Do recruiting rankings mean anything?

[Leonidas]

An article here that finally puts down on writing what Ohio State fans have known for several years. Under John Cooper they were always neck in neck with the Miamis and Florida States for top recruiting classes, and always choked. Tressel comes in and barely gets the team in the top 10 in recruiting, yet always winds up in the thick of the BCS race. Recruiting services always look at the numbers, but great coaches have a way of seeing something special in a player that transcend the numbers. I believe Tressel looks for specific traits for a certain type of athlete or for a certain position that the scout services either overlook or give less weight to.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/sports/...y/16660164.htm

OSU shows rankings for recruits overrated
Tressel thrives developing midpack players
By Terry Pluto

Here's what we know about Ohio State University's football recruiting class: It's ranked No. 15 by SI/Rivals.com and No. 16 by Scout.com. Both respected scouting services have Florida with the nation's top recruiting class, and both have OSU second in the Big Ten behind a school up North -- and we're not talking about Ferris State.

Here's what all that means: nothing.

Remember that famed 2002 Buckeye recruiting class, ranked No. 1 in the nation by several services?

According to Scout.com, the highest rated player was linebacker Mike D'Andrea, No. 8 in the country. He rarely played for the Buckeyes because of major injuries.

Other big names were Maurice Clarett (now in prison), Justin Zwick (a backup quarterback) and Mike Kudla, who had an impressive college career battling through major illnesses and injuries. He was not drafted, went to camp with the Pittsburgh Steelers but was sidetracked by injuries and cut.

The best player of that class turned out to be A.J. Hawk, now with the Green Bay Packers.

Scout uses a five-star system. The more stars, the better. Hawk was a middle-of-the-pack, three-star guy.

Ever hear of a kid named Rob Sims? An offensive lineman from Nordonia High? They gave him three stars. He's now an NFL starter with the Seattle Seahawks.

How about T.J. Downing from GlenOak High? They gave him two stars. He was named first-team all-Big Ten as an offensive lineman.

What about Nick Mangold, a starter for the New York Jets? He received ONE star, but he was a first-round NFL pick. Jay Richardson also was a one-star player but started as a senior on the defensive line.

It's just like first-round draft choices in the NFL, compared with guys picked in the later rounds -- you can increase your odds of finding a star in the top rounds, but there are lots of jewels if you dig deep in the right spots.

Pittman underrated

Which brings us to Antonio Pittman.

He's one of only five running backs in OSU history to have consecutive 1,000-yard rushing seasons. When he came out of Buchtel High School and said hello to Columbus, little was said about him. Scout gave him three stars.

He might be the most underrated running back in all of college football and is expected to be a first-day pick in the NFL Draft, perhaps in the second round.

Here's a list of OSU's five-star players from 2002 to 2006: Mike Kudla, Maurice Clarett, Donte Whitner, Mike D'Andrea, Ted Ginn Jr., Alex Boone, Doug Worthington, Jamario O'Neal, Larry Grant, Connor Smith and Chris Wells.

Whitner was a first-round pick, and Ginn is expected to go that high this spring.

Clarett self-destructed, and D'Andrea and Kudla faced injuries. Boone was a starter last season as a sophomore. Worthington is a defensive end and has had two knee surgeries. He'll be a redshirt sophomore next year.

The Buckeyes had three five-star players in 2006: Wells, Smith and Grant. Wells, from Garfield High, gained 578 yards as a freshman. Grant was a backup linebacker and played in 11 games. Smith was a redshirt.

Do you want the most five-star players in the country?

Of course.

Do you need them to be an elite team?

Not really.

From 3 stars to big star

In fact, the Buckeyes have found most of their top players with three stars next to their names on recruiting day.

The winner of the Bronko Nagurski Award as the nation's premier college defensive player last season was James Laurinaitis. A first-team All-American linebacker.

Three stars.

There's Doug Datish, a first team All-Big Ten pick at center.

Three stars.

There's Kirk Barton, another all-Big Ten pick on the offensive line.

Three stars.

There are Hawk, Sims and Ashton Youboty in the NFL.

Three stars.

There are Malcolm Jenkins, Pittman and Laurinaitis -- all-Big Ten selections.

Three stars.

Do you like sophomore receiver Brian Robiskie?

He got two stars.

Finally, there's Heisman Trophy winner Troy Smith. He was a four-star recruit out of Cleveland Glenville because he was such a gifted athlete. There were questions about him ever playing quarterback for the Buckeyes.

But he surprised everyone by leading the Buckeyes to a 3-0 record against Michigan, 2-1 in bowl games and a No. 2 national ranking as a senior.

What this list reveals is that just as important as recruiting talented players is developing them. That's what coach Jim Tressel and his staff have been doing for years with the Buckeyes.

It's often said that no one becomes a good college coach unless he's a good recruiter. That's true. But great college coaches turn two-star players and three-star players into all-league college players and future NFL Draft picks -- and that has been the secret to the Buckeyes' recent success.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Of course they're overrated, just like NFL Draft "grades" are overrated. It's all pure speculation. There is no idea how these kids will pan out. The NFL draft is a crapshoot and it's even more so in college recruiting. It's hard to know how an 18 year old kid will develop/grow. They're 18.

[albionmoonlight]

There is also a bias in recruiting rankings. If top schools start paying attention to a kid, then the recruiting services are going to be much more likely to make that kid a four or five star player. And vice versa for the kid who is not heavily recruited.

[Logan]

They mean something to the person it's marketed towards: the college fan. These are the people paying for the information, and that's who this stuff is catering towards.

I'm willing to bet that no coach has ever targeted a player because Rivals or Scout says he's a 5 star player. And if they have, they're not going to last long in their profession.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Logan

They mean something to the person it's marketed towards: the college fan. These are the people paying for the information, and that's who this stuff is catering towards.

I'm willing to bet that no coach has ever targeted a player because Rivals or Scout says he's a 5 star player. And if they have, they're not going to last long in their profession.

...but that's how I do it in TCY....

[Kodos]

I hope they aren't, because IU's class was rated poorly.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

There is also a bias in recruiting rankings. If top schools start paying attention to a kid, then the recruiting services are going to be much more likely to make that kid a four or five star player. And vice versa for the kid who is not heavily recruited.

Definitely true. Also, a lot of these ratings, especially when they're in areas that aren't evaluated as heavily as they do in the south, are derived purely from video clips. Rutgers just signed a DE from Florida who was rated 2 stars by Rivals. Yet he had multiple BCS offers, and if you read what opposing coaches have to say about him, you wonder how it could be that he's so "lowly" rated. The answer? His coach never sent in any videos to Rivals. He knew the schools that were recruiting his kid, and that he would have nothing additional to gain by helping Rivals make more money.

We also just signed a 4 star ATH, Mason Robinson. He was "upgraded" to a 4 star just a few weeks ago. Why? Because Rivals received a new video and decided he was now a 4 star player. A highlight video, where he definitely showed some great moves, changed his national perception from being a potentially solid D1 player to being a potential star D1 player. An out-of-context highlight video.

These recruiting services are a business, and not many people come to that massive realization. And businesses do what they can to cater to the wishes of their customer base.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

...but that's how I do it in TCY....

And that's why you always get fired and end up at some directional school .

[JPhillips]

It's just like first-round draft choices in the NFL, compared with guys picked in the later rounds -- you can increase your odds of finding a star in the top rounds, but there are lots of jewels if you dig deep in the right spots.

This is a great summary. Not all four and five star recruits will be stars, but the odds are higher.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

It's hard to know how an 18 year old kid will develop/grow. They're 18.

A very simple example that I'm sure we can all find on our favorite team...

In 2003, Eric Foster was just a 2-star ILB recruit despite playing for a school that has churned out some very nice prospects, both before and since then. He was 6'2", 235 lbs. Now, he's up to 260 lbs, and just happened to have been named a 1st-team All American at DT during his junior year last season.

EDIT: We also signed the #1 DT in the country that year, according to Rivals, in 5 star Nate Robinson. He had attitude problems, couldn't stay in shape, and was eventually kicked off the team, without ever making any contributions. I believe he's at Akron right now. Luckily we have a guy instead who's playing like the #1 DT in the country out of that class.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

These recruiting services are a business, and not many people come to that massive realization. And businesses do what they can to cater to the wishes of their customer base.

Exactly and you might notice another thing about Rivals or Scout. If a top 10 player commits early he is more prone to fall down the rankings while someone who might be 10-20 might creep up if he waits till close to signing day to commit. That way those services can create more suspense and keep people coming back.

A prime example was Myron Rolle last season. Rivals had him as the #1 overall prospect in the fall when he committed to Florida State. After that he slowly crept down the board till he settled around the mid teens. It is a marketing strategy that's all.

[panerd]

One name: Quin Snyder

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a great summary. Not all four and five star recruits will be stars, but the odds are higher.

That's obviously true, but I posted this because I am so sick of the hype every about how Florida is so awesome because they had a great class, but Ohio State and Notre Dame are obviously programs going downhill because of dissappointing recruiting classes. It's typical media BS. There are some schools (cough, Florida State, cough) that always get rated as top 10 classes, yet haven't put a top 10 team on the field in years. Then there are other schools (Boise, Louisville, West Virginia anybody?) that rarely get rated highly in these things yet are now becoming perrennial BCS contenders. Some schools like USC and Texas can sit back and just let the recruits roll in, but fans of lesser schools shouldn't get upset if their class isn't in the top 10. It's all about what each school needs and how they uses the talent they get. Ohio State, Georgia, West Virginia, and any other bigtime school has the potential to make any class they recruit win titles. I don't think there's any appreciable difference between the class USC brought in or Rutgers or Illinois. It's all in what the staff's do with these guys once they get them in.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by panerd

One name: Quin Snyder

Who was that other kid Duke had who was McDonalds All-American? Casey Sanders? Oh what a bust he was. And who can forget Shav Randolph? He was supposed to be the next Dirk Nowitzki out of high school. Yeah, Duke basketball has been kind of funny with their top recruits. The really high guys seem to flop while their nobodies overachieve. Very strange program.

[Dr. Sak]

You can get all the 4 and 5 star guys you want but if they a) don't fit in your system or b) don't have the coaching to develop them; you will be in big trouble.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Who was that other kid Duke had who was McDonalds All-American? Casey Sanders? Oh what a bust he was. And who can forget Shav Randolph? He was supposed to be the next Dirk Nowitzki out of high school. Yeah, Duke basketball has been kind of funny with their top recruits. The really high guys seem to flop while their nobodies overachieve. Very strange program.

I wasn't even thinking of the player Quin I was talking about Quin the coach and his "top 10" recruiting classes that were just a bunch of bums and thugs that ruined our program the last 5 years. Tyler Hansbourogh grew up in Missouri with a dad that played at Mizzou and was scraed to away by Quin and his 4 & 5-star recruits.

[waltwal]

Of course you can't go exactly by the ratings but you also have to look at the teams in the top 20 in recruiting on a consistent basis- they are generally in the top 20 at the end of the season as well. USC has dominated recruiting over the past 5 years and look at where they have ended up the past 5 years- at or very near the top 5.

It is very defininately not a crap shoot. These kids have gone to combines where you actually see them compete against each other in non-contact situations. QB's go to QB schools when they are in the 6th grade and receive year around training for 7-8 years before they go to college. Sure there are a lot of kids who develop later or come from schools that have bad programs but each year the scouting services are getting better and better.

I am fortunate to be a Cal fan where we have the best of both worlds. Recruiting classes over the past 5 years that have been in the top 20 and a great coaching staff headed by Jeff Tedford that is developing the players to their fullest.

I watch the recruiting sites daily and really investigate at least for Cal how players develop. I do find that a lot of 3 star players wind up as great players but the 5's and 4's do as well. 3 programs that i really respect are Ohio State, USC and Cal- give them players that average in the top 10 and they will wind up close to that position each year.

Plus one more thing it is fun to follow recruiting each year.

[NYFAN]

A little insight from a college coach (different sport granted).

Rankings generally tell part of the story. Like people have mentioned these rankings generally illustrate how much attention from the bigger schools a lot of the kids get.

The other part of the story is in the eyes of the ranker. One coach may place an emphasis on speed and hands for a wide receiver, while another coach at an equally impressive university may place an emphasis on size and strength for a receiver. Why? Could be a difference in offensive systems, or it could be one coach's belief that he can teach a WR to have better hands.

The point being this. Recruiting is a multi-faceted operation, and no ranking that I'm aware of does a good enough job of rating classes based on the majority of those factors. Part of getting a great recruiting class is not only in getting physically dominant, but also mentally dominant recruits - without really getting to know each prospect this can be extremely hard to judge (aka: the ranker dude only knows what others tell hiim). Another MAJOR part, is finding kids that will fit into your system the best - this doesn't necessarily mean that they are the biggest, strongest fastest.

So one program's success with marginal recruit rankings compared to another programs failure with amazing recruit rankings can be explained fairly easily using these things. Also, don't fail to forget that many rankings use college coaches to help rank (so you're seeing it through those coaches' eyes, and there are some obvious consequences to that).

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

There is also a bias in recruiting rankings. If top schools start paying attention to a kid, then the recruiting services are going to be much more likely to make that kid a four or five star player. And vice versa for the kid who is not heavily recruited.

So true. Everson Griffen was ranked around the 40th DE a few months ago. Once, USC and others started recruiting him, his ranking went way up. However, around that time, he also put on a dazzling display at a H.S. All Stars Camp. So, the violatility of rankings also has to do with the amount of exposure of a player gets throughout his H.S. career.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I don't think there's any appreciable difference between the class USC brought in or Rutgers or Illinois. It's all in what the staff's do with these guys once they get them in.

The first line made me think of another problem I have when these classes are evaluated: they put no consideration into why the schools got the players they did. Let's look at USC...did they need to bring in 3 stud RBs in this class? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, as I honestly don't know. But are these traditional powerhouse schools (the ones that "select" instead of "recruit") going after guys they need, or just simply the best players in the country regardless of position?

Maybe that's why we see so much of team with these middle of the road (ranking-wise) classes produce such great results. These coaches are going after the players that they need to fill out their roster. Some more Rutgers examples, since that's mostly all I know...

Last year, we loaded up on athletic talent at the skill positions. We brought in a bunch of WRs and LBs because within 2 years, we would be losing most of our top talent at the position.

This year, with the way we recruited last year, we needed to load up on both sides of the lines, as after next season, those will be fairly inexperienced positions. So we went hard after OL and DL help. It doesn't mean you don't pick a skill player here and there, because it's nice to have one player at those positions come in every year, but you prioritize. We ended up signing 4 OLs and 6 DLs, and I wouldn't trade those guys for the ones that USC ended up with. Our OL coach has done an amazing job in turning guys into excellent O-linemen, without having much experience, so I know there's a great chance that these hand-picked players will be able to follow in the footsteps of the other recruits we've brought in. I'm not saying what USC is doing is wrong...obviously, it's working for them. But maybe other schools are doing a better job with the whole process.

Anyway, that brings me back to my original point...no weight is being placed on why Rutgers signed the players they did. They needed line help, and in the coaching staff's opinion, they got it. But because some of these guys don't have the name recognition that the QBs/RBs/WRs have, it's not taken into account very much.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by NYFAN

A little insight from a college coach (different sport granted).

Rankings generally tell part of the story. Like people have mentioned these rankings generally illustrate how much attention from the bigger schools a lot of the kids get.

The other part of the story is in the eyes of the ranker. One coach may place an emphasis on speed and hands for a wide receiver, while another coach at an equally impressive university may place an emphasis on size and strength for a receiver. Why? Could be a difference in offensive systems, or it could be one coach's belief that he can teach a WR to have better hands.

The point being this. Recruiting is a multi-faceted operation, and no ranking that I'm aware of does a good enough job of rating classes based on the majority of those factors. Part of getting a great recruiting class is not only in getting physically dominant, but also mentally dominant recruits - without really getting to know each prospect this can be extremely hard to judge (aka: the ranker dude only knows what others tell hiim). Another MAJOR part, is finding kids that will fit into your system the best - this doesn't necessarily mean that they are the biggest, strongest fastest.

So one program's success with marginal recruit rankings compared to another programs failure with amazing recruit rankings can be explained fairly easily using these things. Also, don't fail to forget that many rankings use college coaches to help rank (so you're seeing it through those coaches' eyes, and there are some obvious consequences to that).

Very well said, and that was kind of where I was heading with my above post.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I don't think there's any appreciable difference between the class USC brought in or Rutgers or Illinois. It's all in what the staff's do with these guys once they get them in.

Completely disagree. You can't teach the speed and athleticism that most of the USC recruits have and I don't think the Rutgers' class or Illinois class has that size and athleticism in as many of the recruits as USC does. I do agree that coaching up players once they arrive is very important.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

...but that's how I do it in TCY....

So, does anybody completely ignore the TCY rankings when they recruit?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

So, does anybody completely ignore the TCY rankings when they recruit?

I do. I go by my scouts rating, for the most part. Only if I have really bad scouts do I use the TCY ranking.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by bsak16

You can get all the 4 and 5 star guys you want but if they a) don't fit in your system or b) don't have the coaching to develop them; you will be in big trouble.

Why are you always so hung up on Pitt?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I do. I go by my scouts rating, for the most part. Only if I have really bad scouts do I use the TCY ranking.

I do, too. I always go with what my scout says plus what my visit reveals.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I do, too. I always go with what my scout says plus what my visit reveals.

yep

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Why are you always so hung up on Pitt?

Nicely done.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Why are you always so hung up on Pitt?

Why do you have a Fat Head of Dave Wannstedt in your house?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by bsak16

Why do you have a Fat Head of Dave Wannstedt in your house?

Because I need a good role-model for growing my pornstache?

[Logan]

Pitt will be scary good in a couple years when their next coach starts utilizing all the talent The Stache has brought in.

[Tigercat]

The reason why some Big 10 recruits are underrated is because usually the athletes in the Big 10 region aren't as physically impressive as those from the South or West Coast. So many of the future stars in Big 10 country only end up being recruited by the regional BCS schools. But even though a kid might only be a 4.7 40 6'2 200 pound LB now, he might have a very good frame and a perfect attitude to become an All American 6'2 240 pound LBer.

Whereas the 6'2 220 4.5 40 LBer from the south or far west may never have the stuff to take his game to the next level.

Big 10 territory doesn't have the athletes of other regions, but when you don't have the athletes you can make up for it by looking at potential in other ways. Thats something recruiting sites can't account for. They can, however, see the speed gap between teams like UF and OSU coming from a mile away, however.