I know stars dont mean much but if this kid had the grades would he be a 4 star? I looked on rivals and he isn't ranked
I know stars dont mean much but if this kid had the grades would he be a 4 star? I looked on rivals and he isn't ranked
igeaux.mobi
He is ranked enough, Rivals All-Amercian First Team RB
http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1165406
This shows you the flaws in the ranking system, when the people who rank such athletes won't rank him because he was considered an academic casuality.
not taking anything away from the kid cause he is the best running back in our state but most of us could run behind the u's oline. amajor knock on most south panola rbs isthat they have had about 9 in a row now that were mr football and not one has panned out. i wish these kids would understand u cant wait until your senior year to worry about grades. but that is a football factory and to quote boobie myles there aint but one subject and thats football
It depends on what you think the purpose of these rankings are. If you believe they are to rate the athletic ability of a player, then grades shouldn't matter. For the NFL draft, that would work. Rivals and Scout ranks STUDENT athletes, and so, I think they should factor the player's academics into their rankings.
What's the difference between the lowest rated back with a 29 & 4.0 and the highest rated back with a 14 & 1.5?
They are suppose to be rating athletic ability...or that is what I always thought. So would an average recruit but with a 4.0 GPA be rated higher than a super athlete who barely qualifies? I would bet not...and I can assure you the SEC and everybody would want kid #2. But maybe based on what you said, the first kid is a 4 and the second kid is a 2.
I don't get it.
igeaux.mobi
So if Griffin does qualify.....being 1st team all american, he'll go from no stars to 5 stars the second he would qualify?
PP #2
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)