are close. They also had a similar take on Texas - I think Lousiana and Mississippi had combined about as many top kids at Texas, which might be closer to reality but still unlikely.
Personally, I could care less about how the scouting services grade a player. I was around for the Kelly Baraka era, and we all know how true those rankings were. It happens - ESPN was a little lower on a couple of UM players than others, but I don't see some immense discrepancy between the services on most guys.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
...Demar.... :((((((
October 20th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^
Patrick Omameh
OT #113
on the other hand
Obi Ezeh
RB #130
(and we're surprised he's not quite panning out as an LB?)
Seriously though recruting rankings just don't mean all that much. You can get a rough ballpark idea of how good a kid might be from the rankings but that's about it.
I recall reading that Bo said simply that 50% of the time kids will turn out about as good as you expect, 25% they'll surprise to the upside, 25% of the time they'll surprise to the down. You can probably assume that a 5 star kid is more athletic than a 2 star, but there are a world of variables that you just can't measure that will determine how they pan out. Coaches can just try to get the best mix of athletics and attitude in their recruits and hope for the best, IMO.
October 21st, 2010 at 8:15 AM ^
...a blind squirrel occassionally finds a nut....a broken clock is right twice a day...a handful of buckeye fans are actually rational.
October 21st, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
There are probably thousands of kids that these services rank. Each service is probably going to hit the mark better on some kids than the other services.
Questions:
Cissoko: I thought the issues with him were off the field, not on the field. Do recruiting rankings take into account issues that could arise or have already occurred off the field?
Do you really think there's a big difference between espn's #4 ranked DE and rivals #7 DE? (Looking at Craig Roh) IMO, there's not much difference between where espn and the other services ranked Lewan and Martin either.
Using Roh as an example again: to really get a feel for whether espn, rivals or scout was more accurate shouldn't you look to see who rivals and scout ranked a head of Roh and see how well those players are doing? If all of those players are performing at a higher level than Roh, then wouldn't you have to conclude that so far rivals and scout were better?
October 21st, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
You make a good point about the fact that Roh may truly be the #7 DE*, as Rivals said. Especially when we have 2-3 more years of results in.
On Roh, ESPN had him #47 overall. Rivals had him #156. One point of clarification: the #7 DE ranking from Rivals looks higher than it is because Rivals splits DEs into Strongside and Weakside. Roh was the #7 weakside DE, so about #14 overall for the position.