Dumb Rivals Question

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:31 pm

I just assume that anybody that commits to us that is unrated will soon be listed as a 2-star.

When the prior administration left, did we lose the guy that mysteriously got one or two commits upgraded from 2 to 3 stars every year?

by **Stallion** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:55 pm

it happens system wide about 3 weeks before signing date.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:21 pm

Stallion wrote:it happens system wide about 3 weeks before signing date.

Oh, no. We missed it?!?!?

by **SMU_is_bowling** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:37 pm

there are no dumb questions . . . just dumb people!

just kidding! :lol:

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:38 pm

SMUshouldbebowling wrote:there are no dumb questions . . . just dumb people!

just kidding!

I know you are kidding. You don't think you are dumb.

by **SMU_is_bowling** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:39 pm

I know I am Mr.!!!!! . . . wait??

by **jimmieho** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:52 pm

Did anyone notice when "one star" on Rivals QB Kraft, committed to UCLA, he all of a sudden became a FIVE Star athlete.
No politics in that, huh?

by **Stallion** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:00 pm

I'm not an expert on Scout's ratings but I believe a 1 star on Scout or a non-2 star on Rivals which is shown as a 4.9 means there are no scouts that know enough about a prospect to give him a rating. Still that 5 star Rating is real questionable-usually Scout is the service that is more up-to-date on JUCOs especially in California. I think the consensus is that Rivals had it right with about a 5.6 rating which is a solid 3 star. But I can understand how a recruiting service could bump a recruit especially at QB a star based on the recommendation of passing czars June Jones and the UCLA OC Norm Chow alone. The guy is unquestionably at least a solid 3 star based on his performance as a College Freshman and his year at JUCO.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:03 pm

Good point Stallion.

by **Garret** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:56 pm

Stallion wrote:I'm not an expert on Scout's ratings but I believe a 1 star on Scout or a non-2 star on Rivals which is shown as a 4.9 means there are no scouts that know enough about a prospect to give him a rating. Still that 5 star Rating is real questionable-usually Scout is the service that is more up-to-date on JUCOs especially in California. I think the consensus is that Rivals had it right with about a 5.6 rating which is a solid 3 star. But I can understand how a recruiting service could bump a recruit especially at QB a star based on the recommendation of passing czars June Jones and the UCLA OC Norm Chow alone. The guy is unquestionably at least a solid 3 star based on his performance as a College Freshman and his year at JUCO.

JJ lost a *lot* of QB recruits at UH when another school would find out. Typically, a Pac-10 or other BCS conference team close to that player's home would find out JJ wanted the QB and put that QB at the top of their list.

There was an interesting article about how JJ showed Colt's Saddleback video to a friend and swore that friend to secrecy because he didn't want any other school to hear about him. He got Colt to walk on to UH even though [deleted] Tomey (who has a lot of sources in Hawaii) at SJSU found out about Colt late and offered him a scholarship.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:03 pm

I can see that happening.

by **me@smu** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:47 am

If you have ever read the book "Meat Market" (if not go do it!), it talks all about how the rating services need to cater to the large fan bases.

Case in point, wr out of south Florida this year was a 2* 5.1 prospect until Urban liar decided to offer... suddenly the kid is a 4*. When Liar refused his commitment, kid is back to a 3*.

by **Dutch** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:28 am

me@smu wrote:If you have ever read the book "Meat Market" (if not go do it!), it talks all about how the rating services need to cater to the large fan bases.

Case in point, wr out of south Florida this year was a 2* 5.1 prospect until Urban liar decided to offer... suddenly the kid is a 4*. When Liar refused his commitment, kid is back to a 3*.

of course they do this. it's all part of the money machine that is NCAA football.

by **me@smu** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:32 am

Dutch wrote:
me@smu wrote:If you have ever read the book "Meat Market" (if not go do it!), it talks all about how the rating services need to cater to the large fan bases.

Case in point, wr out of south Florida this year was a 2* 5.1 prospect until Urban liar decided to offer... suddenly the kid is a 4*. When Liar refused his commitment, kid is back to a 3*.

of course they do this. it's all part of the money machine that is NCAA football.

Exactly, which is why we shouldn't get worked up when we take a 5.1 rated kid and drop a 5.2 rated one. All these ranking are subjective and if JJ thinks the kid will fit the system and contribute...that should be enough right there

by **Stallion** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:20 am

What you should get worked up about are the offers a kid has or doesn't have-especially when it is team wide. The better players receive more and better offers and the teams with more and better players win football games. Players with more and better offers are rated higher which is perfectly logical for a recruiting service to acknowledge. Take Head Out of Sand. The evidence is simply overwhelming especially at this university over time. The long term success or lack of success at each university in this state can be graphed in almost perfect harmony with success in recruiting when adjusting for strength of schedule.

Dumb Rivals Question

Dumb Rivals Question

Who is online