McKewon skewers recruiting study

Texas, under Mack Brown, was not. UT’s signed 88 players in the last four classes. Folks, Texas has not been a good program since 2009. The Longhorns have signed two five-star running backs since 2011. Neither Malcolm Brown nor Jonathan Gray is as good as Abdullah or Rex Burkhead, for that matter. Gray and Brown combined to run for 1,684 yards this year on 373 carries. Abdullah ran for 1690 on 281. Uh, bam.
Click to expand...
sogood.gif


 
I believe, overall, that four and five star recruits perform better at the collegiate level than two and three star recruits. So schools that have landed four and five star athletes should win more games than schools who have not. But, as Sam pointed out, that doesn't hold true for everyone--four and five star ratings mislead. I have no idea what variables recruiting services use when creating ratings for college recruits. I assume they just look at all "athletic variables" crucial to their position as well as high school tape (including their level of competition). But I don't know if they look at any mental/psychological variables such as drive, handling success/adversity, game intelligence, etc... If those aren't incorporated, they really should be.

 
The problem is objectively quantifying those intangibles you just listed, BBB12.

I agree they play a huge part in determining who becomes a star and who flops, but how, with the resources available to them, do recruiting analysts assess those?

 
dudeguyy said:
The problem is objectively quantifying those intangibles you just listed, BBB12.

I agree they play a huge part in determining who becomes a star and who flops, but how, with the resources available to them, do recruiting analysts assess those?
Click to expand...
There are ways to do it...if you can measure stuff such as organizational commitment, you should be able to measure drive/determination.

 
I always thought that 5* and high 4* recruits were more "college ready"...they had the physique and ability to come in and be an immediate contributor...where the low 4* and 3* were more along the lines of having high potential to come in and get to a "college ready" state within a couple of years of the program? So my logic was such that the schools that are getting the high 4's and 5's every year have better depth, but not necessarily the best 2 deep? I feel like NU is very good at getting these types of players and turning them into something special with a couple years thru the program. Just my two cents...

 
3-N-OUT said:
I always thought that 5* and high 4* recruits were more "college ready"...they had the physique and ability to come in and be an immediate contributor...where the low 4* and 3* were more along the lines of having high potential to come in and get to a "college ready" state within a couple of years of the program? So my logic was such that the schools that are getting the high 4's and 5's every year have better depth, but not necessarily the best 2 deep? I feel like NU is very good at getting these types of players and turning them into something special with a couple years thru the program. Just my two cents...
Click to expand...
That's a great point. +1.

There is some positional variability to that rule, though. For example... nearly every lineman we've gotten in recent years, outside of Gregory (obviously a JUCO), Moore, and spots from ARod, has redshirted their first year on campus, regardless of ranking.

Even if you're physically ready to go there, you could likely use a year of seasoning, weight training, and just extra reps to get your familiar with our schemes. Unless you're just a physical freak, throwing a high
default_stargold.gif
kid out there before they're ready would do more harm than good IMO.

I think it may be a bit easier for a skill position player to fill a specific role (breathers for starter at RB, run only a limited route tree at WR) and get playing time that first year. It's easier for them to skate by on athleticism for a while as a role player. Lineman are really forced to be well rounded on our team.

 
Some of you missed what I see as the key point in the article. It's not the stars that matter its the number of stars. Bama over signs every recruiting period. Thus, they never miss on a guy. If Bo, signs 25 guys and misses on 25%, that can be devastating. However, if Bama signs 45 and misses on 25% nobody cares because they still has 25 top recruits. That is what is wrong with recruiting these days. SEC allows over signing and other power conferences do not.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
dudeguyy said:
The problem is objectively quantifying those intangibles you just listed, BBB12.

I agree they play a huge part in determining who becomes a star and who flops, but how, with the resources available to them, do recruiting analysts assess those?
Click to expand...
There are ways to do it...if you can measure stuff such as organizational commitment, you should be able to measure drive/determination.
Click to expand...
DERP.

 
Back
Top