Oh joy, it’s the dreaded recruiting rankings debate thread risen from the dead. Just what this board needs!
While recruiting scores do matter, it gives a starting point of an individual. However; it does not measure that man's heart, desire to get better, determination or willingness to be a good team member. I think there are certain intangibles that are not thought of. I rather have a high 3 star that wants to be at GT and play as a team, versus some 5 star looking for a payday in the NFL and cares only for himself.Player ranking and Percentage that make it to the NFL by 24/7 Sports composite rating.
Note that a higher percentage of unrated players make it that those in that group than players rated below 85%
Stars are just projections of 17-18 year old kids in the NFL 3-5 years later. A lot can change in that time. Recruit rankings are going to have a hard time knowing what 5 years in the weight room and hard work can do for a lower ranked player. Freak athletes with NFL measurables in highschool *should* project to be NFL players. It's the ones who still have room to grow, or are less sought after/don't attend camps that won't get the stars.I’m trying to decide if the conclusions drawn from this data is anything different from what we already knew or suspected? Even me, a known star system skeptic, realizes that your odds of making the NFL are greater the higher ranked you are as a recruit. But then again, I’ve always thought there’s more than one way to skin a cat and that there’s enough guys that fall through the cracks, if you’re adept at finding them, to fill out a pretty decent college roster.
Of course it’s much more likely to be good if your team is loaded full five and four star players. I’m sure CPJ would agree with that as well.
On a serious note, the numbers tell me you can make your hay in the lower range if you have top notch talent evaluators and enough of them to scour the country (iow, watch film) looking for the guys who fell through the cracks. Looking at raw numbers, there’s more guys that fall through the cracks than there are guys who are consensus No-brainers.
Fair article actually.Also an interesting article — though somewhat depressing for the UGA-haters among us — in the AJC today by Michael Cunningham in which he mentions this topic of recruiting rankings. At the risk of repeating a posting on another thread, here's the link for those who haven't yet read it.
Projecting where a 17-18 year old athlete will be in 3-5 years at a 20-50% rate seems pretty solid to me. A lot can change in those years like injuries/passion. Obviously anything after top targets becomes a bit of a crap shoot.Wait, those numbers are an argument for the validity of rankings?
What would an argument against be?
Projecting where a 17-18 year old athlete will be in 3-5 years at a 20-50% rate seems pretty solid to me. A lot can change in those years like injuries/passion. Obviously anything after top targets becomes a bit of a crap shoot.
I still attest that you can have non-NFL talent produce at a top collegiate level. Alabama has won national championships with QBs who weren't NFL caliber because they fit the scheme. My thought is you need to maximize your talent where it is most important and fill the gaps with people who are great fits elsewhere .
Purdue is beginning to heavily invest in football. Their coach is getting paid 6mil a year and they are coming off a good (for Purdue) season. We should be able to do the same. It does help they signed 25 kids. Their average rating per player is lower than most of the teams below them until about rank 33. They still had a great year. I believe CGC will get us there.Side note. What the heck is Purdue doing in the top 25 of recruiting rankings?