In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place for Gamecock talk, news and information
The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.
The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information
The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.
Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.
The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes
The best of the best
Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.
Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
My problem with stars is that they create media (and possibly recruit) hype. A kid who drops from 90 to 89 drops from four stars to three and another jumps up from 84 to 89, which apparently is almost a four star rating. When it's all said and done though, they are both three star recruits rather than four star recruits. How much effect does this have down the road in recruiting? I don't know, but it can't make it any easier when schools down the road have more guys who are perhaps only marginally better (or not) but get counted as four star recruits. It's very tough to rank players based on videotape against random levels of competition, which is certainly part of the process. I'm not saying I know a better way, but there are still some issues with consistency. I am not saying there is any type of conspiracy against South Carolina. That notion is pathetically stupid, but still, USC ends up further down the list than perhaps they should and it might make it tougher to recruit against other programs.
Wins are the only barometer I'm interested in, but it does concern me that arbitrary rankings by guys who may or may not have any more knowledge than me (or any other solid fan or lower level coach) may have an effect on what younger recruits think about the future.
Do you think it affects recruiting, what our recruiting rankings are?
I think that guys ranked as 89-3*'s are the kind of guys USC has made a living off of in the past few years. A guy ranked 89 is a player with 4* skills, but is maybe an inch or so shorter, or a couple of pounds lighter than you would normally see. Or, it could be a guy like Pharoh, who clearly has 4* skills, but it is hard to project what position he is going to play, and doesn't have eye-popping size for any position.
I really don't care what they are ranked, when we are getting the results we are. I think some people pay more attention to recruiting rankings than real rankings. What we have been doing works.
Ally will beat the crap out of Uga.
I don't want to see us trying to put pressure on Tony, not that it would have any results, to rank our recruits higher than what they think they should be ranked.
I do think that a lot of people would relax if the exact same kids that we have committed were all ranked 4*'s, though. I think some view it as a status symbol. I think our status is defined by back to back top-10 rankings, the rankings from actual play.
I would never suggest that JC or Tony or any other analyst would manipulate rankings to help or hurt a particular program. Maybe that goes on some places but I wouldn't ever expect that from the guys at this site.
I'm just saying that when you have two guys who don't have a thimble full of difference between them but one is a 89/3 star and the other is a 90/4 star, this is a very arbitrary system but that small difference can mean a lot in terms of public opinion, and that includes the opinions of recruits and those advising the recruits where they should go.
I don't like that the recruiting game can be influenced by analysts, but that ship has sailed, it's water under the bridge, it is what it is, etc etc.
This post was edited by MCR 18 months ago
I could be wrong, but I think JC is involved in ratings, not Tony.
I absolutely believe that certain programs carry more weight than others when it comes to offers. Then, the kids who get offers from those programs, especially commitments, get bumps in the rankings. Now, I also believe that those programs do a great job, in general, of finding and developing talented kids like The USC, and those programs would probably recruit those kids regardless of their # of stars. Then, there are other programs that are more concerned with rankings and skill players so they can try to pump up their overall recruiting ranking to create more hype for their program, and the media often fall for that without considering that you cannot, for example, play 9 WRs at a time.
I will agree with that. If you look at David Johnson's film, then look at Yannick Ngakoue's film, they are the same. I actually think Johnson looks a bit better. Yannick is rated a 90, and Johnson is rated 89. They play the same position in high school. Yannick's film is a little better quality, just the video quality. I think it's just that different evaluators from different areas rank different guys, sometimes. I think the difference in ranking between Johnson and Ngakoue is that Johnson was rated as a DE, and he is on the short side for a DE.
I know you would not try to manipulate the rankings, and I don't think any of us would, consciously. I do see what your getting at as far as the public opinion of a 3* vs a 4*. Because we, and particularly Lawing, sees those tweeners as steals that he can torment other teams with, we, and our recruits, are probably going to end up on the short end of the stick. We love those 'tweeners', or 'hybrids', or whatever you want to call them, and we have had great success with them. David Johnson, Gerald Turner, Devin Washington, Pharoh Cooper, all of our OL's, Covington, Groves.....hell, most of our recruiting class, was right on that bubble. It is eery how we get those guys, because I know that the coaches don't scroll 247 to look for prospects. I don't doubt that they may look at 247 to track guys, and out of curiousity sometimes. It is just weird how almost all of our recruits are 'tweeners' or bubble guys from BFE.
On the other side, I would bet that the commitments of some of our prospects, that were lesser known, caused evaluators to maybe go scout them in person, and maybe got them a ratings boost. To be clear, the ratings boost did not come from our offer, just caused the prospect to maybe get invited to camps, or a place where a proper evaluation could be done against other talented prospects.
Thanks. I meant any of them. i edited my post.
I wonder how many 4 and 5 star recruits there were before recruiting websites became such a huge business. I feel like there were a lot less and then they increased the number of "4 stars" to get consumers excited
It's the trouble with going from a continuous scale to an ordinal scale. The difference between a 3 and 4 star doesn't accurately reflect the true difference between those players. Just like the fact that a high 3 star and a low 3 star are still 3 stars and, therefore, the same in the eyes of that scale. I agree with you that it is a problem.
Of that, there's no doubt. Now, the majority of those kids might be worthy of their lofty rankings. But in the process, a lot of very talented players, who aren't pursued by those top brand-name programs like Alabama or LSU, get underrated.
I wonder if everybody would agree to go to a 11* ranking system. Only Guys like Clowney would be a 11*, so it would be more like a 10* system.Guys like David Johnson and Pharoh would be 5*, Low 4*'s would be a 6*. Guys like David Williams would be 7*, Larenz would be an 8*, and your 5* guys now would be 9's and 10's, with the rare 11*.
This way, your 3* guys would range from 3-5*'s, since there seems to be the biggest difference in the caliber of team that will offer a low 3* guy, and a high 3* guy. Most, but not all, of your low 3* guys will end up at ACC, MWC, Big East, CUSA, schools like that. Mid and upper-3* guys almost always end up in your power conferences, and upper-echelon ACC schools. There are no prospects rated as 1*, so we really only have a 4* ranking system now. In the new system, 2* guys would be ranked as 1 and 2*'s.
ESPN would have to agree to the new rankings. Although they do the least thorough evaluations, and are the most biased, they are the ones that get looked at by the common fan. ESPN needs to step up their evaluation process, and be fair, or just leave it up to JC and the boys, imo. They do have bias, and are influenced by the power schools. If Saban takes a kid's commitment, Luginbill, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, will look for a reason to rate him as a 4*. How many actual evaluators do they have besides Luginbill, anyways?
This post was edited by steve miller 18 months ago
It seems to me that rankings are 60% measurables and results, the other 40% is subjective. I would love to take a decade of wins and losses and measure that against recruiting rankings. I've never seen that done. If you do it over a shorter period, it's not as accurate. Of course with so many coaching changes, that is almost impossible to do these days.
Totally agree with this. I feel like there are more 4* players than ever, but I could be wrong.
Look at the national champion for the last decade. They usually have higher ratings than most other teams.
Same thing for conference champions.
Also, where our recruiting classes fall in the sec is usually pretty close to where we finish in conference play.
Every system has it's flaws. Recruits are ranked by national and regional people so I can't imagine national guys having the time to fully evaluate every player in the country then regional guys have something to gain by fudging the numbers for the players they evaluate. This site seems to have a lot of integrity in this area but there are others that don't. Overall class rankings are less important because they don't take into account a particular team's needs so if they load up on 6 5* WRs when they don't truly need them( see the upstate) their class ranking might be higher but the class is weaker because they failed to sign guys they needed. There will always be the Dylan Thompson's who play better than their ranking suggests and the Stephen Garcia's who play below the level they are expected to play. You can't account for this in recruiting. Teams that consistently land top 5 will pass school's that don't. Recruiting is also cyclical and Bama will fall off at some point.
I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I am all out of bubble gum.
Just a coincidence the past couple of years. A coupld of plays go different, or a different draw in the schedule, and we finish way ahead of our recruiting rankings. What about Arkansas under Petrino? Georgia should hammer us by that logic. We've beaten them 3 yrs in a row. Auburn's recruiting classes are ranked ahead of ours as well. LSU finished with the same record as we did.
Texas has finished ahead of Bama in at least half the recruiting classes the past few years, as has SoCal. You can't use that logic only when it suits your argument. If you say recruiting rankings predict SEC rankings, then they should predict national rankings. We are better than about 10 teams that finish ahead of us in recruiting rankings. Michigan has out recruited us for years. Clemson would be an upper echelon SEC school by that logic as well.
Also Kansas St finishes in the lower half of recruiting rankings in the Big12 every year. Stanford is behind USC, and Oregon as well. Oregon St is ranked about 50th or worse in national recruiting rankings every year as well.
That we finished in recruiting rankings about where we finished in the SEC. There is some correlation with winning and recruiting rankings, but there are way too many exceptions. That argument doesn't hold water, because head to head, and on national level, the same argument doesn't hold water. There are teams that are ranked higher than SEC teams in recruiting rankings that we would beat, like Texas, SoCal, and FSU. For example, we've beaten jawja 3 yrs in a row, but they have a top 5 class every year. You can't use that argument to support your opinion, and ignore all the stuff about it that doesn't make sense.
I wish there were 20 5stars....max. And 75-80 four stars. Rest 3stars down to 1.
So you don't think teams with higher rated classes generally have better seasons than those who don't?
I'll look up the stats for you later.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports