Recruiting rankings: then vs. now

[GSOJacket]

Interesting look at 2016 class re-ranked top 10 vs. original 2016 ranking. Shows that some were on the money or close, but others surprised:
https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/02/28/signing-day-2016-recruiting-rankings-alabama-oklahoma

 

[bobongo]

There are always going to be anomalies, but it mostly plays out as the recruiting rankings predict. All in the top 10 recruited in the top 20, except for overachiever Washington with a recruiting ranking of 29. No big surprises here. We scoff at the star rankings, but although they can deviate wildly as pertains to a specific recruit they're pretty accurate on the whole.

 

[RonJohn]

There are always going to be anomalies, but it mostly plays out as the recruiting rankings predict. All in the top 10 recruited in the top 20, except for overachiever Washington with a recruiting ranking of 29. No big surprises here. We scoff at the star rankings, but although they can deviate wildly as pertains to a specific recruit they're pretty accurate on the whole.

I would argue that this isn't a validation of the rankings. 50% of the top 10 in this "re-evaluation" were in the top 10 originally. 50% isn't very accurate.

I would say that teams with a class ranked in the top 5 most likely have better athletes than teams ranked in the 40s. My big concern with recruiting rankings is the gamification of the rankings. There is not a scientific method of ranking the players. The rankings come from subjective rankings from people around the country. The players are compared from observations against very different levels of competition. It is easy to point out examples of top ranked players who didn't pan out or no star players who turned out to be ballers. If people use the rankings to look at general situations and patterns, that is one thing. However, I think too many people take them too seriously and believe that if their team finished one team ranking spot above another team it is a great actual accomplishment.

 

[bobongo]

I would argue that this isn't a validation of the rankings. 50% of the top 10 in this "re-evaluation" were in the top 10 originally. 50% isn't very accurate.

I would say that teams with a class ranked in the top 5 most likely have better athletes than teams ranked in the 40s. My big concern with recruiting rankings is the gamification of the rankings. There is not a scientific method of ranking the players. The rankings come from subjective rankings from people around the country. The players are compared from observations against very different levels of competition. It is easy to point out examples of top ranked players who didn't pan out or no star players who turned out to be ballers. If people use the rankings to look at general situations and patterns, that is one thing. However, I think too many people take them too seriously and believe that if their team finished one team ranking spot above another team it is a great actual accomplishment.

Considering all the variables that enter into actual on-the-field achievement, I think it's a pretty high overall correlation.
But it's a ball park estimate. There's not much predictive value in differentiating between, say, # 30 and #40. And it can be wildly inaccurate as applied to any individual recruit.

It's certainly not an exact science - it's not a science at all. I don't think there's any way to make it scientific.
Even if you could accurately and reliably quantify every player's measurables and strength, you'd never be able to measure his heart.
And there's the vast difference in levels of competition, as well.

It's a guesstimate, but the chances of recruiting in the 50's and ending up in the Top Ten are very small.

 

[RonJohn]

Considering all the variables that enter into actual on-the-field achievement, I think it's a pretty high overall correlation.
But it's a ball park estimate. There's not much predictive value in differentiating between, say, # 30 and #40. And it can be wildly inaccurate as applied to any individual recruit.

It's certainly not an exact science - it's not a science at all. I don't think there's any way to make it scientific.
Even if you could accurately and reliably quantify every player's measurables and strength, you'd never be able to measure his heart.
And there's the vast difference in levels of competition, as well.

It's a guesstimate, but the chances of recruiting in the 50's and ending up in the Top Ten are very small.

I would agree with that. My objection is mainly to people(mostly SEC guys and a few on here) who talk and trash talk about individual players and small differences in team ratings. I know a mutt fan who was bragging about signing the number one ranked weak-side linebacker in the country. My thought was basically: how can they project college position and rank something as specific as weak-side linebacker? This person was extremely serious and excited. I have seen SEC fans of different teams argue about Scout vs Rivals because their teams rankings were reversed on the two services.(Don't remember exactly, but something like 5&6 on one vs 6&5 on the other)

 

[Animal02]

I would agree with that. My objection is mainly to people(mostly SEC guys and a few on here) who talk and trash talk about individual players and small differences in team ratings. I know a mutt fan who was bragging about signing the number one ranked weak-side linebacker in the country. My thought was basically: how can they project college position and rank something as specific as weak-side linebacker? This person was extremely serious and excited. I have seen SEC fans of different teams argue about Scout vs Rivals because their teams rankings were reversed on the two services.(Don't remember exactly, but something like 5&6 on one vs 6&5 on the other)

Athletes are athletes and not necessarily locked into one thing.........who could have predicted a washed up baseball player would have such an impact on the football field?

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Most fans could predict the top ten in rankings, with 50% accuracy, five or ten years from now. It’s the rest that’s tough to pick.

 

[bobongo]

Most fans could predict the top ten in rankings, with 50% accuracy, five or ten years from now. It’s the rest that’s tough to pick.

Yeah, I'll be impressed if somebody picks the bottom ten.

 

[Cam]

I've always viewed stars as a projection of a player's floor, not necessarily their ceiling. When you get a 5* to commit, you're getting a college ready player that can most likely start from day 1. That doesn't necessarily mean they are All-Conference or All-American caliber, but they will be a contributor. However, every year we see the NFL draft first round filled with 2 and 3 star players who are getting drafted way ahead of their 4 and 5 star peers. Deandre Baker, a mid 3* player from UGA, is a good example. He went from playing only one game his freshman year and eight games his sophomore year, to an All-American and potential first round pick on a roster filled with 4 and 5 star players. He needed some time, but he developed into an elite CB. It's up to the coaches to help players reach their potential, which is a stated goal of Collins (i.e. becoming a development program).

 

[bobongo]

I've always viewed stars as a projection of a player's floor, not necessarily their ceiling. When you get a 5* to commit, you're getting a college ready player that can most likely start from day 1. That doesn't necessarily mean they are All-Conference or All-American caliber, but they will be a contributor. However, every year we see the NFL draft first round filled with 2 and 3 star players who are getting drafted way ahead of their 4 and 5 star peers. Deandre Baker, a mid 3* player from UGA, is a good example. He went from playing only one game his freshman year and eight games his sophomore year, to an All-American and potential first round pick on a roster filled with 4 and 5 star players. He needed some time, but he developed into an elite CB. It's up to the coaches to help players reach their potential, which is a stated goal of Collins (i.e. becoming a development program).

Good point. We should all keep in mind that the star rankings are applied to guys 17 years old. They're still growing, still filling out, and still developing as players.

 

[alagold]

I've always viewed stars as a projection of a player's floor, not necessarily their ceiling. When you get a 5* to commit, you're getting a college ready player that can most likely start from day 1. That doesn't necessarily mean they are All-Conference or All-American caliber, but they will be a contributor. However, every year we see the NFL draft first round filled with 2 and 3 star players who are getting drafted way ahead of their 4 and 5 star peers. Deandre Baker, a mid 3* player from UGA, is a good example. He went from playing only one game his freshman year and eight games his sophomore year, to an All-American and potential first round pick on a roster filled with 4 and 5 star players. He needed some time, but he developed into an elite CB. It's up to the coaches to help players reach their potential, which is a stated goal of Collins (i.e. becoming a development program).

yep, getting a 4-5 star means probably not only getting a really good player but a productive player for MUCH longer time period.

btw--a big factor with PJ recruiting NOT well known is the "leakage" from classes.By the time a recruit class had gone 5 yrs (even 4 ), we had lost (somehow) THIRTY % from the original class . (at least from '12 on.)

 

[smathis30]

yep, getting a 4-5 star means probably not only getting a really good player but a productive player for MUCH longer time period.

btw--a big factor with PJ recruiting NOT well known is the "leakage" from classes.By the time a recruit class had gone 5 yrs (even 4 ), we had lost (somehow) THIRTY % from the original class . (at least from '12 on.)

this is pretty common across college football in general now though with new transfer rules. UGA's '13 class didn't even have 20% of its class make it on campus, and even fewer made it to graduation at uga.