Husker N KC
New member
:yeah
If we are offering it is because we want him, especially at this stage. It is not a "feeler" offer to see if he likes us.
SIGNED OT Zach Sterup
- Thread starter Danny Bateman
- Start date
- Status
If we are offering it is because we want him, especially at this stage. It is not a "feeler" offer to see if he likes us.
zoogs
New member
I would draw a distinction between this and Chase Harper just based on what we've heard so far.
Chase Harper was the kind of guy that's just so talented, you don't turn him away on account of any numbers issue, because you'll find space for him.
Sterup seems like he still has a lot of questions and until we have other indications, sounds like a guy we have so far and will continue to slow play.
Last edited by a moderator:
AndyDufresne
New member
Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
Last edited by a moderator:
They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
AndyDufresne
New member
Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
RockyMountainOySker
New member
The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
AndyDufresne
New member
I realize that the sole reason that these sites exist is to capitalize on rabid fans and make money. I don't understand why Rivals is so hesitant to put out their early rankings though, which is what I was referring to in my initial post. Many of the initial Rivals 250 will drop out and be replaced by players that are currently unranked. If there is this kind of fluidity in the rankings and they have in fact evaluated all of the players, why wait to assign the 25 5* rankings and the full complement of 4-stars? They will just move players around between now and signing day anyway.The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
part of it is marketing decisions, but it's important to note also that their rankings are based in large part upon who offers a kid. if their staff actually had the ability to break down film as well as they pretend to, they'd go ahead and rank all the kids. since they can't, they put out preliminary high rankings on the kids that have a lot of early offers and then adjust the rankings as it becomes more clear how in demand each kid is.I realize that the sole reason that these sites exist is to capitalize on rabid fans and make money. I don't understand why Rivals is so hesitant to put out their early rankings though, which is what I was referring to in my initial post. Many of the initial Rivals 250 will drop out and be replaced by players that are currently unranked. If there is this kind of fluidity in the rankings and they have in fact evaluated all of the players, why wait to assign the 25 5* rankings and the full complement of 4-stars? They will just move players around between now and signing day anyway.The point? To sell subscriptions to sites like Rivals, Scout, and ESPN Insider.Then what is the point of early rankings in the first place? Why not wait to put out anything until the senior season is over? Heck, the initial Rivals 100 and the final Rivals 100 for any given year are vastly different. They might as well put out all of their rankings and adjust them as the year goes on. They do that anyway.They are starting out conservative this year. They only awarded 11 5*'s to start where they usually end up around 30. I really have no issues with waiting to finish rankings, it's really a sham IMO to rank mostly off camps.Only 27 players? A quick count on Rivals shows over 100 4* players not in the Rivals 250 from last year. Rivals may be more accurate, but I admire Scout for having the balls to just put their ratings out there instead of pu&&y-footing around.Zach was one of 27 players to be awarded 4 stars that aren't in the top 250 of Rivals.
5.8-
i suspect they also adjust them to give higher rankings to uncommitted kids, drawing more hits/interest in their recruitment, but i don't have any data to support that.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with this totally as Sterup is probably the perfect example of this on one side while Tyler Moore is the example on the other side. If Moore strings out his recruitment while adding a bazillion offers from everybody and kicking a$$ at combines, he's a 5 star and doing the hat thing in Februrary. If the NU staff liked Sterup enough to offer him months ago and he commits on the spot without all of his offers coming in over the months, he's probably a mid 3 star.
Camps/combines play a huge role in these as well.
And like someone else posted this is a multi-million dollar operation pimping HS kids. I've read multiple times that these services tell kids over and over to not commit to see how many offers they can get and to help them make the right decision..........aka you're our gravy train and string this sucker out.
:laughpoundYa, sometimes I feel like these services are the "Don King" of the recruiting world!
SheepdogMark
No waaaay! The Sheepdog came out of hiding?
How's it going Mark? Long time, no see.
- Status