Rivals has usf at 43 in recruiting

[MaltLiquorBull]

It's simple. Rivals has roughly 50 kids they give 5 stars to. Roughly another 300 they give 4 stars too. About 800 that get 3 stars, with the balance of kids who commit to IA programs as 2 stars. That may fluctuate by a player or 3 every year. They re-evaluate every couple months. Senat did not do anything to lose a star, just other kids jumped over him. Rivals attempts to mitigate this by putting a rivals rating "RR" next to the stars. Senat went from being. 5.8 four star (lowest 4 star) to being a 5.7 three star (highest 3 star).

It's not a science. It's barely art.

Senat is a great get whatever he is ranked.

 

--------------------

 

I don't know anything about recruiting or stars, but if the re-evaluate it every couple of months, on what do they base the evaluation (in the off season)?  Do they simply look at the offers and rank the players higher if they have offers from schools like Alabama, ND, etc. and rank them lower if they have offers from schools like USF?  I don't know but what criteria do they use when they are not on the field playing?

[SANJAY]

It's simple. Rivals has roughly 50 kids they give 5 stars to. Roughly another 300 they give 4 stars too. About 800 that get 3 stars, with the balance of kids who commit to IA programs as 2 stars. That may fluctuate by a player or 3 every year. They re-evaluate every couple months. Senat did not do anything to lose a star, just other kids jumped over him. Rivals attempts to mitigate this by putting a rivals rating "RR" next to the stars. Senat went from being. 5.8 four star (lowest 4 star) to being a 5.7 three star (highest 3 star).

It's not a science. It's barely art.

Senat is a great get whatever he is ranked.

 

--------------------

 

I don't know anything about recruiting or stars, but if the re-evaluate it every couple of months, on what do they base the evaluation (in the off season)?  Do they simply look at the offers and rank the players higher if they have offers from schools like Alabama, ND, etc. and rank them lower if they have offers from schools like USF?  I don't know but what criteria do they use when they are not on the field playing?

The december- January evaluation is usually from the prior season. The evaluations from the summer are based on junior year film and the various camps that are conducted. The rivals excuse on Senat is that he was re-evaluated, along with the whole class, weeks ago but that change did not get made on the rivals database. It has happened before over the years, sometimes it goes from 2 to 3 stars. Yes, even for kids that committed to USF.

[Who'sYourData?]

It's simple. Rivals has roughly 50 kids they give 5 stars to. Roughly another 300 they give 4 stars too. About 800 that get 3 stars, with the balance of kids who commit to IA programs as 2 stars. That may fluctuate by a player or 3 every year. They re-evaluate every couple months. Senat did not do anything to lose a star, just other kids jumped over him. Rivals attempts to mitigate this by putting a rivals rating "RR" next to the stars. Senat went from being. 5.8 four star (lowest 4 star) to being a 5.7 three star (highest 3 star).

It's not a science. It's barely art.

Senat is a great get whatever he is ranked.

 

--------------------

 

I don't know anything about recruiting or stars, but if the re-evaluate it every couple of months, on what do they base the evaluation (in the off season)?  Do they simply look at the offers and rank the players higher if they have offers from schools like Alabama, ND, etc. and rank them lower if they have offers from schools like USF?  I don't know but what criteria do they use when they are not on the field playing?

The december- January evaluation is usually from the prior season. The evaluations from the summer are based on junior year film and the various camps that are conducted. The rivals excuse on Senat is that he was re-evaluated, along with the whole class, weeks ago but that change did not get made on the rivals database. It has happened before over the years, sometimes it goes from 2 to 3 stars. Yes, even for kids that committed to USF.

 

The change didn't make it to the database until the moment he became a USF commit?  They need to hire me.

[SANJAY]

I'm not defending them. Just explaining the process.

[Gismo]

Had he committed a day later, and he lost a star the day before his commit, I know some would believe it was because they some how knew he would commit here. 

 

The timing is suspect and I think there is some evidence to support all sides. 

 

My own thoughts are that they do have some offer list bias. What I mean is that, if they see a talent and look at the offer list, this list will act as confirmation so they will be more likely to give them a higher rating. But, if they see an talent, and they don't have any marque offers it might raise doubts in their own assessment leading them to give a lower rating. The offer list I do believe adds some bias to the rating system. 

Edited January 29, 2013 by Gismo

[Who'sYourData?]

One of the guys on ESPN last year admitted that their scouting is subject to change based on who the players sign with.  His scientific explanation was that if Alabama or Florida wanted the kid, he has to be good, right?

[cmsnow84]

Who cares about the **** stars?!  I have seen plenty of five star recruits play like two stars in college and visa versa.  These guys dont know anymore than the coaches.  If CWT thinks he is a fit for this club and may become a dominant player, then I trust what his evaluation says more than some **** website.

[Whyyyyyyy?]

Who cares about the **** stars?!  I have seen plenty of five star recruits play like two stars in college and visa versa.  These guys dont know anymore than the coaches.  If CWT thinks he is a fit for this club and may become a dominant player, then I trust what his evaluation says more than some **** website.

Could not agree more..... 

 

Also in my estimate hoovering around the high forties is nothing to write home about. No one is not saying that CWT and his staff has not done a adequate job of adding quote un quote talent to this recruiting class but if you praise mediocrity then you will always fall short of the true goal. Unless you demand rationally lofty goals from this staff then we shall never be that which we strive to obtain. The same should be demanded of the on and off the field performance of the athletes. Our goal is nothing more the championship and to do that we must start to demand more as a fan base in production on and off the field from all aspects of this organization. 

[charsibb]

Who cares about the **** stars?!  I have seen plenty of five star recruits play like two stars in college and visa versa.  These guys dont know anymore than the coaches.  If CWT thinks he is a fit for this club and may become a dominant player, then I trust what his evaluation says more than some **** website.

 

Who cares?

 

The recruits do.

 

And if signing with us is going to lower their rating, they'll be less inclined to sign with us.

 

That's why it matters.

[charsibb]

Can we merge these threads?

 

http://thebullspen.com/index.php?/topic/90297-rivals-removes-ranking-after-usf-commitment/