Are Recruiting Rankings Ruining College Football?

[HoopsDawg]

Eh look at the rating value, not just the starzzz if you wanna discern the difference between players. An 89 and an 81 are both 3*, but clearly the 89 is considered the better player and closer to a 4* than the bottom of the 3*.

Most people just look at stars though. And these recruiting guys aren't stressing over 82 or 85, lol. I guess if they complain enough they can get a guy moved to 89 but who cares.

[gravedigger]

How can you say that recruiting rankings are somewhat valid when only top 10 recruiters have won a natty or the SEC?

Because I?m not trying to induce a conclusion. Deductively speaking the rankings would match the recruiting rankings below the top 10 and they don?t. Additionally, there is literally no way to look at a film clip of high school players and derive contribution to a team. There is also no way to quantify the difference in the way coaches evaluate or the difference between Offensive linemen value and a cornerback. It is literally absurd. Bama gets the best players because their coach?s decision to recruit them is how these services determine who is best. They win because their program is tun well by their coach and his staff.

All that said, some non coach evaluating players has little correlation and absolutely no causation to what ingredients make up a good team.

I get the fascination. I just see too many examples of the opposite to buy into the fact that it?s real.

[TUSK]

Because I?m not trying to induce a conclusion. Deductively speaking the rankings would match the recruiting rankings below the top 10 and they don?t. Additionally, there is literally no way to look at a film clip of high school players and derive contribution to a team. There is also no way to quantify the difference in the way coaches evaluate or the difference between Offensive linemen value and a cornerback. It is literally absurd. Bama gets the best players because their coach?s decision to recruit them is how these services determine who is best. They win because their program is tun well by their coach and his staff.

All that said, some non coach evaluating players has little correlation and absolutely no causation to what ingredients make up a good team.

I get the fascination. I just see too many examples of the opposite to buy into the fact that it?s real.

The Accuracy of a "Recruiting Ranking" is Progressively Inversely Proportional to it's actual "Overall Rating"...

IMO....