Don't Choke on the Rivals Kool-Aid Part 2

[Sic_em]

The following excerpt is from an interview taken from the OU Scout.com site:

One OU coach has told us this about recruit rankings:

"Basically they're a joke. If they were true, we, (and other top schools), would recruit off of them. It takes us several months of evaluations to separate the best from the rest. But these recruit rankings pop up and many people start thinking they're the ten commandments or something.

Sure everyone can pick out an Adrian Peterson, but there aren’t many of those out there. And generally, the skill positions are a bit easier for coaches and fans to identify, but even at that, how to you find the top ten - twenty in the country?

That's who we set our sights on. You have to - to stay at the level that we're at.

But many times, even with skill athletes, it's his supporting cast that makes him stand out. Coaches have to consider that. We have to know that a quarterback has a great receiver, or maybe he has none - that makes a huge difference in his completion percentage. How good is his offensive line, or the competition he's playing?

At many power programs, kids are sometimes a backup until their senior year. I mean what do you do with a kid who is waiting in the wings but has a great player a year or two ahead of him?

In the offensive and defensive line, many kids are dominant because of a size mismatch. But in college, that won't be the case. Technique and skill are bigger factors, and many times you don't see those things clearly until their senior seasons."

As to current prospects, (and their rankings), another OU coach said;

"Who does these things? (Recruit Rankings). Are you kidding me? It's a total joke when you have guys who are dominant ranked behind good, but not great players."

So how do the average fans determine who's best?

"Just look at who's offering them, and who's not. That's the first clue. But most of the higher ranked guys are going to come from the well known stomping grounds. Those guys show up early, because they are easier to identify.

We (coaches), can't visit every school and every hamlet either. So many times, we see a prospect on film when we are looking at someone else. We make a few calls, send someone out to who knows where, and suddenly we have someone who very few people know about.

Now here at Oklahoma, when we offer - it's usually all over the internet in about three hours, so sure, there are times when we prefer to keep a kid quiet. Why tell your opponent about finding a gold mine?

So a lot of times someone will pop up from nowhere and people think maybe we've lost our minds. Are you kidding me? We have twenty five scholarships a year and we don't pass them out like Kleenex!

When we offer some obscure prospect somewhere you can bet he's probably playing at a small school, or at a school with zero talent around him.

We signed a receiver like that last year, and how was he ranked? But watch that guy and I'll guarantee you in four years he'll out perform almost every guy on the top ranked receiver list last year. You can repeat that story at least two or three times every year.

So yeah, we look at the rankings, but they're primarily always a source of amusement for us."


Discuss amongst yourselves.

[OC Mustang]

What's to discuss? Insomuch as offers are telling of a kid's potential (at least generally speaking), then the more they get, and the higher caliber they get, the more likely they are to perform well at the outset.

Past the usefulness of Rivals / Scout / etc. as an alternative means of news reporting service (albeit for a very specific service), it serves very little purpose except keeping dorks like us busy.

[McClown27]

The following excerpt is from an interview taken from the OU Scout.com site:

One OU coach has told us this about recruit rankings:

"Basically they're a joke. If they were true, we, (and other top schools), would recruit off of them. It takes us several months of evaluations to separate the best from the rest. But these recruit rankings pop up and many people start thinking they're the ten commandments or something.

Sure everyone can pick out an Adrian Peterson, but there aren’t many of those out there. And generally, the skill positions are a bit easier for coaches and fans to identify, but even at that, how to you find the top ten - twenty in the country?

So yeah, we look at the rankings, but they're primarily always a source of amusement for us."

I think we may stress the rating too much as well. Although, one does have to be a brain wizard to figure out that the best schools sign the recruits that are ranked the highest. In that sense, Rivals is a decent approximation for us casual fans.

[EastStang]

I can accept seeing UT, A&M, OU, LSU, TT and even Baylor getting the lion's share of quality Texas recruits because they are BCS. I don't like it, but I can intellectually accept it. I cannot accept TCU, Houston, UTEP, Rice and Tulsa outrecruiting us. That is how we need to judge ourselves against our current competition. When we start winning recruiting battles with them, then we can take aim at the BCS programs. We are in decent conference with decent bowl opportunities. Let's capitalize on those first, and then go from there. As far as looking at this year's class and calling it a success or failure, you have to look at it from the perspective of what our conference mates are doing. From all indications, this class will be a modest success. Its not going to knock your socks off, but in CUSA it should be a competitive class.

[Stallion]

this from a Baylor Fan who has seen his school finish last in Big 12 South recruiting every year and last in the Big 12 South every year.

[crazy horse]

Sic Em has degrees from both SMU and Baylor. He is a fan of both schools and has often attended games with me.

I think the point of the article is that the coaching staff is paid to find the best players that will give their team the greatest chance of success. Rivals is a good source of information but not the end all.

More times than not the teams with higher Rivals rankings will perform better than those with lower rankings.

My question is are we not at least attempting to recruit the 5 and 4-star players? And if we are, why are we missing out? Academics? Conference Affiliation? Lack of on-field success? Training table? Recruiting restrictions? Signing bonuses?

Obviously, I would much rather have a higher ranked class than not. So what is keeping us from getting one? Let's get whatever challenges corrected!

[abezontar]

I would say its the signing bonuses and lack of success on the field.

[Stallion]

we don't need to have the 4 and 5 stars to win big. We have to do a lot better than 95th though. Seriously, TCU has become a legend in its own mind by having recruiting classes in usually the range of 50-65. Recruiting is relative to your opponents-they've generrally outrecruited almost all schools in the myriad of conferences they've played in and so relative to their competion quality recruiting has translated into championships and bowls.

[McClown27]

My question is are we not at least attempting to recruit the 5 and 4-star players? And if we are, why are we missing out? Academics? Conference Affiliation? Lack of on-field success? Training table? Recruiting restrictions? Signing bonuses?

They want to play for a big-time program. It would be a waste of our time. Yeah, you go visit Stafford in HP, but then, you go sign Rhoades. If you were a recruit with no legacy ties, and you took visits to UT, A&M, OSU, and SMU you would wonder why only 10,000 people were at a home game.

[MustangIcon]

Wins. At the end of the day they make the biggest difference. A winning program in Dallas, TX would do just fine in recruiting.

I agree with Stallion that everything is relative to your competition. We do not have to outrecruit UT, OU, A&M and others. We play in CUSA. Our first goal in my opinion would be to win CUSA. To do this we need to outrecruit our direct competition: UH, Rice, Tulsa, ECU, UAB, Tulane, Marshall, UTEP and the teams not in our division.

Recruiting is not an exact science. No coach or recruiting serviced can ever 100% tell you one player will be a star at the next level. However, there is some validity to the information. USC and Texas have had some of the best rated classes the past 4 years. I think it is no coincidence that they have both been powerhouses over that period of time in college football.

[OC Mustang]

Stallion wrote:

we don't need to have the 4 and 5 stars to win big. We have to do a lot better than 95th though. Seriously, TCU has become a legend in its own mind by having recruiting classes in usually the range of 50-65. Recruiting is relative to your opponents-they've generrally outrecruited almost all schools in the myriad of conferences they've played in and so relative to their competion quality recruiting has translated into championships and bowls.

In a handful of other quotes (please stipulate instead of making me prove it), you have made mention that we are probably in the middle of the pack in CUSA, and probably at or near the top of CUSA west (I am infering the latter based on a "here is the good news" comment you made that most of CUSA is are in the toilet this year as well.).

So, with THAT in mind only, what do you think are our chances to win the CUSA west in the next four years (thus counting all of Bennett's recruiting classes to date, and perhaps as well those in the next two years). I know you don't have a crystal ball, but what I am getting at is basically this...do we have enough in the stable to made a credible run for the west title? If we do, we might have enough wins to make a minor bowl, and perhaps enough to shake off this funk we get in toward the middle or end of a coach's recruiting tenure.

All I want are wins...hopefully we can get further with them...I know we can't get there without them.

[mavsrage311]

the receiver that the OU coach was talking about....I believe it might be the receiver (Joaquin something????) that SMU offered first, then waited til OU offered, maybe

[Stallion]

OC Mustang-I think you'd have to be a pretty bad football coach not to take a team to a bowl game with next year's record in the 5th year at a school. I'd also say that it would be embarrassing for a coach in his 5th-8th years not to win a conference full of schools like Tulsa, Rice, UH, SMU, Rice and UTEP. That being said I generally like the systems set up at UH and UTEP better but neither one is really coming through in recruiting-they are close but not there. I'd say this year CUSA West recruitining race is a Jump Ball with all 6 schools in Last. Now Rivals rates things differently and they place SMU last in CUSA at 96 in Total Points but at about 5th in CUSA in Average Points tied at 78. BTW 3 low rated SMU recruits have not been added so this will lower SMU's average rating and somewhat improve SMU's total rating. The only real difference between the classes of the CUSA West is the size of each class. All things being equal I'll give the nod to Mike Price.

[PonyPride]

the receiver that the OU coach was talking about....I believe it might be the receiver (Joaquin something????) that SMU offered first, then waited til OU offered, maybe

SMU offer Joaquin Iglesias probably a month (or more) before any other school.

[Stallion]

unfortunately he committed to UTEP first.