Ratings on Commts = What a difference!

[Class of 61]

Just for the heck of it, I decided to look up and compare the ratings of our TENTATIVE commits for next year. Scout, Rivals, and ESPN are, I believe, the most common "rating" groups...and I found it very interesting to see how many, if any of them, agreed on their ratings, based upon the "number of stars" given each player.

What I found was that they all agreed on a grand total of ..... ONE player.... Justin Ford, each rating him a 2 star player.... Some players rated from a 3 star to a 1 star, (McNight)...several only received an actual rating from ONE of the three groups ( Jackson, Rolf, McKoy)...

Someone (perhaps Hambb?) said once that the non BCS schools are pretty much neglected in terms of these ratings... based on what I found, I'd have to agree.. Only time will tell how good these kids are...or even IF they actually sign with BG in Feb.... Still, found it to be interesting. BTW, from what I could tell, we have 15 commits TOTAL now, but I'm assuming there may be others who have not announced or verballed yet. I did see the linebacker from Lima Shawnee at the OU game, sitting with a kid from Cory-Rawson... (I'm assuming the Lima kid WAS the LB who's received some fairly good publicity earlier).

[TexCat]

Just for the heck of it, I decided to look up and compare the ratings of our TENTATIVE commits for next year. Scout, Rivals, and ESPN are, I believe, the most common "rating" groups...and I found it very interesting to see how many, if any of them, agreed on their ratings, based upon the "number of stars" given each player.

What I found was that they all agreed on a grand total of ..... ONE player.... Justin Ford, each rating him a 2 star player.... Some players rated from a 3 star to a 1 star, (McNight)...several only received an actual rating from ONE of the three groups ( Jackson, Rolf, McKoy)...

Someone (perhaps Hambb?) said once that the non BCS schools are pretty much neglected in terms of these ratings... based on what I found, I'd have to agree.. Only time will tell how good these kids are...or even IF they actually sign with BG in Feb.... Still, found it to be interesting. BTW, from what I could tell, we have 15 commits TOTAL now, but I'm assuming there may be others who have not announced or verballed yet. I did see the linebacker from Lima Shawnee at the OU game, sitting with a kid from Cory-Rawson... (I'm assuming the Lima kid WAS the LB who's received some fairly good publicity earlier).

It's always amazed me how USC usually garners a boatload of "five star" players each recruiting year. I could never understand why a "five star" player would commit to a school with four other "five star" players ahead of him. What are the odds of beating them all out of a starting position on the team?

Anyway, here's what Scout says about how players and teams earn stars:

ABOUT OUR TEAM RANKINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout.com team football recruiting rankings are based on the Talent, Need and Balance of players committed to that school. We consider only players who have made a Verbal or Soft Verbal commitment to that school. We include high school, prep school and junior college players in our analysis.

Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college football.

ABOUT OUR PLAYER EVALUATIONS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout.com's player evaluations are made by our team of Recruiting Experts, who attend off-season combines and camps on college campuses, go to hundreds of games, and review miles of game film. Starting in June each year, the Scout.com recruiting staff makes monthly updates to our consensus player rankings.

ABOUT OUR EXPERTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout.com's Recruiting Experts work in every region of the country and cover every Division I-A football team and conference. Our team collectively possesses over 100 years of experience covering college football recruiting. Our staff is universally recognized as the most trusted source of timely recruiting news and in-depth player evaluations.

Factoring in their "methods" of evaluating players changes the dynamic a bit. One other thing, how do you go about getting a job with these "Scout.com" guys who do nothing other than go to football games? Texcat

[daspollak]

Kids go to USC to put themselves in the spot light. Look at Matt Cassell he did not even start there yet he is now a starter in the NFL. It does from time to time come back to bite some kids as they never get a real shot to play, but that is the risk they take. Some after a year will know they have little shot of breaking the starting line up until they are a senior and transfer. Just look at Troy's roster.

[rocketfootball]

Scout.com gives someone a 1 star ranking if they have not evaluated and rated someone. This especially happens to MAC recruits, because right now there are only three active MAC school sites on Scout.......Temple, Toledo, and Central Michigan. Miami University, Ball State, and Northern Illinois also have sites that get updated a little bit, but they really are not active. If you don't have an active site, you really don't have someone pushing the guys that do ratings to evaluate one of your commits. And even if you do ask them to evaluate them, if they have not seen them in person or received film from the prospect, they will just rate him two stars.

Rivals.com gives someone a zero star ranking if they have not evaluated and rated someone. Everything else is the same as above with Scout.com, except that the active sites are different. The active sites I believe are Temple, Kent State, Western Michigan, and Central Michigan.


Bowling Green does not have an active site on Rivals nor Scout, so your players in general are not getting ranked as good as they should be. QB Caleb Watkins is an example of a guy that did get ranked properly, because he was being recruited by some other schools that do have sites and he was already rated 3 stars before committing to BG. If he would have never been evaluated ahead of time, he probably would have only been given 2 stars after committing to BG.....in anything. Doesn't mean he is not worthy of 3 stars though, it's just the way it works.

Bottomline, and I can't believe I am saying this, overall your commits are better than their ranking on Scout.com and Rivals.com.

[duckunder53]

Scout.com gives someone a 1 star ranking if they have not evaluated and rated someone. This especially happens to MAC recruits, because right now there are only three active MAC school sites on Scout.......Temple, Toledo, and Central Michigan. Miami University, Ball State, and Northern Illinois also have sites that get updated a little bit, but they really are not active. If you don't have an active site, you really don't have someone pushing the guys that do ratings to evaluate one of your commits. And even if you do ask them to evaluate them, if they have not seen them in person or received film from the prospect, they will just rate him two stars.

Rivals.com gives someone a zero star ranking if they have not evaluated and rated someone. Everything else is the same as above with Scout.com, except that the active sites are different. The active sites I believe are Temple, Kent State, Western Michigan, and Central Michigan.


Bowling Green does not have an active site on Rivals nor Scout, so your players in general are not getting ranked as good as they should be. QB Caleb Watkins is an example of a guy that did get ranked properly, because he was being recruited by some other schools that do have sites and he was already rated 3 stars before committing to BG. If he would have never been evaluated ahead of time, he probably would have only been given 2 stars after committing to BG.....in anything. Doesn't mean he is not worthy of 3 stars though, it's just the way it works.

Bottomline, and I can't believe I am saying this, overall your commits are better than their ranking on Scout.com and Rivals.com.

That's interesting.

[Flipper]

So....essentially...for folks that follow the MAC these sites are largely worthless. The kids we recruit aren't really evaluated...even if an "active" site partner prods them to do so.

What a fricking joke...