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
The Star System
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="RonJohn" data-source="post: 398688" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>I think this debate/discussion is normally people arguing at the extremes. Having bigger, stronger, faster players does matter. NFL teams spend more money evaluating a much smaller subset of players and don't always get it right. It is pretty easy to see that the mutt class is better than the Tulsa signing class even without a star rating system. Many SEC fans that I know are rabid about the ratings of the players and the team ratings. I was told last year by a mutt fan that they had signed the #1 rated inside linebacker(I believe) in the country. With what confidence level can a recruiting site say that the #1 linebacker is better than the #4 linebacker? You can pick out the top linebackers that you are aware of in the country, but can you really put a number value to them to stack them in a rating? Those numbers are at least fuzzy. Expanding that, the team rankings are based on those fuzzy numbers. In this years team ratings, is the Texas class really better than Penn State? Is the Penn State class really better than Alabama's?</p><p></p><p>Once you get outside of the top 200-300 players, from what I have read the recruiting sites depend upon regional people to provide rating numbers for players in their area. Those ratings for the 2 and 3 star players are definitely fuzzier than the 4 and 5 star players. In the team rankings, once you get outside of the top 25 or so teams, the biggest difference between teams is the relative ratings of their 3 star recruits. Since the 3 star numbers are definitely fuzzy, how much belief should be put in the idea that the 30th rated team is better than the 60th rated team?</p><p></p><p>Bigger, stronger, and faster does matter. The recruiting rankings can provide some insight into finding good players to keep an eye on. The player rankings and team rankings gamification is what I have issues with. It isn't like listing the companies with the largest market cap. The recruiting sites ratings shouldn't be taken as definite declarative statements about players or teams. They should be looked at only as an information source.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 398688, member: 2426"] I think this debate/discussion is normally people arguing at the extremes. Having bigger, stronger, faster players does matter. NFL teams spend more money evaluating a much smaller subset of players and don't always get it right. It is pretty easy to see that the mutt class is better than the Tulsa signing class even without a star rating system. Many SEC fans that I know are rabid about the ratings of the players and the team ratings. I was told last year by a mutt fan that they had signed the #1 rated inside linebacker(I believe) in the country. With what confidence level can a recruiting site say that the #1 linebacker is better than the #4 linebacker? You can pick out the top linebackers that you are aware of in the country, but can you really put a number value to them to stack them in a rating? Those numbers are at least fuzzy. Expanding that, the team rankings are based on those fuzzy numbers. In this years team ratings, is the Texas class really better than Penn State? Is the Penn State class really better than Alabama's? Once you get outside of the top 200-300 players, from what I have read the recruiting sites depend upon regional people to provide rating numbers for players in their area. Those ratings for the 2 and 3 star players are definitely fuzzier than the 4 and 5 star players. In the team rankings, once you get outside of the top 25 or so teams, the biggest difference between teams is the relative ratings of their 3 star recruits. Since the 3 star numbers are definitely fuzzy, how much belief should be put in the idea that the 30th rated team is better than the 60th rated team? Bigger, stronger, and faster does matter. The recruiting rankings can provide some insight into finding good players to keep an eye on. The player rankings and team rankings gamification is what I have issues with. It isn't like listing the companies with the largest market cap. The recruiting sites ratings shouldn't be taken as definite declarative statements about players or teams. They should be looked at only as an information source. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
The Star System
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