Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Recruiting Potential
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JacketOff" data-source="post: 756648" data-attributes="member: 4572"><p>Which is why I believe Rival’s ratings are much better than 247. Like I said, there’s generally some pretty discernible differences in a player’s recruiting status as a 5.7 rated player than a 5.4. Does that mean a 5.4 can’t be as good as that 5.7? Not necessarily, but it means that the 5.7 is probably a better fit at more schools and will probably be in better position to get early playing time than the 5.4.</p><p></p><p>I think it’s kind of ridiculous to rank prospects numerically (as in top 50, 100, 250, etc.) The main reason is because they’re ranking players in different positions, who play in different states, against different competition. Just as an example, the 17th, 18th, and 19th rated players on Rivals are a QB from Arizona, a S from Florida, and an OT from Indiana respectively. There’s really no way you can logically compare those players enough to rank one ahead of the others.</p><p></p><p>But, as a whole, the recruiting services do a very good job of giving a really good idea about teams stand in recruiting, but they don’t (nor can they) give the full picture. That’s because teams lose points for not signing a “full” class of at least 20 players, and there’s no way to account for teams filling/failing to fill holes in their depth chart. Just as an example, Tech desperately needs to build depth at LB and DT. Tech has the #25 class on rivals for 2020, but didn’t sign a single DT, and only 2 LBs. So while some of the 5 DEs we signed will almost definitely have to change positions to LB or DT at some point in the future, they’re rated as DE’s and their impending positional changes don’t affect their rating.</p><p></p><p>I think as far as team rankings go, the services do a really good job. Player ratings are hit or miss sometimes, but are generally pretty accurate. I think what most people don’t realize is that players are rated based on what the evaluators view as their <em>floor, </em>not their <em>ceiling. </em>Every player has virtually the same ceiling, that would be an NFL Hall of Famer. Every player doesn’t have the same floor. You’d be hard pressed to find a 5 star player who isn’t a starter, or at the very least one of the biggest platoon guys. Not all of them turn into superstars, but almost none of them are complete busts. Just about every 4 star will at least see decent playing time throughout their careers. Most 3 stars are average players, and there aren’t many players rated below 3 stars who get more than occasional playing time.</p><p></p><p>But going back to the metrics that are used to rank teams. I still think average stars is a very poor barometer because of how much 1 player can skew that average. Especially since players past the cutoff of 20 are still averaged in. If Tech had simply not signed Ryan Spiers or Emmanuel Johnson last year, the average star total would’ve went from 3.08 to 3.18. I don’t think signing more players should hurt your recruiting rankings.</p><p>You can also look at a team like TCU who signed a 5-star player, but only signed 6 4-stars and 10 3-stars, and they have a better average star score than Washington who signed no 5-stars but 10 4-stars and 9 3-stars. Is that one 5-star player that TCU signed worth more than the 4 extra 4-stars that Washington signed?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JacketOff, post: 756648, member: 4572"] Which is why I believe Rival’s ratings are much better than 247. Like I said, there’s generally some pretty discernible differences in a player’s recruiting status as a 5.7 rated player than a 5.4. Does that mean a 5.4 can’t be as good as that 5.7? Not necessarily, but it means that the 5.7 is probably a better fit at more schools and will probably be in better position to get early playing time than the 5.4. I think it’s kind of ridiculous to rank prospects numerically (as in top 50, 100, 250, etc.) The main reason is because they’re ranking players in different positions, who play in different states, against different competition. Just as an example, the 17th, 18th, and 19th rated players on Rivals are a QB from Arizona, a S from Florida, and an OT from Indiana respectively. There’s really no way you can logically compare those players enough to rank one ahead of the others. But, as a whole, the recruiting services do a very good job of giving a really good idea about teams stand in recruiting, but they don’t (nor can they) give the full picture. That’s because teams lose points for not signing a “full” class of at least 20 players, and there’s no way to account for teams filling/failing to fill holes in their depth chart. Just as an example, Tech desperately needs to build depth at LB and DT. Tech has the #25 class on rivals for 2020, but didn’t sign a single DT, and only 2 LBs. So while some of the 5 DEs we signed will almost definitely have to change positions to LB or DT at some point in the future, they’re rated as DE’s and their impending positional changes don’t affect their rating. I think as far as team rankings go, the services do a really good job. Player ratings are hit or miss sometimes, but are generally pretty accurate. I think what most people don’t realize is that players are rated based on what the evaluators view as their [I]floor, [/I]not their [I]ceiling. [/I]Every player has virtually the same ceiling, that would be an NFL Hall of Famer. Every player doesn’t have the same floor. You’d be hard pressed to find a 5 star player who isn’t a starter, or at the very least one of the biggest platoon guys. Not all of them turn into superstars, but almost none of them are complete busts. Just about every 4 star will at least see decent playing time throughout their careers. Most 3 stars are average players, and there aren’t many players rated below 3 stars who get more than occasional playing time. But going back to the metrics that are used to rank teams. I still think average stars is a very poor barometer because of how much 1 player can skew that average. Especially since players past the cutoff of 20 are still averaged in. If Tech had simply not signed Ryan Spiers or Emmanuel Johnson last year, the average star total would’ve went from 3.08 to 3.18. I don’t think signing more players should hurt your recruiting rankings. You can also look at a team like TCU who signed a 5-star player, but only signed 6 4-stars and 10 3-stars, and they have a better average star score than Washington who signed no 5-stars but 10 4-stars and 9 3-stars. Is that one 5-star player that TCU signed worth more than the 4 extra 4-stars that Washington signed? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Recruiting Potential
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top