Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

[zephyr]

_ 120 FBS programs, sign roughly 25 players each and every year. That is 3000 athletes each year. There is not enough time to properly evaluate every player. You see the major programs recruits are always evaluated and rated higher because of the money that program brings into that website.
If the Cajun Redzone had 500 premium members or so, then you would see UL with more kids getting evaluated due to the money being brought into the site.

The system used to rate kids are fairly accurate predictors of success on the next level. The biased coverage is what is flawed in the system not the ratings of players. _

So, a Bakari Hollier, Micah Eugene or Quen Griffen (who was unrated weeks ago) can go until several weeks back with no rating and all of a sudden are 3 star athletes? They have not been evaluated prior to this but now they are 3 star recruits? The whole system is flawed and that includes the ratings when many players like Marcus Jackson or Qyen Griffen are listed at different positions than what they will play.

[zephyr]

_ I took you to mean that the ranking of this class versus prior UL classes is meaningless until they prove it when they get intertwined in our program. I disagree with that. I do believe we can evaluate, our own evaluation of each athlete, and make an assessment of the class. The 3 star guys we are getting are clearly defined 3 star athletes. I am also extremely stoked about each individual we've recruited. They are not diamonds in the rough, hidden from everyone else's view, as we have to claim almost every year. Collectively, this is a better class than we saw under Bustle IMO. Not proven... we are talking "recruits".

It wasn't too many years ago we had a headliner recruit, under Bustle, choose a different school on signing day. It just about took the air out of signing day for many UL faithful. Right now, we have 8 to 10 headliners equal to that athlete... and we have a couple of class headliners expected to sign that aren't even on our public list.

Unlike others... I'm still not big on the scout/rival star system when it gets past the 50th program. The programs themselves are way too influential into the recruit's final "stars". And, many schools have too much preferred attention by these sites and it skews the outcome. _

I agree that I believe that this class has a lot more potential than our previous classes but until they hit the field and work within the program, there is no way to rank them as the best class until they are able to prove it. There is no such thing as a sure thing in recruiting.

[wcd35]

There are bigger, stronger and faster athletes though. I understand wanting to hedge your bets but these are the best athletes we've recruited in decades.

Every time someone mentions how good this class is, someone has to pop up with this same statement. We get it. Recruits don't win on paper. Just let us enjoy this time of year
igeaux.mobi

[zephyr]

_ There are bigger, stronger and faster athletes though. I understand wanting to hedge your bets but these are the best athletes we've recruited in decades.

Every time someone mentions how good this class is, someone has to pop up with this same statement. We get it. Recruits don't win on paper. Just let us enjoy this time of year
igeaux.mobi _

LOL. As if I was holding you back

[Cajunmac]

The star system is flawed, no doubt, and it is a fun game to play with who as more stars than whom. For me, I believe this class to have greater potential I see us getting athletes who are choosing UL over programs like Tulsa, Memphis, and Houston. In the past this was not the case. And the fact that other programs want these kids tells me more about their value than a star system. It also tells me about where we are going as a program overall. We may have been competing for these athletes over the past 6-8 years, but we were not pulling them in, except for rarely, now they seem to be jumping in the boat!

[CajunEXPRESS]

_ 120 FBS programs, sign roughly 25 players each and every year. That is 3000 athletes each year. There is not enough time to properly evaluate every player. You see the major programs recruits are always evaluated and rated higher because of the money that program brings into that website.
If the Cajun Redzone had 500 premium members or so, then you would see UL with more kids getting evaluated due to the money being brought into the site.

The system used to rate kids are fairly accurate predictors of success on the next level. The biased coverage is what is flawed in the system not the ratings of players. _

C4L, you are only partially correct. I do not think there is an absolute. We have indeed seen kids who sign with a known school get their stars raised, and visa versa. Still the kid from Shrevesport for LSU was a two star, stayed a two star and played a vital part in their their national championship run, and doing a journeymans job for the Bolts in San Diago.

I have always maintained that the stars are indeed based on who is recruiting these kids to some degree, but the kids did what it takes to have themselves recruited at whatever level they are recruited. Now if you ask anybody without a personal bias they would probably say a school with several four star, and three star kids will probably out perform schools with one, and two star kids. Clearly there are deviations left and right but over three thousand recruits I think the stars bare out over time.

[Turbine]

_ there is a point system to the stars (not net stars) plus national ranking that makes a HUGE difference in rankings.

5 star 200 pts
4 star 120
3 star 40
2 star 20

Plus points for national ranking......#1 ranked gets 100 more points; #2 99 pts etc etc.

We move up big time in rankings if Qyen Griffin and others that are highly regarded athletes gets what is deserved....Qyen earned his 4 or 5 stars and the high ranking points that one would expect for 1st/2nd team all-american. This happens and we fly well past Tech and all their Juco 3 stars.

PP #2 _

So in theory ... a school that only signed three "5 star" players and one "2-star" player (4 players in total, nothing else) would rank as a better recruiting class than a school who signed twenty "2-star" players, two "3-star" players and one "4-star player.

[Turbine]

_ there is a point system to the stars (not net stars) plus national ranking that makes a HUGE difference in rankings.

5 star 200 pts
4 star 120
3 star 40
2 star 20

Lets use cornerback as a comparison guage to see if the star ranking/point method has merit.

Would . . .?

a 5 star be projected get 100 tackles in a season (like Peanut)

a 2 star be projected to get 10 tackles in a year?

[wcd35]

LOL. As if I was holding you back

You certainly are. I'm not sleeping at night worrying about your evaluations
igeaux.mobi

[Rasta]

Are you guys really arguing about recruiting class rankings? The hype that class rankings, and whether or not a guy is 3 stars or 3 1/2 or 4, is ridiculous. Last time I checked recruiting class rankings didn't count in the win loss column. Recruiting good talent is the foundation of a program. BUT, giving any serious concern to ranking the Top 25 and beyond ranked recruiting classes is just silly. Also, look back over the last 25 years at the "#1 recruit in the nation" and how they fared. It's a joke. While I'm on a rant, this also reminds me how ridiculous it is to have these huge press conferences, with kids advising us where "they are going to be taking their talents." Is it any wonder we have idiots like Lebron doing "The Decision?" Sign the kids, 1-2-3-4 or 5 stars, get them into school, and let's rank what they do on the field.

[Boomer]

_ Are you guys really arguing about recruiting class rankings? The hype that class rankings, and whether or not a guy is 3 stars or 3 1/2 or 4, is ridiculous. Last time I checked recruiting class rankings didn't count in the win loss column. Recruiting good talent is the foundation of a program. BUT, giving any serious concern to ranking the Top 25 and beyond ranked recruiting classes is just silly. Also, look back over the last 25 years at the "#1 recruit in the nation" and how they fared. It's a joke. While I'm on a rant, this also reminds me how ridiculous it is to have these huge press conferences, with kids advising us where "they are going to be taking their talents." Is it any wonder we have idiots like Lebron doing "The Decision?" Sign the kids, 1-2-3-4 or 5 stars, get them into school, and let's rank what they do on the field. _

Next year as our recruiters go out ---they can bragg on the turn around made by our new staff---USE ANYTHING you can to get the kids here!!!!

[Rasta]

_ Next year as our recruiters go out ---they can bragg on the turn around made by our new staff---USE ANYTHING you can to get the kids here!!!! _

The point is, it's silly the way people get so hung up on how many stars a kid has, and consequently, how high a recruiting class is ranked. The rankings are a joke to begin with. Kids' rankings get boosted simply by who is recruiting them. If the same kid is being offered by 5 LSU schools, vs. 5 Sun Belt schools, simply being recruited by SEC schools gets them extra stars. Same player. We just got the commitment from the Griffin kid... he was Mr. Football in Mississippi on the "national champion" high school football team. But he wasn't being wooed by the big boys, consequently he has no stars. If LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss had offered him, suddenly he'd be a 4 star stud. I just don't get the fascination with how many stars a guy has behind his name, especially since the ranking system is so screwed up to begin with. Results on the field will draw the talent, not the number of stars we have on the sidelines.