Scout 2010 Recruiting Rankings
Sorry if already posted.
http://collegefootball.scout.com/
Michigan is #6, Texas is insane, and Penn State is #5. I'm a little surprised that 0-12 Washington is ahead of USC though.
USC has told thier commits to remain silent until the last minute to avoid negative recruiting tactics.
and something we should follow. These days many strong recruits are not on the radar until either they get an offer from a school like us or once they declare. Silent commits would be good for the program but not so good for us fans
..that silent commits would be good for us fans. Then de-commitments wouldn't drive the blogosphere nuts and I would have never cared about Kevin Newsome or Anthony Fera more than I would Christine Michael or Rueben Randle.
And, it wouldn't hurt adults to spend less time worrying about the college choice of 17 year old kids that are not your own.
Or you could choose to follow recruiting without getting emotionally attached to the commitments of these players. That seems like the most logical choice. If you don't want to be driven nuts by it, then don't allow it to happen.
that silent commits are exactly what some fans need.
That system is so silly. PSU has 5 commits to our 10. Their 5 are pretty good, but if you put our 5 best against their 5, it's a draw. We add 5 more, some rated low, and our class is worse? I don't buy it. Another reason I rarely read scout.
Going by Scout's rankings, our top 5 don't really match up with theirs:
PSU: #2 MLB, #3 QB, #9 OG, #14 RB, #21 WR (1 5-star, 3 4-stars, 1 3-star)
Vs.
Michigan: #7 QB, #15 S, #19 WR, #26 WR, #41 RB (4 4-stars, 1 3-star)
I agree that if that was the whole class for us, they would be ahead of us, but still marginally. Then we add 5 additional players, one of which is Jeremy Jackson, and we are still below them? Objectively speaking that seems a little off, unless you give zero value to a dj williamson or tony drake.
Theoretically, DJ or Tony could be a "negative" score, because they are low rated guys that take up a scholarship spot, whereas Penn State's class is upwardly mobile, with more room to add 4- and 5-star guys.
Is that only because it's early in the recruiting season? I would assume they use the same system that they use at the end, and adding lower rated guys to a class should never count as a negative. Sure, they take up a spot, but they also have the ability to outshine others in their class. An empty spot doesn't have that ability.
Obviously, each team has different needs, but if I had to choose between a class that had 15 4 stars, or a class that had 15 4 stars and 5 3 stars, I would take the latter any day of the week,
I think, the biggest thing with those guys right now is that they're not adding any "value" to the recruiting class because they are "NR". I don't think they are taking away, just not adding. Once Scout ranks all of the prospects, we'll see a true indicator of class strength.
Well, even if you take away the guys that Scout has as 1 stars, we still have a better class than PSU, IMO. I see your point about the 1 star guys, but I guess any guy who is worthy of a scout profile should add some value to a class. I also think guys like Tony Drake and DJ Williamson will be rated higher when it's all said and done.
I find it hard to believe the staff could be so wrong about players they offer a scholly; for Scout to evaluate them as 'one star' guys is basically laughing at them.
"You guys are dead wrong, hehe"
I shall give Scout the benefit of the doubt and believe they haven't evaluated one star personnel critically at this point in the season.
It is May....
I think all this recruiting buzz is clouding people's thinking...
It is May 14, 2009. These players will not sign for another 9 months and haven't even begun summer workouts for their senior season. You can't expect all the scouting services' rankings to be done by now. This has always been the case, but now that more people are paying attention to it and we just finished a recruiting cycle where all the players we cared about had a finalized ranking, we want rankings NOW DAMMIT NOW.
This isn't basketball. They don't start ranking players in seventh grade. And it's harder to evaluate football players, because there are 22 football players on the field and only 10 on a basketball court. There are more kids to evaluate in the process.
...Mike Hart, Pat White, Colt McCoy, Patrick Omameh?
Let's also not forget that different players play different roles in different systems. Or that high school players often don't play the same position in college. Those are a couple more reasons why the star rankings can be highly confusing and misleading as to a player's fit in a college team.
One name that you listed does not belong with the others.
At least not yet.