02-11-2008, 04:58 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
But, the answer to your question is no - they're not all stupid. They are human. It's a function of limited time & resources preventing all of the 'less-than-four-stars' players from being properly evaluated by the sites OR the bcs coaches. The simple fact is that a two-star recruit out of Wyoming, who's been identified by only a handful of 'local' colleges, is NOT going to get the same attention a player with similar measurables is going to get in California....and, in the end, could be just as good or better than the Cal player. USC is not stupid for not recruiting the kid. Far from it - to devote resources to him that are better used elsewhere is a smart move. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:00 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
I think the big schools often don't bother doing that much talent evaluation. They let the recruiting services do it for them and then they go after them. Certainly, they will evaluate players once the recruiting services have identified them, but IMO they've outsourced a fair amount of the initial screening. Bronco and other lesser schools are often forced into more intensive initial screening to identify players that haven't shown up on the national radar, but still possess enough ability to succeed; because Bronco knows damn well he can't butter his bread going head-to-head with top BCS schools on a regular basis. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:02 PM | #23 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 68
|
Quote:
Kids that go to the summer camps, get recruited by big name schools, etc get more exposure and more looks and more thorough evaluations. There are simply too many HS athletes to evaluate all of them in a fair and equivalent manner. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:04 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
In order to make a fair evaluation of talent, the coaching staff would have to devote the same amount of time towards each recruit. Obviously, this isn't possible, especially for recruits from Utah that they don't ever hear about. Thus, you can have a kid playing in Utah who, had he played a mile from USC campus, would have had an extra star or two. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:07 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
OK, so let's throw out this model. 90% of 5 star recruits will be good college players. 70% of 4 star recruits. 50% of 3 star recruits. 30% of 2 star recruits. Is this fair? Can we agree on that? So my question is how is Bronco so good at talent evaluation that he gets a higher potion of 2 star recruits to become good college players compared to say Boise State or Utah or Oregon? Likewise for the 3 and 4 stars we get. At some point you have to believe we're better than every else at talent evaluation OR you have to admit stars are important and our recruiting class isn't that hot. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:09 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
02-11-2008, 05:11 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
In fact, 13 of the 30 five star athletes were given less than three stars based on their actual career production. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:16 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
I think what most of us are saying is that, for the TOP-LEVEL BCS schools, stars do matter. For the rest of the country, the inaccuracy inherent to the talent evaluation leads to nearly meaningless data. It's all academic, regardless. The most sure-fire recruit can fail, and the unlikeliest walk-on can turn out great. The eventual impact of a recruiting class can ONLY be measured after each of them has played through their eligibility. You can choose to either be satisfied/excited with the recruits you got, or you can choose to be dissatisfied. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:18 PM | #29 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 68
|
Quote:
As I said before, of course stars are meaningful. However, they are not the be all end all because all HS players are not and can not be evaluated equally. It's just not possible from a logistical perspective. |
|
02-11-2008, 05:19 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
Thus, if they like who they're targeting, they wouldn't spend the resources on someone they just found out BYU is excited about... Last edited by Spaz; 02-11-2008 at 05:23 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|