Quote:
Originally Posted by NMUCats
1) Obviously a player doesn't magically become better when he receives offers from traditionally solid programs. Every year there are cases of guys that slipped through the cracks and turned into major players who didn't receive major offers. However, I would take my chances with a recruit who is being offered by USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and LSU over a recruit whose offers are all MAC schools anyday (wouldn't you?), and I think the recruiting services view it in the same way. I'm pretty sure they use a combination of offers received and tape of the player to make an evaluation.
2) Obviously another imperfection of the system. I'm sure there are years where there aren't 250 players deserving of 4 star ratings as well. Practically, I think everyone realizes that someone ranked #250 and someone ranked #251 are a coin flip of a difference, regardless of star rating.
|
Really? I don't think so. The audience is tRCMB and there isn't a plethora of knowledge being thrown around here. As to point #1: Don't you see the double standard then? If Tyler Hoover or Martin or Johnny Adams were Texas recruits they would be at least 4 stars.
As you said it isn't perfect but there is a paradox on display. If the top team's players always get a bump (and they do) and those teams are always successful then why wouldn't the ranking correlate to wins? The fact is that these teams win b/c of coaching and running quality systems. They recruit well but that doesn't have anything to do with stars since the players get a bump anyway. In other words, just b/c one player has an offer from a "top" school and another doesn't, does not mean that one player is better than the other. It means that one player got recruited by these schools and that largely has to do with the region where they play. Case in point Keshawn Martin. That kid would not have gone unnoticed in the South or in Texas. If the bias would be removed and actually player evaluation took place then the system would be better.