3 star recruits

by **SMU2007** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:06 pm

granted they change the rankings for recruits during the season but we've already matched our number of 3 star recruits (4) that we got all of last year? nice work!

by **PerunaPunch** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:52 am

If you combine Scout and Rivals, right now we have five 3-star recruits. In several of these guy's cases, they haven't truly hit the recruiting services' radar screens. Look for a star bump for Padron (untested) and Loftus (an elite level kicker; currently listed as #8 in the country but probably will end up top 3). And look for some change (maybe up / maybe down) for Collins, all three Fraziers, Henderson and Williams -- all of whom have the ubiquitous Rivals 5.3 rating, which roughly translates from recruiting jargon into English as: "big kid, nice offers, never seen him play."

by **mrydel** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:53 am

Do kids get moved down in stars very often?

by **ponyboy** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:00 am

I did. I went from zero stars before my senior season to -1 after the season.

by **WE ARE BACK** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:06 am

mrydel wrote:Do kids get moved down in stars very often?

It seems like anyone that selects SMU as their school is automatically less talented than previously stated. ie. Joey Fontana is ranked the #2 center the day we sign him and a few days later he is #8. In basketball Paul McCoy went from being a "top 10" 4-Star PG to a 3-Star #18th player. I guess these sites figure if they choose us over a BCS school that they must have been over rated. I bet McCoy would still be in the top 10 if he went to Kentucky.

by **Mexmustang** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:16 am

I am not sure I understand how Loftus can be number 8 in the country, outshine almost every kicker in the various camps held this summer, but given a two star rating. Did I read this incorrectly? or do the recruiting services simply make no sense?

by **MustangIcon** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:12 am

Mexmustang wrote:I am not sure I understand how Loftus can be number 8 in the country, outshine almost every kicker in the various camps held this summer, but given a two star rating. Did I read this incorrectly? or do the recruiting services simply make no sense?

Kickers are not in high demand bc most teams carry only 1 scholarship kicker (that plays for 4 years) with many carrying no kickers on scholarship. Also, its a kicker! The ratings are relative for all positions and frankly kicker is just not as valuable as some other postions on the field. I am pretty sure that even the unquestioned #1 kicker in the country would have a 3-star rating so I do not find it shocking that the #8 kicker would be a highish 2 star rated player.

by **Webmaster** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:28 am

MustangIcon is correct.

As I recall, the top 3 kickers nationally are all rated 3 stars. Depending on your point of view this is either a weakness in the Rivals rating system, it's that Rivals is a long way from finalizing their evaluation of the 2009 class (which is true in any case), or that they trivialize the importance of kickers.

For example, according to the Rivals rating scale, you could be an All-American kicker (and therefore should be a 4-star athlete with a rating of 5.8 - 6.0), but not be considered among the top 750 prospects in the country (so you'd earn 2 stars and a rating of 5.0 to 5.4 -- or less).

But in any case, I believe the recruiting services are mostly basing their evaluations off last year's statistics at this point, which is why Loftus is placed at #8 rather than basing his star value on head-to-head ability or competition, in which case he very well might be top 3 as PPunch asserts.

by **Mexmustang** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:48 pm

All this makes sense and I am glad that I asked the question. But, it seems somewhat unfair that other players seem to be weighed heavily on the player's relative ranking within their respective position. For instance, what is the next least worthy position, offensive guard, deep snapper, kick returner? Shouldn't they be capped at 3 stars? Maybe it is just me, but when someone refers to a recruiting class, they normally would say "we got a four star tailback, a five star quarterback,etc.

by **MustangIcon** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:36 pm

Mexmustang wrote:All this makes sense and I am glad that I asked the question. But, it seems somewhat unfair that other players seem to be weighed heavily on the player's relative ranking within their respective position. For instance, what is the next least worthy position, offensive guard, deep snapper, kick returner? Shouldn't they be capped at 3 stars? Maybe it is just me, but when someone refers to a recruiting class, they normally would say "we got a four star tailback, a five star quarterback,etc.

But are position's not relative in importance? Don't you think that the top rated QB in the nation should be rated higher than the top rated K in the nation. Heck, I would rather have the 30th or 40th best running back in the nation over the #1 kicker in the nation and I think the ratings reflect that.

At the end of the day the entire class of recruited players is rated as a whole, not position specific. Otherwise when you look at the state top 100 list the first 25 or so players would each be from a different position. Seems a bit ridiculous to me. I am quite happy to know we have one of the top kickers in the nation without needing to see a 3 or 4 star rivals rating for him.

by **Stallion** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:39 pm

Fontana was not ranked as the No. 2 Center when he committed to SMU. You just listen to the wrong people-which is one reason that I try to correct this misinformation. As I posted each time SMU has about 12-14 players upgraded by RIVALS in the last 4-5 years including THREE this year already-Darrius Jonson, Chris Atchinson and James Scott. Its a tired, incorrect argument-give it up.

by **gostangs** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:40 pm

Well all I know is that there have been years (not lately) that a better kicker would have won us 3-4 additional games. Bennett would still be here if we had a kicker a couple of yrs ago.

by **Stallion** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:10 pm

BTW the fact that Loftus is ranked as the No. 8 player at his position means SMU's recruiting will get pumped up at tad because he will get bonus points for being either ranked at your position or ranked in your state. We haven't talked about this much in the past since SMU has had few state ranked or even position ranked players in the past. But what do we have 4 kids ranked at their positions(none ranked in the state-maybe Fontana in Louisiana who I think is ranked 29th out of 40 in Louisiana in State Rank). Rivals btw ranks him as No. 14 in the Center rankings-pretty high. Will give us some bump in Total Points and Team Ranking when the Team Rankings are released.

by **redpony** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:27 am

Stallion- thanks for the insight. Hopefully we will continue to improve our recruiting and thus our rankings.

GO PONIES!!!
FRY RICE :lol:

by **WE ARE BACK** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:55 am

Stallion wrote:Fontana was not ranked as the No. 2 Center when he committed to SMU. You just listen to the wrong people-which is one reason that I try to correct this misinformation. As I posted each time SMU has about 12-14 players upgraded by RIVALS in the last 4-5 years including THREE this year already-Darrius Jonson, Chris Atchinson and James Scott. Its a tired, incorrect argument-give it up.

Ok... Well I guess I will cancel my subscription to Scout. If he wasn't #2 then they shouldn't run with a story that says "Scout.com: No. 2 Center picks SMU over Nebraska, others" They must have meant Scout's #2 and Stallion's #10 picks SMU over Nebraska and others. It's not a argument, it's a fact. Go back and look at the archived story.

3 star recruits

3 star recruits

Who is online