Recruiting Rankings Are Never What They are Cracked Up to Be
April 22nd, 2009 - byWe have had some lively discussionswith readers on this blog debating the importance of Star Rankings offered by recruiting services like Rivals.com. Randy Taylor, NCSA’s resident expert on Rivals.com and other recruiting services believes:
Based on 30 years in college football with time as a recruiting coordinator having several top 5 ranked classes I can tell you this about sites like Rivals. They have about as much impact on who we recruited as the local newspaper’s all conference teams.
The value came when we wanted some inside information on a kid so we could get an advantage over our opponents. The local Internet guy would tell us what he knew or even make a call based on questions we asked him.
When we offered a guy his star ranking would go up. In fact, recruiting coordinators around the country are schmoozing the local guys to get their class ranked higher to make them look better at their signing day booster party that night. Many head coaches are doing this too.
Another point I think is important is about the combines. Whenever we got a 40 time we’d add a tenth to a tenth and a half. In fact, the height and weights are even suspect in a college coaches mind. Is the vertical jump or shuttle being done correctly or consistently? If they don’t witness it or have a trusted source there they don’t fully trust it.
I remember several years ago one of the Internet sites combines had the 40s measured wrong and were only 38 yards long. There were some really really fast kids at that event!
The down side of this whole phenomenon is that when you get top ranked classes you better win a lot. Having a bunch of five star guys that don’t meet your teams needs isn’t going to help you win at the highest level.
Let’s just enjoy these sites for what they are, media outlets covering college football’s second season.
Some of our readers politely disagreed, so I thought I would share some more insight from Sports Illustrated’s Andy Staples.
As recruits, last year’s first-rounders averaged a star rating of 3.42 (out of five) and included five five-star prospects. This year, the players selected in the mock first round by SI.com NFL writer Don Banks boasted an average star rating of 3.59. The group included seven five-stars, four of whom are projected to go in the top six.
Even though the Rivals rankings should get more accurate as recruiting coverage becomes more refined, the recruiting gurus still will miss players such as Clay Matthews, who walked on at USC and blossomed into a star, but those misses will become more rare as the years pass.
The misses will inevitably become more rare as the Internet continues to shrink the recruiting landscape but its extremely important to realize just how far off these Star Rankings can be. Three players in Sports Illustrated’s Top 10 only were ranked as 2 Star Players. The so called experts doubted they would ever be a starter in college, much less be ready to collect $10 million dollar signing bonuses.
My point is this: Don’t get hung up worrying about what the experts think. If you think you can play, you need to take the extra steps to get noticed by College Coaches not Internet sites.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
We were at shuman underclassman this past weekend and it rained the wind was gusting, It was a hard combine because of this, I also realized the kids may not have faired as well as they would have liked because of the weather. We will be attending another and hope for better but what I wanted to say is that rivals was there of course and they already knew who was coming that was their top kid to look at and I watched as they snapped several pictures of these kids. I just want to say we have our player exposed and have him on this site and everything but rivals makes the kids they like look like superman and the rest of the kids take the back seat. Now we can agree to disagree and that is fine with me. Several years ago the man with the heart for football was the one you always wanted and now it is not the case( not saying these kids dont have heart) anymore. Also kids from small areas have a hard time also. I have also heard people and agree with people about kids that have the grades and are clearinghouse ready and have done all that they need to do and be looked over just for a kid who has to go the juco route, well as we know it is not always a fair game. Great article anyway.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I agree with the article from football aunt above. I have sent my kids to several combines and have noticed that most of the kids there are just a way for the companies to make money. They already know who they want to give the most publicity to. Also how can you really evaluate a kid when you have over 200-300 kids at a combine. This is just another way for kids to get a false hope that someone is really looking at them. I think kids should go to camps that are not over crowed so that they can work on position specific drills. In order to be a better football player you must work on your craft that will be used on the football field. The forty does not make tackles for you. There is a thing called football speed (Jerry Rice 4.6 or 4.7) and then there is strait line speed. which does not translate to a good football player. Camps that will help you become a better football player are camps like Football University (position specific) and Offense-Defense (position specific) those types of camps makes you a better football player. And they work extensively with each athlete at his position to maximize his potential. (They inviite a limited number of kids for each position. That will equate to play at the next level. Fast does not make you a football player. skills make you a football player. I enjoyed the article anyway……
April 28th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Good points, football dad. FBU is a great source for training and are partners with NCSA. Going to any camp or combine will not get a student-athlete recruited. It will help them improve their skills. Improving those skills will not help recruiting unless a college coach knows about those skills. So even though a student-athlete may be good enough, they won’t necessarily be “discovered” by the college coaching community. A perfect example is Jerry Rice, who was not recruited out of HS. He ended up walking on at Mississippi Valley State.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
We went to a Nike combine in Maryland. There was 2500 kids and now they have my son as a RB,, But he’s an OT.
And like you said it rained the whole time we were there. I’m am sure he could have done better if he had not slipped( cause of the rain ). So what I did was send his video site to every coach ,college and anyone else I thought would care.
It worked , we got alot of calls ( e-mails). It’s even on you tube. Our coach recomended we go to college camps so thats what he will do.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:18 am
We were just at an invitational Junior Days at a college. I came out and asked the same question to the RB coach. Do you think it’s important for kid’s to go to these combines or would it be better for them to attempt college camps. He said combines are good and all but it is much better to go to college camp. Because, that way the staff can see your skills, or how they can teach you the new skills you need to play onto the next level. (College) They also said in most situations they redshirt their freshmans so they can learn their way of playing ball. This was far more informative than an event we went to that was held by a recruiter company. And I’m not talking about NCSA. So unless you are superfast, can jump a great verticle, etc. And hope you have a good day. The best way is to send tape !!!
April 29th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Sandy, you are correct that sending tape is usually more important than a combine time, but keep in mind, when a coach is evaluating two athletes that seem identical they often take a look at grades. If one player has a 4.0 and the other a 2.0 the scales often tip.
Times and scores from a combine often work the same way. They add an aspect of objectivity to a very difficult evaluation process.