Recruiting Rankings | Looking Back at the 2010 Class
by Seth C on Jan 4, 2011 9:00 AM CST
in Texas Tech Football
Email
PrintThe 2007, 2008 and 2009 recruiting classes are all under our belt and with the 2010 recruiting class, head coach Tommy Tuberville had about a month or so to keep a class together and add some of his own players. Obviously, Tuberville's first class was over the limit of only signing 25 players, but the truth is that there's a handful of players that never actually even stepped foot on campus and there were other players that were signed relatively late, i.e. into the spring practices.
Let's get to it.
2010 Recruiting Class
| # | Player | O/D/ST | Scout | Rivals | Rivals Rating | ESPN | ESPN Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dartwan Bush | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 2 | Joe Carmical | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.30 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 3 | Lawrence Cayou | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.20 | - | 40.00 |
| 4 | Coby Coleman | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 5 | Cqulin Hubert | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 6 | Don Hursey | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.50 | 2.00 | 74.00 |
| 7 | Urell Johnson | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 8 | Mike Jones | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.40 | - | 40.00 |
| 9 | Donald Langley | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | - | - |
| 10 | Desmond Martin | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 11 | Tahrick Peak | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 12 | Russell Polk | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 2.00 | 73.00 |
| 13 | Tre' Porter | D | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 14 | Jackson Richards | D | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 4.00 | 79.00 |
| 15 | Lawrence Rumph | D | 4.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | - | - |
| 16 | Brandon Smith | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 17 | Scott Smith | D | 3.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | - | - |
| 18 | Phillip Warren | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.20 | - | 40.00 |
| 19 | Lavaughn Wigham | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.40 | - | 40.00 |
| 20 | Zachary Winbush | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.50 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 21 | Aleon Calhoun | O | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 22 | Beau Carpenter | O | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 23 | Shawn Corker | O | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 24 | Delans Griffin | O | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 25 | Ben McRoy | O | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 26 | Darren Moore | O | - | - | - | - | - |
| 27 | James Polk | O | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 2.00 | 71.00 |
| 28 | Scotty Young | O | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 75.00 |
| AVERAGES | 2.61 | 2.89 | 5.40 | 2.07 | 60.25 |
Of these 28 players, there's 8 players that never made it to Lubbock or are not on the roster today (or reportedly won't be on the roster soon):
DE Lawrence Cayou
DT Mike Jones
OLB Tahrick Peak
DB Brandon Smith
DB Phillip Warren
DB Lavaughn Wigham
OL Aleon Calhoun
RB Delans Griffin
There's no doubt that Tuberville took some flyers on some players, some of those players worked out and others didn't. Warren and Wigham were from Florida and Tuberville wanted these two lightly recruited players, but they never qualified. I believe that Jones made it on campus but left some time in fall practices. It's my understanding, and this is not confirmed on the official roster, is that Tahrick Peak and Nubian Peak are supposedly no longer in Lubbock. They're listed on the current roster, and yes, this is me rumor-mongering a bit. Cayou, Smith, Calhoun and Griffin didn't qualify either, but I seem to recall that they were originally recruited under Leach. Of all of the players, I would love to have Calhoun on campus and I'd love to see Calhoun back on campus if he were to develop in junior college.
The other interesting thing is that Tuberville did add some players after the actual signing day, including adding CB Don Hursey and WR Darren Moore. Hursey's a bit forgotten as a guy that didn't sign on signing day, but he was actually a decent prospect coming out of high school (a 2-star on Scout and 3-star on Rivals). The addition of Moore should pay dividends next year as he'll be a junior next year and he's already seen quite a bit of time playing this year.
More after the jump.
2010 Recruiting Class | Defense
| # | Player | O/D/ST | Scout | Rivals | Rivals Rating | ESPN | ESPN Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dartwan Bush | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 2 | Joe Carmical | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.30 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 3 | Lawrence Cayou | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.20 | - | 40.00 |
| 4 | Coby Coleman | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 5 | Cqulin Hubert | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 6 | Don Hursey | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.50 | 2.00 | 74.00 |
| 7 | Urell Johnson | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 8 | Mike Jones | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.40 | - | 40.00 |
| 9 | Donald Langley | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | - | - |
| 10 | Desmond Martin | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 11 | Tahrick Peak | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 12 | Russell Polk | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 2.00 | 73.00 |
| 13 | Tre'Vante Porter | D | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| 14 | Jackson Richards | D | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 4.00 | 79.00 |
| 15 | Lawrence Rumph | D | 4.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | - | - |
| 16 | Brandon Smith | D | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 17 | Scott Smith | D | 3.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | - | - |
| 18 | Phillip Warren | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.20 | - | 40.00 |
| 19 | Lavaughn Wigham | D | 2.00 | 2.00 | 5.40 | - | 40.00 |
| 20 | Zachary Winbush | D | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.50 | 3.00 | 77.00 |
| AVERAGES | 2.65 | 2.90 | 5.58 | 1.90 | 57.75 |
This is a perfect example of how we know that recruiting rankings can maybe tell you a little something about a player, but they can also be incredibly misleading. DE Jackson Richards, a guy that I think is going to be a nice addition to the defensive end rotation next year, was the highest rated player across the board of all scouting services and he didn't play a down, was redshirted. Dartwan Bush, a relatively unknown recruit from Clute, Texas, did play as a true freshman. Of course, Richards and Bush are probably going to be playing two different positions, but generally speaking, they're both defensive ends and they both stepped onto campus at the same time. I still think that recruiting services provide some idea as to a player's talent, but it's not wholly indicative of the talent or make-up of a player.
Of the late adds by the staff that will hopefully make a difference, or made a difference already is Joe Carmical, Cqulin Hubert, and the aforementioned Cayou, Warren and Wigham were all late adds by Tuberville. Obviously, only Carmical and Hubert made it onto the roster, but Hubert is a guy that's played a good amount this year.
Porter is another guy that's seen a ton of time this year and to have three freshmen see time this year speaks to the lack of depth of the defense, or it speaks to the talent of each of these players.
The other interesting thing about this class is that there were three defensive tackles / defensive ends from the JUCO ranks, but there was such little depth, again due to the recruitment of JUCO players in the 2007 recruiting class that either graduated or never panned out. This is the perpetual problem with JUCO players is that you create a situation of needing to replace short-timers. Both Lawrence Rumph and Donald Langley both played in all 12 games this year, while Scott Smith's story is still well documented (was suspended for the year after playing the first 4 games for violation of team rules, but is practicing with the team and is expected to play next year). Langley (13 tackles) and Rumph (9 tackles; 1 Sack) didn't make significant contributions, and Smith actually did more in 4 games (14 tackles; 4.0 TFL; 3.0 Sacks) than either Langley or Rumph, which speaks to Smith's talent.
2010 Recruiting Class | Offense
| # | Player | O/D/ST | Scout | Rivals | Rivals Rating | ESPN | ESPN Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aleon Calhoun | O | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 2 | Beau Carpenter | O | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 3 | Shawn Corker | O | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 4 | Delans Griffin | O | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 78.00 |
| 5 | Ben McRoy | O | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 3.00 | 76.00 |
| 6 | Darren Moore | O | - | - | - | - | - |
| 7 | James Polk | O | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.60 | 2.00 | 71.00 |
| 8 | Scotty Young | O | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.80 | 3.00 | 75.00 |
| AVERAGES | 2.50 | 2.88 | 4.96 | 2.50 | 66.50 |
After all of the attrition, the loss of Calhoun and Griffin, we're really talking about an offensive class of only 6 players. That's really small for any class, but if there was ever an indication that the current staff felt that the defense needed a boost before Tuberville even coached a down, it's the emphasis on the defensive side of the ball as far as recruits were concerned. The nice thing about this class is that another player that went under the radar, Ben McRoy showed that he can play on this level and he's got a speed to burn. The other thing about this class is that the staff is speaking highly of Young and Carpenter, and had Carpenter not had an appendectomy early in the season, there's a good chance that he would have played.
Overall
| Year | # | Scout | Rivals | Rivals Rating | ESPN | ESPN Grades |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 29 | 2.38 | 2.72 | 5.47 | 59.34 | |
| 2008 | 16 | 2.75 | 3.00 | 5.58 | 42.88 | |
| 2009 | 25 | 2.84 | 3.00 | 5.57 | 70.36 | |
| 2010 | 28 | 2.61 | 2.89 | 5.40 | 2.07 | 60.25 |
We're finally starting to have a bit more information here. This was a down class in comparison to the 2009 class, but there were also a lot of late shots with the hopes that one or two of those players would have qualified and then stuck with the program. And just in case you're counting, that's 28 players that were signed in a 4 year period and there's an 85 scholarship limit. As previously mentioned, there's a ton of players that never even made it on campus.
Overall | Offense
| Year | # | % | Scout | Rivals | Rivals Rating | ESPN | ESPN Grades |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 15 | 51.72% | 2.40 | 2.80 | 5.49 | 66.33 | |
| 2008 | 7 | 43.75% | 2.43 | 3.00 | 5.59 | 54.43 | |
| 2009 | 9 | 36.00% | 3.00 | 3.22 | 5.63 | 77.44 | |
| 2010 | 8 | 28.57% | 2.50 | 2.88 | 4.96 | 2.50 | 66.50 |
| AVERAGES | 9.75 | 40.01% | 2.58 | 2.97 | 5.42 | 66.18 |
The most worrisome thing about this class is the low percentage of sheer numbers for the offense. The low numbers for the 2009 and 2010 recruiting classes could be troublesome down the road and I've briefly mentioned this before, but it could really be a problem on the offensive line at some point. The 2011 class will have more offensive players, at least at this point, but I've decided not to even get into that until after signing day.
Overall | Defense
| Year | # | % | Scout | Rivals | Rivals Rating | ESPN | ESPN Grades |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 13 | 44.83% | 2.38 | 2.69 | 5.46 | 52.77 | |
| 2008 | 8 | 50.00% | 3.13 | 3.13 | 5.63 | 33.13 | |
| 2009 | 16 | 64.00% | 2.75 | 2.88 | 5.53 | 66.38 | |
| 2010 | 20 | 71.43% | 2.65 | 2.90 | 5.58 | 1.90 | 57.75 |
| AVERAGES | 14.25 | 57.56% | 2.73 | 2.90 | 5.55 | 52.50 |
For the third straight class, the defense has received at least a majority of the commitments. Not a surprise, the 2008 class was Ruffin McNeill's first class and this is where you began to see the fact that the defense needed to be addressed, now you just worry about the focusing on both sides of the ball and there was a bit of an adjustment for the offense in 2011, which is 57.89% of the current commits on offense and 42.11% on defense.
One other thing to note. for the most part, the offense has had better classes on paper than the defense. Like a lot of you, I don't really know what to think about recruiting rankings. As I think about the NFL, talent evaluators place a big emphasis on athletic ability, which is why they hold an annual combine, and if a player has the requisite athletic ability then the scouts go to production on the field and the film. I think you could think about talent evaluation on the high school level as the same way. The best that they can do is to judge the athletic ability of each of these players because it seems that it would virtually be impossible to determine how a player is better than another player except for the elite prospects.
At the end of the day, I think that what you're looking at with recruiting rankings is a collective effort to simply gauge the athletic ability of various players, plug them into a spreadsheet and/or mathematical formula and spit out a ranking. I'm sure that there are talent evaluators that can bump up or bump down a player as a result of the film and/or production on the field, but if you're a high school player and such high school player is on the radar for a BCS college then at this point there's going to be film to adjust the grade. The NFL puts a high priority on certain measurables and the reason there are camps is for coaches to get measurables on potential recruits. Take a look at Jace Amaro's Rivals.com page and what you get is an idea of what colleges consider when looking at a player:
Height
Weight
40 Yard Dash
Bench Max
Squat Max
Shuttle
Vertical
GPA
SAT
Just like the NFL, it's about getting information that can be compared to other recruits to differentiate between other players at his position. It makes sense for colleges to utilize SAT and GPA's for recruits rather than the Wonderlic Test as the bottom line is whether or not they can get on campus, but I'd imagine that you're dealing with national test that's easy to compare results across the board.
So when you wonder why a player is ranked as a 3-star player or a 4-star player then my guess is on the measurables that are easy to compare across the board and then tweaking things based on production on the field. And yes, it's absolutely an inexact science, but there's a reason why it's such a difficult process and there's a reason why NFL teams miss on players, because it's really tough to judge talent and the intangibles of a particular player.
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wes Welker
now who would have guessed that guy would be a machine in the NFL!? I know us red raiders did but not the NFL….
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jan 4, 2011 10:04 AM CST reply actions
SAT is 1600....
also can we all see why our D was so bad?….TTU just has not been able to get enough good D talent to actually make it on Campus….The silver lining(as bad as it was at times) is that a lot of good young players got real playing experience…For next year 2 key players on D will be Will Ford and Scott Smith…If they can stay healthy/off probation these 2 will really help!!!! Wreck’Em Tech
No excuse
for the d this year being as bad as it was….the 2008 class was highly rated and duct tape and bailing wire wasn’t properly used this year IMO
"It's fun to do bad things"- Latarian
by oldschoolraider on Jan 4, 2011 12:25 PM CST up reply actions
Disagree about the 2008 class. Go back and look and tell me who from that 2008 class is currently playing defense today. Was it highly rated? Sure, but in retrospect, it sucked.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
talent or no, we should have been better than 116th… there were 115 teams ahead of us, and I guarantee at least a handful of them were starting walk-ons.
I was only speaking to the 2008 class. Yes, this team should be able to field a better defense than what transpired in 2010, but TTU received very little contribution from that 2008 class. That was my point.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Either ratings mean something
Or they they don’t…A transition year to maximize what talent we had probably would have netted 2 more w’s. We did not maximize the talent we had.
"It's fun to do bad things"- Latarian
by oldschoolraider on Jan 4, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
Defensively that is
"It's fun to do bad things"- Latarian
by oldschoolraider on Jan 4, 2011 2:00 PM CST up reply actions
Did you look at the list? Of 8 players that were recruited for defense only 1 is still playing for Texas Tech, Cody Davis.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
And if you say that TTU should have maximized the talent, that’s fine for just about any other class, but not the 2008 class.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
In retrospect, this sounded really harsh and I didn’t intend for it to be that way. Sorry.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
I either didn't respond quickly
because my feelings were hurt or I am at a ranch outside of Tucson for business….you have met me and know I am not sensitive. My overall point was about the defense in general, not the 2008 class. My 2008 comment just dovetails with my usual apathy of recruiting updates and drama.
I realize the talent wasn’t great on the defensive side of the ball this year, but two things bug me.
1)I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see where this year is a building block for anyone…..nobody got better on this side of the ball as the year went along.
2)I think the 3-4 determination was made at the time Willis was hired, without respect to the talent on hand and the ease of recruting 3-4 talent at tech.
I am not an expert my any means, and have backed down quite a bit on Neal Brown as the season went along….I have no interest in being anti tubs staff. These defensive beliefs are heartfelt and not schtick.
"It's fun to do bad things"- Latarian
by oldschoolraider on Jan 4, 2011 10:08 PM CST up reply actions
I still thought I sounded like a jackwagon regardless of your response time.
My point was about the 2008 defense in that when you have a recruiting class and you only have one player in an entire class still on a team from just 3 years ago, the defense is going to sufer.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
You will have to be harsher
Than that with kids….keep practicing, and don’t apologize. The sense wavering :)
I find it ironic and telling that the higgher ranked class brought nothing. I’m out on inside baseball on recruiting and rankings.
"It's fun to do bad things"- Latarian
by oldschoolraider on Jan 5, 2011 11:39 PM CST up reply actions
SAT used to be 1600. They changed it in 2005. Now the maximum score is 2400… so I ask again… is his SAT based on a pre-2005 1600 point scale or on a post-2005 2400 point scale?
I would love to take the SAT again 34 years later
See if I’ve picked up any knowledge in the intervening years. My math score would drop off a cliff though.
I hated the SAT then...
I don’t think I could sit through it anymore, it was just long and monotonous to me. ACT was able to hold my attention at least. I swear I think I’ve developed ADD or ADHD since I’ve went to college.
People who think they now everything annoy those of us who really do.....
" Answers --Become Resources."
Without Questions, There are limited Resources...
"Jace Amaro reminds us of...
Tony Gonzalez"
OH my. If he just gets CLOSE to TG’s potential, we have to get this kid involved in the offense ASAP.
by RedRaiderForLife95 on Jan 4, 2011 12:06 PM CST reply actions
I became a Cq Hubert fan in Dallas...
I think I understand why Bird was on the field, it was more his smarts than his play…he was the guy who made the calls.
Cq played like a middle linebacker !!! His numbers show it as well.
as for me and my house, we chose the Lord.
I'm not really seeing this...
One other thing to note. for the most part, the offense has had better classes on paper than the defense.
The ESPN ratings are better on offense, but this is simply the difference in the number of juco’s recruited on defense outnumbering those on offense…
If you look at the Scout/Rivals ratings, which don’t discriminate against jucos, the numbers are fairly even:
Offense slightly better in 2007
Defense a little better in 2008
Offense better in 2009
Defense slightly better in 2010 (the O is skewed that year because of Darren Moore; but somewhat balanced out by all the “flyers” taken late on D)
"Transition is hard." - TT
Actually, per Rivals....
Darrin Moore was a 2 star WR with a 4.9 rating in 2008
http://rivals.yahoo.com/texastech/football/recruiting/player-Darrin-Moore-77870
"Transition is hard." - TT
by Houston Raider on Jan 4, 2011 3:56 PM CST up reply actions
I had this post written about 2 weeks ago and at the last minute, decided to add some more, which in retrospect was probably a bad idea. The blockquoted sentence was one of the things I added as I quickly looked at the numbers. That was a bad idea on my part.
As far as Moore, when I created these spreadsheets, he didn’t have a rating on any of the services and I didn’t go back to verify each time I posted these as I was trying to fill some time between the end of the season and the bowl game.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
No problems...
I think if you’re looking at the ESPN ratings, the offense does look better than the defense…
I’m just trying to look behind the numbers a bit to better understand things (blame that on my Tech engineering education)…
London has some good points below re: juco recruit ratings… an appropriate rating/weighting for jucos is probably somewhere between what ESPN does and what Rivals does… but, they do what they do and that’s what we have…
Sometimes you can get some quirky results when searching for a player on Rivals… you kind of have to go at it a few different ways to find a player sometimes (include year, etc.)…
"Transition is hard." - TT
by Houston Raider on Jan 5, 2011 5:48 AM CST up reply actions
Shear numbers of Defensive Guys....
not making it to campus has really hurt!!!! I just hope TTU can stay healthier next next and the Jr. College Guys-Smith, Rumph, and Langley really need to bring it next year….I do think their seemed to be a real correlation to how the Defense was playing early and then when Smith went out it seemed to really take the wind out of our sails….Wreck’Em Tech
I say we all volunteer
to chip in and hire Scott Smith a monitor to make sure he is staying on the straight and narrow. That guy can play. We need him on the field.
I’m in, anyone else?
That is countrier than a biscuit. - Garth Brooks
Thought we hired a chaplain for this purpose.
Or maybe the Special Teams coach could take this job, he apparently doesn’t spend a lot of time in the “coaching special teams for dummies” section of the library.
"As a head coach, you're on two lists. You're the guy that might get fired, or you're the guy who might go somewhere. Given the two lists, I guess that's the one to be on." ~ Mike Leach
by raider realist on Jan 4, 2011 9:09 PM CST up reply actions
i would expect Charmichael to emerge this spring
not sure whre, but will be a starter….just sayin
"As we continue to merely "talk about championships""
My major problem with the recruiting services is that they over-inflate the value of guys coming out JUCOs and the “Academies.”
For example, Rivals equates a top 50 JUCO prospect to a top 50 high school prospect.
Per Rivals scoring system, a school which signs the top high school player in the country is awarded the same number of points as a school which signs the top JUCO prospect in the country.
I don’t have the numbers, but I would be curious to see how many top 50 JUCOs make an impact on their team (I would be open to any reasonable definition of “impact”) versus their high school counterparts couple with – most importantly – how many years of “production” a school receives from both JUCO and high school players.
In the absolute best case scenario, whereby one school recruits the number 1 JUCO player and another school recruits the number 1 high school player, and both players live up to their billing, one would think that the advantage would still go to the high school player because he would have twice as much eligibility as the JUCO player.
Furthermore, according to the Rivals scoring system, JUCO players 1-50 receive the same weighting as high school players, but for JUCO players ranked 51 and below, a team does not receive any additional points.
Does this arbitrary distinction mean that that the 51st ranked JUCO player does not have the equivalent talent to the 51st ranked high school prospect?
The flaw in the Rivals system is that it seems to accomodate the JUCO to justify and perpetuate its own ranking system. However talented a JUCO player might be, their rating logically should be adjusted to account for years of remaining eligibility.
My opinion about Academy players is less fully formed. On the one hand Academy players retain all four years of eligibility and come in with one year of additional physical development. This seems to be a good thing.
On the other hand, I wonder how many player start at an Academy with a lower recruiting ranking and emerge with a higher ranking. If the numbers are large, does that mean the player actually improved over that year as a result of playing better competition and receiving additional coaching which improved his talent potential, or are the rankings more cosmetic?
It would be interesting to see the “impact” study of Academy players compared to their high school recruited peers.
Also, as is the case with scoring JUCO players, a school receives additional points for recruiting a top 1-50 Academy player as it would a high school recruit, but the same school does not receive the points for Academy players ranked 51 or below.
I think ESPN’s approach of not providing any points to JUCO/Academy types is a bit harsh.
Maybe a JUCO’s and Academy player’s rankings should divided by the years of remaining eligibility to better even out the scoring system. Maybe schools should not receive “bonus” points for recruiting top 1-50 JUCO/Academy players, and simply receive recognition based on a player’s star value.
"This time it's different."
Yes, this is what I see also.
one would think that the advantage would still go to the high school player because he would have twice as much eligibility as the JUCO player.
However, in your discussion, London, I see a difference in the two points your are speaking to. One, is the rating—which I take to be more in the vein of how good is the player today, how well does he score on a ranking system, kind of like a score on the SAT. The other point is more in the vein of impact or value of a player over his available playing time. I see two different characteristics.
With no intention to support the rankings, it makes more sense to me to take them solely as a snapshot in time kind of thing, one that may project potential but not impact over time.
The JC is automatically credited with two additional years of experience playing at a level higher than HS, similar but clearly not equal to the experience an HS’er would get playing scout team and redshirting.
This is a great thread on a high focus subject, I kind of think it is a bit over thought though, we all know there is much to be desired with the ranking systems…and we also like to talk about how good our class is when we get the stars and then talk about how poor the system is when we do not. It is not linear.
Another point about the media’s systems is that they are more to sell product via hits and subscriptions than they are about being accurate (I don’t doubt that they try—some more than others—to be accurate and objective), even as good as they are when more accurate and as bad as they are when they miss. Add to this line of thought the comment that came out, I think last year, from an HC at a major program who said he could buy a star any time he needed it, or words to that effect and the ultimate value of rankings take a different slant.
They are still fun to boast about when you have them on your side ;-)
as for me and my house, we chose the Lord.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Double-T Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
