JoeBlue18

April 25th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

Nobody ever said that they do a poor job. The rating system is just flawed and some players get less exposure leading to a non rating/low rating

pdxwolve

April 25th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^

My favorite Harry Truman quote is: "Shit, I really should have left when they told me to."

That was the Harry Truman who lived on Spirit Lake at the base of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. He and his lodge are about 800 feet underwater.

Wolverman

April 25th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^

 From the article you posted there where nearly the same ammount of 0-3 star recruits as there where 4-5 stars. I'd like to see how many 4-5 star recruits failed to play and compare it to the number that go in the first round. There was a post about recruiting classes revisted, going back 4 years and rescoring them based on performance of the class. The class ranking where completely different.

NoMoPincherBug

April 25th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^

Recruiting rankings have some relevance to the first round....but beyond that it is more of a crapshoot.

To put this in an analogy... in the early 2000s,  Andy Reid....coach of the Eagles commissioned one of his assistants to study the NFL draft back to 1990.  He wanted to know how many 1st rounders translated in to starters on the field in the NFL.  The assistant studied every NFL team....every draft pick in every round and also undrafted free agents who made a roster.   The conclusion was:

1st rounders made more starting NFL players than any other round.

Undrafted Free Agents had the 2nd most starters in the NFL than any other round...

This is analogous to recruiting:  5 stars hit very highly.... the rest are crapshoots and many low ranked players hit just as highly as 4 stars.  Ive seen numbers to confirm this but I dont have the studies at hand to directly quote. 

justingoblue

April 25th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^

Unlike the NFL, the recruiting services can also restrict the number of top rated recruits. In other words, they have less five stars than four stars, and it certainly improves your margin of error when you can identify only the absolute physical freaks as fives, and leave the more questionable players in the bigger categories (4,3,2).

I honestly think if you took every player that Scout/Rivals rates and break the ratings into even fifths, the correlation would be much weaker. Not to say that the current system doesn't predict success well when doing it their way.