HS students create fake recruit, 247 and Rivals rank him as a 3-star (Via Reddit)

Submitted by LLG on February 14th, 2019 at 9:34 AM

Via Reddit (CFB*) comes this:

"Blake Carrienger, 6'6, 315 lb offensive tackle out of Grace Christian Academy is created out of thin air by some HS students. He tweets out that he has an offer from Alabama, and both 247 and Rivals put him in their database and rank him as a 3-star. Basically, both sites were catfished.


Rivals ranked him as a 5.5 3-star based on the Bama offer alone. No video available, no film, nothing to evaluate on, just numbers and an alleged offer.

Now consider that some recruits are ranked lower than that...."

*Thanks crazy Risk game that pulled me into the CFB subreddit



February 14th, 2019 at 10:37 AM ^

I have often wondered why someone hasn't blown the top off of the illegal NCAA benefits some schools are throwing around by taking this step.  Following a recruit or "fake recruit" to the point where they get actual evidence of bribes and benefits and publishing it.  

Granted, it wouldn't be that easy and I doubt that the fans of the school, ESPN, or even the NCAA would care much (as we've seen with the shoe scandal).  But one could dream...

The Maize Halo

February 14th, 2019 at 9:38 AM ^

Another reminder that a 4th and 5th star is often very dependent on just getting an offer from a big school -- e.g., Michigan. Doesn't always mean the player is really that much better than the 3 or 4 star at a less prestigious school.


February 14th, 2019 at 11:56 AM ^

But correlation does not equal causation. True, star rankings in the aggregate are correlated with success in the aggregate, but that doesn't mean the ranking services themselves are uniquely predictive. 

As this example shows, the ranking sites mostly reflect the consensus opinion of a particular recruit. You can make up a new ranking system ranks players based on the number and quality of offers and adds an arbitrary number of points for invitations to elite camps and you'd probably have a model that works just about as well in terms of predicting future success.  


February 14th, 2019 at 12:24 PM ^

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile for anyone interested in fact based actual data see below:

Four- and five-star recruits were 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than their lesser-ranked counterparts.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be a top pick, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

  • A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
  • A four-star had a one-in-five chance (77 of 395).
  • A three-star had a one-in-18 chance (92 of 1,644).
  • A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance (71 of 2,434).



February 14th, 2019 at 12:54 PM ^

It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy type of thing though isn't it?  If Alabama wants a guy he is at minimum a 3-star recruit.   If Alabama, Georgia, Michigan and OSU want a kid he is at a minimum a 4-star recruit.  Kids that go to camps get more offers and exposure and are rated higher.  (Shane Morris went to a ton of camps and was a 5-star for a period of time.  )    

If we're taking 2-stars who've been to all of the camps and have no offers, shame on us.   If we're taking unrated guys like Ronnie Bell who never went to a football camp it is a different story.  

Stars also favor the guys who mature early.    A lot of guys don't get their full size until their senior year.  John Beilein has made out like a bandit getting guys who are young for their class and/or late bloomers.  


February 14th, 2019 at 3:04 PM ^

This is all true.  For what it's worth, I don't have anything against recruiting rankings.  I think they'e a valuable tool.  At the end of the day, all other things being equal, I'll take a guy that's rated as a 5-star over a guy that's rated as a 3-star.  

But, it should be pointed out that being picked in the first round is not proof of having been a better player in college than a guy picked in the third or 4th round.  

Rashan Gary is going to go in the first round because of his measurables, but who had a better career, Gary or Winovich?  The fact that way more 4 and 5-star recruits are drafted in the first round doesn't prove that each one of those guys was a better player in college than the guys that were picked later than them.  It reflects the fact that NFL scouts are judging future potential based on a lot of the same things that recruiting services are using to judge future potential - measurables and physical attributes.  So of course a lot of 5-star players are going to be drafted in the first round, but as a college football fan, I care about how well a guy plays in college, not where he's drafted.  Its not like the first round of the NFL draft is meant to be a ranking of the 32 best college football players.  Instead, the draft reflects guys' future potential based largely on their physical attributes - the same physical attributes that they've had since high school.  

If there were some way to see how recruiting stars correlate to college production, all-conference awards, and things like that, that study would be much more meaningful. 

But it would be a tough study to pull off for a ton of reasons, which is why people just use the NFL draft.


February 14th, 2019 at 8:25 PM ^

Is it possible that it got to his head or something? Don Brown said something similar like ''the best I've ever seen in terms of speed and athleticism''. He wasn't even the best DE on his own team. Yeah I know Chase was able to get loose because of Gary sometimes, but he played just fine when Gary was hurt too. 


February 14th, 2019 at 8:40 PM ^

No it's not possible. Comparing Rashan and Chase is an exercise in futility because Rashan was an anchor end and Chase was a weakside end. In Brown's defense they have different responsibilities, with Gary's foremost being to set the edge in the run game not rush the passer. That he was constantly being double and triple teamed on top of playing with an injury and on top of not having primary pass rush responsibilities explains why his numbers were what they were. Of course the mgomorons don't understand any of this and that's why they say the things that they do. Luckily for Rashan the UM coaches recognize his value and so do NFL executives. He's a 6'5 280 freak who can play anchor, WDE, and DT and stop the run and rush the passer equally well. But by all means people, keep slandering him and exposing how little you actually know about football.


February 14th, 2019 at 11:48 PM ^

You're really reaching. Chris Wormley played anchor and didn't disappear like Gary did. He's not the only DE that gets double teamed, that's just a narrative people like to repeat because he's not as good as they think he is. He frequently lost contain allowing QBs to scramble and not even when he was double teamed. His one on one ability is not elite. That's why he only got voted all big ten while Wormley picked up second team All American. He's being drafted on potential only. 


February 15th, 2019 at 9:00 PM ^

Maizeman is the last one clinging to the "Gary is always triple teamed" line because those stars are all that matters. I watched Gary get dominated by one good blocker, I watched Gary get dominated by 2 good blockers, and on occasion 3 good blockers and the common factor is that Gary is mediocre at beating blocks.

I highly doubt Coach Brown told Gary to let the OSU RT consistently stand him up one on one because he was the anchor ensuring the elusive Dwayne Haskins didn't run all over us.

Rashan will be drafted high on measurables and never develop in the NFL because he has shown little interest in learning technique the last 3. And you run out of talent a lot quicker in the NFL.

A State Fan

February 14th, 2019 at 9:59 AM ^

See? Stars are for losers.

I think this is really interesting, as someone who buys the "Michigan players get bigger bumps when they commit than MSU players do" theory.

But still the thing I do when looking at recruits is to look at all their offers. For MSU, if a player has Iowa, Wisconsin, Kentucky/low SEC offers I'm pretty okay with the pickup, regardless of their rank. If they have OSU/Michigan/ND offers... I wait until they sign that LOI, then I get excited.

For Michigan, remember how Khaleke Hudson was a 3 star despite the offers? Recruiting sites aren't the end all be all on how successful a player will be.


February 14th, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^

What "video"?  Hudl highlight films, curated by the player and his coaches to sell him to schools?  Frankly, anyone who watches a highlight video, then says "I watched his film" and thinks they have an objective, fully informed opinion.... is just as much of a sheep as the so-called star gazers.

The next time someone puts out real "film" on a recruit that shows off his actual strengths and weaknesses will be the first.


February 14th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^

Stars matter in total - not if you choose one individual recruit and say he stinks based on being a 3-star. If you compare all 3, 4, and 5-stars over an entire recruiting year (all schools) then they are a very good indicator; trying to lower that to a single schools class or single recruit will not work and has the ability to be wildly incorrect on individual players and classes as a whole. Michigan has already proven this with kids like Metellus, Paye, Uche, and several others. 

Star gazers are terrible to deal with because they try to lower the sample size to 1-5 kids and talk about how terrible a class is because of that; in reality, the coaches at UM have a much better chance of being right than some scouts who cant get jobs at any major universities. Overall, the scouts are right in their rankings for the majority of kids, but not on such a small sample size. 

Reggie Dunlop

February 14th, 2019 at 11:45 AM ^

Correct. In my estimation, that's because overall they tie 4 and 5 star rankings to recruits that are pursued and landed by big name schools. Schools that are likely to produce NFL talent.

If you assign all the best rankings to the players recruited by the top NFL-producting schools, then in hindsight you have created data where NFL players are by and large the top-ranked recruits.

Most will see right through the game being played there.

Maizen will buy a subscription.


February 14th, 2019 at 12:13 PM ^

Stars matter in total - not if you choose one individual recruit.  In reality, the coaches at UM have a much better chance of being right than some scouts who cant get jobs at any major universities.

This is patently false. Here's the 2017 NFL draft numbers by recruit ranking. If you're a three star you have a 95% chance of not getting drafted. To say it doesn't matter on a per recruit basis is a flat out lie and it's irresponsible to be putting that out there as a fact when it's nothing more than a completely false and uninformed opinion. BTW Seth had a piece a few months ago that detailed how many 3 stars at Michigan were NFL draft picks and it was 6%, which falls right in line with the national average. Our coaches don't scout or develop players better or worse than anyone else. We recruit good enough to beat most teams on our schedule and lose to the teams we don't (OSU). I'm amazed people are still in denial about all of this but that's what makes fan boards fun, the delusion always astounds me.

2013 Class - 247Sports Composite

Five-star: 35 (65.7%)
Four-star: 330 (23%)
Three-star: 1,790 (5%)
Two-star: 1,720 (1.4%)

Those percentages are pretty close comparing the two years of draft picks. Five-stars fare a little better in 2017, three-stars a little worse. But all and all, the numbers line up well.

It’s not a scientific set of data (you'd need years of it to make an absolute conclusion), but here’s what the percentage of players drafted per recruiting rankings look like if you combine the two years of draft data: Five-star (61.6%), Four-star (23.3%), Three-star (5.95%) and two-star (1.25%).

Five-stars, in general, are eventually drafted 50-plus percent of the time. Three-star players, meanwhile, make it at a rate of around five percent.