Time to Start Respecting ESPN's Recruiting Rankings

Edit: Wow i'm dumb

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.

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.  

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&a...

There are some examples where ESPN was not as good

Such as?

Have been spot on for a while, hope that holds true because they loved Smotz, Hardaway, and Morris

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Can anyone post them?

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.

Hi, can I get the cherry-picked post with a smaller sample size please? thanks.

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. 

...Demar.... :((((((

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.

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?