Kengera Daniel's father on recruiting process

[StillBlue83]

"At that time, we had no idea what Junior Day was and did not want to drive down 9 hours to tour a campus. We bit the bullet, decided to do it, and oh boy! We were treated like royalty! Got to hang out with Coach Saban, watch him break down my son's film to see how he would fit the scheme (similar to Donta Hightower) and ride in his Benz (see below). Needless to say, they wanted him badly. As a matter of fact we spent more than 7 hours that day negligibly staving off the machine to get him to commit on the spot.
The next day, Rivals rated him a 3 star without seeing anything on him. He did an interview with Rivals on the ride home (they had no idea who he was because they don't find talent to evaluate like coaches do, talent chooses to find them). They invited him to an upcoming camp to get that coveted fourth star (their words); he turned it down because in his words "I could care less about stars."







Article

 

[Smashcat]

Interesting!

 

[Rhavicc]

Phenomenal read. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is absolutely no way that Kengera Daniel is a "3 star" DE. The kid's film says otherwise, the kid's stats says otherwise, and the kid's offers says otherwise.
Pay close attention, those of you who lay so much faith into the star system. You heard it from his father's mouth, and it even came with pictures for those of you that would prefer not to do any extensive reading.
Now we can stop asking questions like "Why isn't Kengera a 4 or 5 star DE?" or "Why isn't Javon Provitt a 4 or 5 star DT" or "Why isn't Sihiem King a 4 or 5 star RB".
This article will tell you everything that you would like to know.
Awesome post, OP. Thank you for it, and thank you to Kengera's father for sharing your insight into the recruiting process, and your knowledge of the mythical star crap that I've grown so tired of people relying on so heavily. More valuable than you may realize.

 

[TBCat]

I would advise people to not get star obsessed when it comes to recruiting. 90% of the difference between a 3 star and a low 4 star is politics. Now the very top of the food chain you can see a big difference. The top 20 or so recruits are typically at a different level but a 5 star rated 100th in the class might not be any better than a 2 star.

 

[WildCard]

An excellent article. Highly "credible" since it is almost exclusively the words of a recruit's parent and not another site writer going on about that school's recruits. However, I will quote the author's last paragraph for emphasis.

Although recruiting rankings are generally a good measuring stick, they are at the end of the day a business and can sometimes get a bit political. In these cases, it is often better to look at the coaching staffs that are recruiting a prospect rather than their star rating. In this regard, it looks like Big Blue Nation got a good one in Daniel.


Looking at offers is hardly a foolproof process either but I think it can tell you more than the independent star evaluation alone.

Peace

 

[Cawood86]

College football recruiting sites are more political and biased than conservative and liberal radio hosts.

 

[buckkiller]

I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

This.
Other instances, barring Kengera Daniel who I think we all know is a superb talent (just watch film and look at the stats, plus read everything in the article provided), there is:

Javon Provitt: Just compare his hudl film to that of Daron Payne (#7 DT in the class - Alabama signee), and Rasheem Green (#4 DT in the class - USC signee), and look at the differences. I won't spoil it, but I guarantee that everybody here would be even more thrilled with the Provitt pick-up.

Sihiem King: 40 touchdowns in one season, was offered by Ga Tech., Auburn, Florida, etc., and is an All-American running back (Only 5 RB's are selected), and Georgia offensive player of the year. If any of you believe that's "3 stars", you're fooling yourself.

List goes on, we've brought in some big, fast, hard hitting DB's, and a couple are absolute ball hawks.
I wouldn't be surprised if we had an insane defense in the next couple of years, specifically in the front seven.

 

[Beavis606]

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

I thought you said ...



Originally posted by buckkiller:
Cut it, slice it, dice it however you want 13th in SEC is not going to get it done. 2016 needs to be a top 20 at worst.



[/QUOTE]

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by Beavis606:

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

I thought you said ...



Originally posted by buckkiller:
Cut it, slice it, dice it however you want 13th in SEC is not going to get it done. 2016 needs to be a top 20 at worst.

[/QUOTE]
Well that's awkward.

 

[RV2]

Originally posted by TBCat:
I would advise people to not get star obsessed when it comes to recruiting. 90% of the difference between a 3 star and a low 4 star is politics. Now the very top of the food chain you can see a big difference. The top 20 or so recruits are typically at a different level but a 5 star rated 100th in the class might not be any better than a 2 star.

Bad example. A five star can't be rated 100th as there are typically only 2 or 3 dozen five stars per year. Five stars typically are without a doubt 5 star regarding their talent. What typically holds them back from reaching their potiential are those things you can't evaluate fairly which is future injury, work ethic and hidden character flaws.

I've argued for many years is the top level guys are likely rated fairly as they are the ones that many have seen and evaluated. OTOH, many of the lower rated guys have not been seen therefore, are possibly not evaluated correctly.

One must not assume that just because a kid is rated a 2 star that they are indeed, a 2 star talent-wise as it's very likely they just received that ranking as a default without proper evaluation. I know our staff doesn't offer kids without a proper evaluation so it doesn't bother me in the least if they offer a lower ranked guy as they've shown they will not shy away from offering the higher rated guys. I am fine with that because it means they're not just settling for fishing in the shallow end of the pond.

 

[StillBlue83]

@beavis

Seriously though, it makes me feel even better about Freddie's claim about this class being Stoops' best so far.





This post was edited on 2/18 6:28 PM by StillBlue83

 

[jauk11]

A longer post by his Dad on C1180's thread on recruits below, I am very impressed by his knowledge, and also his thinking UK was the best place for his son, with the biggest programs around offering. And I agree with his logic, UK does have a lot to offer now.

 

[Poetax]

Wow, ain't nothing like hearing the truth from people who have been through it.

 

[bradyjames]

Originally posted by Beavis606:

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

I thought you said ...


Originally posted by buckkiller
Cut it, slice it, dice it however you want 13th in SEC is not going to get it done. 2016 needs to be a top 20 at worst.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tskware]

It is very hard to make a contribution in the SEC at defensive line. Even our most highly touted players have not done much as freshmen (Dennis Johnson, Caudill, Robertson, Hatcher, Elam). But if we were to get solid contributions from Daniel and Tubman (??) this fall, that would be a huge and welcome boost to our defensive line.

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by Tskware:
It is very hard to make a contribution in the SEC at defensive line. Even our most highly touted players have not done much as freshmen (Dennis Johnson, Caudill, Robertson, Hatcher, Elam). But if we were to get solid contributions from Daniel and Tubman (??) this fall, that would be a huge and welcome boost to our defensive line.

Ware will get one spot on the line, book it now. He's a very quick pass rusher, and spent the year learning Bud's tricks of the trade. I'm certain he'll fill that role.
As for the other DE spot, Kengera has the stature to compete already, and nothing tells me that he couldn't immediately come in and contribute. He has the size, the speed, and as far as stats and film goes, he seemed to dominate in high school.
I'm curious to see if Courtney Miggins plays DE or DT, as Miggins is another tough DE at the JUCO level.
I think our d-line will be very good. Elam will have a year of conditioning under his belt, we have an absolute stud in Javon Provitt coming in (Who has the size, strength, and explosiveness to contribute immediately), and the rest of our DT's return as well.
Call me a homer if you want, but I'm inclined to believe that our defense will be a lot to handle this upcoming season, especially if Courtney Love gets his hardship waiver.
Something about having a big, explosive defensive line with some good athletes on the ends, and a bunch of 240-250 pound linebackers that all run 4.5 forties, tells me that we'll do much better at stopping the run this season.
As for the DB's, we're very deep at this position now. A lot of guys can come in and contribute immediately (You don't need to redshirt players at skill positions nearly as much as you need to redshirt players up front).
A lot of our DB's can play both the safety position, and the CB position, which is valuable to any team.

 

[buckkiller]

Originally posted by Beavis606:

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

I thought you said ...



Originally posted by buckkiller:
Cut it, slice it, dice it however you want 13th in SEC is not going to get it done. 2016 needs to be a top 20 at worst.

Yep I did I was all upset and mad we had those decommitments and did not get Harris. I had to cool down then few days after signing period I watched film on on the recruits and calmed down and realized hey I think we have got dome steals. STOOPS regrouped quick after them bad couple weeks of recruiting. Yes I will own it guilty as charged. I get to fired up sometimes and get intense.

[/QUOTE]

 

[railroadkat_1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by buckkiller:
Cut it, slice it, dice it however you want 13th in SEC is not going to get it done. 2016 needs to be a top 20 at worst.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yep I did I was all upset and mad we had those decommitments and did not get Harris. I had to cool down then few days after signing period I watched film on on the recruits and calmed down and realized hey I think we have got dome steals. STOOPS regrouped quick after them bad couple weeks of recruiting. Yes I will own it guilty as charged. I get to fired up sometimes and get intense.


Buckkiller it takes a big man to own up to that. We are building and It's going to pay off!

 

[KapitalCat]

Originally posted by buckkiller:
I said it once and I will say it again we have the most underrated class in country. Just look at the offers at some of the players Stoops brought in. I think the DB'S we have brought in are bigtime talent as well.

I agree. I think in the end it will be as good and maybe better than 2014. This staff can evaluate. I think King is going to be dynamite and I predict we will see Allen playing DE in the NFL in 4-5 years.

 

[hmt5000]

if we had got harris this class would of been top 25. if we'd of also got lewis it would of been top 20. rumors were the staff liked baity more than lewis. as said above, provitt was 4* talent and he just needs to make it to campus and we'll all be happy in 3 years with what we got there. osu fans thought he was the best dt in the state.. if king ends up producing as much or more than harris then you could argue that he was a better get for the college game even if he may not be a better pro prospect in 4 years.

 

[teach them linear]

It is interesting to think about the ranking outcomes which with this testimony makes it closer to a preseason poll than anything else. Many elite programs get players ranked more than the players performance (see Duke BB). As long as this is the case our recruiting will parallel our performance and perception. The good news if our staff is good the performance will precede the ranking! Based on what i have seen on film I think this class has real potential but I have worn the blue tinted glasses before.

 

[THE_OAK]

Interesting read, thanks for the link. It's always interesting to see behind the curtain.

 

[DACats86]

What's an "underwear camp?"

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by DACats86:
What's an "underwear camp?"

Rivals camps, 247 camps, Scout camps, Best of the Midwest, etc.
They let you wear a spandex shirt for a top, and ball shorts, then do things that are traditionally done at football camps. Recruits pay to go, recruits go, recruits get higher rankings.

 

[DACats86]

Originally posted by Rhavicc:

Originally posted by DACats86:
What's an "underwear camp?"

Rivals camps, 247 camps, Scout camps, Best of the Midwest, etc.
They let you wear a spandex shirt for a top, and ball shorts, then do things that are traditionally done at football camps. Recruits pay to go, recruits go, recruits get higher rankings.

Ahhhh... Gracias!

 

[JRowland]

Nobody says the process is perfect, that guys don't slip through the cracks, and that others aren't overrated. Analysts do the best they can, just like coaches. There are some things I agree with in the post, some that have not been my experience. Analysts "find" talent just like coaches, sometimes before coaches. It's no secret that kids who show up on these Top 15 lists coming out of Rivals camps get a flood of new offers, usually right away. It's really just about kids getting exposure, whether it's at a Rivals Camp or at Alabama's camp.

Also, too much is made out of just looking at a kid's "offer sheet." Ole Miss in September wasn't the same team as Ole Miss against TCU. And a kid's "soft offer" list in April is not necessarily what his real committable offers are in January. That is a huge fallacy. You have to look deep and find out which schools are visiting him, etc., to find out who really wants a kid late. 80% of the year is jockeying, putting the core of the class together, etc. The other 20% of the year is filling out the 20% of the class that was never going to come easy and that's true for every program.

There isn't a lot of difference between a high three and low four but the numbers aren't meant to be looked at in relation to one or two players. Over 1,000 players they hold true. I posted extensive #s on HOB that show how a team finishes in the Rivals.com rankings 2002-2014 as well as in terms of quality alone is an outstanding indicator of record over that next period of time. Only two outliers in the SEC are Missouri and Tennessee. The rest fall almost exactly where those analysts, who don't really know anything, said.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by JRowland:
I posted extensive #s on HOB that show how a team finishes in the Rivals.com rankings 2002-2014 as well as in terms of quality alone is an outstanding indicator of record over that next period of time. Only two outliers in the SEC are Missouri and Tennessee. The rest fall almost exactly where those analysts, who don't really know anything, said.

Ranking the SEC is pretty simple, most classes are stacked with high 4 and 5 star talent, which everyone can evaluate. BAMA, UGA, LSU, AUB, UF, UT

Also when going on average throughout the 12 year process, things can get skewed big time - Florida's class rankings have been pretty solid throughout, but they had extreme highs in the mid 2000s and low, lows here recently...so those avg out and look good based on average, but weren't truly indicative of how the rankings actually were.

AUB won the 2010 natl title: SEC class ranks 2007-5, 2008-5, 2009 - 9, 2010 - 2

UT and UF have been in the top 20 forever, many time in top 10.

Recruiting rankings are fine and dandy - but people that back them up always want to point to the success stories, hey we had BAMA in top 5, past 5 years and look at their success...they never want to point out the Texas', Tennessees, recent Floridas etc. or Baylors, TCUs, Mizzous.

Easy to hit on the 5*s, a little hard on the 4*s and fringe 3*s, and most difficult on the 3*s...fun part about it is there are hundreds more 3*s, leaves plenty of room for error.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by JRowland:
Nobody says the process is perfect, that guys don't slip through the cracks, and that others aren't overrated. Analysts do the best they can, just like coaches. There are some things I agree with in the post, some that have not been my experience. Analysts "find" talent just like coaches, sometimes before coaches. It's no secret that kids who show up on these Top 15 lists coming out of Rivals camps get a flood of new offers, usually right away. It's really just about kids getting exposure, whether it's at a Rivals Camp or at Alabama's camp.

Also, too much is made out of just looking at a kid's "offer sheet." Ole Miss in September wasn't the same team as Ole Miss against TCU. And a kid's "soft offer" list in April is not necessarily what his real committable offers are in January. That is a huge fallacy. You have to look deep and find out which schools are visiting him, etc., to find out who really wants a kid late. 80% of the year is jockeying, putting the core of the class together, etc. The other 20% of the year is filling out the 20% of the class that was never going to come easy and that's true for every program.

There isn't a lot of difference between a high three and low four but the numbers aren't meant to be looked at in relation to one or two players. Over 1,000 players they hold true. I posted extensive #s on HOB that show how a team finishes in the Rivals.com rankings 2002-2014 as well as in terms of quality alone is an outstanding indicator of record over that next period of time. Only two outliers in the SEC are Missouri and Tennessee. The rest fall almost exactly where those analysts, who don't really know anything, said.

Let me take a shot at why. Missouri over achieved because of great coaching and player evaluation and UT has underachieved because of just the opposite poor coaching and poor player evaluation.

I would also like to say that it is easier to excel when a player is on a team that is loaded with talent. I wonder how some of them would do if they were not on a team loaded with the supposed best in college football to make them better, and the top coaches in the game. Has anyone but me noticed that those Alabama RBs that always tear up college football do not often excel in the Pros.


A prime example is Richardson of the Indy Colts that was all world at Bama and has been a bust in the pros. The Browns really put one on the Colts in that trade. Those holes you can drive a truck through are not there in the pros and those big fast backers close those creases quick. Richardson became very ordinary when his team wasn't vastly more talented than the opposing team.

My question is the rated player vastly better or is it just that the top teams get better players across the board so they make each other look better with the team effect.

IMO you get your super recruits which are really much better than all of the rest and then you get the fours and top threes in which IMO there is little difference.

 

[Tskware]

Originally posted by JRowland:

I posted extensive #s on HOB that show how a team finishes in the Rivals.com rankings 2002-2014 as well as in terms of quality alone is an outstanding indicator of record over that next period of time. Only two outliers in the SEC are Missouri and Tennessee. The rest fall almost exactly where those analysts, who don't really know anything, said.

JR, now you know that doesn't fit the world view of a lot of posters.

Just look at the Big 10 where Ohio State has been killing all other teams in recruiting last few years . . . . and have barely lost a conference game in the last three years either. Clearly, there is no one to one correlation between recruiting and final record in a given period, but there certainly is a strong relationship between the two.

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by Tskware:

Originally posted by JRowland:

I posted extensive #s on HOB that show how a team finishes in the Rivals.com rankings 2002-2014 as well as in terms of quality alone is an outstanding indicator of record over that next period of time. Only two outliers in the SEC are Missouri and Tennessee. The rest fall almost exactly where those analysts, who don't really know anything, said.

JR, now you know that doesn't fit the world view of a lot of posters.

Just look at the Big 10 where Ohio State has been killing all other teams in recruiting last few years . . . . and have barely lost a conference game in the last three years either. Clearly, there is no one to one correlation between recruiting and final record in a given period, but there certainly is a strong relationship between the two.

To be fair, for the recruiting classes that Miami, and Clemson gets, they're very underwhelming, and for the recruiting classes that Georgia Tech, Baylor, TCU, Michigan State, Mizzou, Arizona, Oregon, etc., they are overwhelming come time to play ball.
Ya look at Arkansas and how they recruit, I'm sure many posters around here (before the season) would say that Arky has no business on the same field with Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, and so on, but sure enough.. lol.
Recruiting numbers can give you an idea on what players may look like, but it doesn't define them, especially if they decide to go KG's route, and not go on the recruit ranking circuit.

 

[JRowland]

Originally posted by Rhavicc:

Originally posted by Tskware:

Originally posted by JRowland:

I posted extensive #s on HOB that show how a team finishes in the Rivals.com rankings 2002-2014 as well as in terms of quality alone is an outstanding indicator of record over that next period of time. Only two outliers in the SEC are Missouri and Tennessee. The rest fall almost exactly where those analysts, who don't really know anything, said.

JR, now you know that doesn't fit the world view of a lot of posters.

Just look at the Big 10 where Ohio State has been killing all other teams in recruiting last few years . . . . and have barely lost a conference game in the last three years either. Clearly, there is no one to one correlation between recruiting and final record in a given period, but there certainly is a strong relationship between the two.

To be fair, for the recruiting classes that Miami, and Clemson gets, they're very underwhelming, and for the recruiting classes that Georgia Tech, Baylor, TCU, Michigan State, Mizzou, Arizona, Oregon, etc., they are overwhelming come time to play ball.
Ya look at Arkansas and how they recruit, I'm sure many posters around here (before the season) would say that Arky has no business on the same field with Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, and so on, but sure enough.. lol.
Recruiting numbers can give you an idea on what players may look like, but it doesn't define them, especially if they decide to go KG's route, and not go on the recruit ranking circuit.

There are exceptions but the exceptions you cited are all very short-lived exceptions. What is Georgia's record over Mark Richt's entire tenure? How has Georgia Tech performed during the same span of time? I remember GT beating Georgia like two times in the last decade. Baylor and TCU have been very good of late. Ten years from now do you think it's more likely that Georgia or Baylor will be ranked in the top ten?

Arkansas went 7-6 this year. They are trending up for sure, but let's be real. They were dominant in a couple of games, played some other teams close, and were 7-6. I agree with you, recruiting rankings do NOT define individual players. But to your point and the point of someone else just above, think big picture, long-term. It's not even, "It's easy to rate the SEC because most recruit four- and five-star guys." That would not make the SEC any easier to peg than other leagues. In fact it would seem that if there's a big clutter of SEC schools in the Top 25-40 of the national rankings it might actually be more difficult. But the fact is, from '02-'04, in spite of that clutter of teams in the Top 40, the rankings are still very reliable indicators of how SEC teams will perform. Again, with only two exceptions. And Tennessee's # of draft picks shows that the analysts are not getting it wrong, that's just a program that's been horribly mismanaged.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

But the SEC hasn't been nailed...go by a 12 year average, maybe it looks better but honestly it would have to be split up in 4-5 year segments and then look back to see how a particular class or two performs...

Like I already showed, Auburn had 1 class of their 4 before the title in the SEC top 3...ARK wasn't ranked top when they won the SEC west, their highest ranking was 24th...Mizzou 2 years straight at the top of the East, ranked near bottom of east...Tenn and UF haven't been out of the top 10 much and they have been awful. LSU just finished 8-5, their last 4 classes (6,18,6,2)

Look, I like Rivals and like the rankings systems and all that...but they get as much wrong as they do right.

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by Rhavicc:
Phenomenal read. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is absolutely no way that Kengera Daniel is a "3 star" DE. The kid's film says otherwise, the kid's stats says otherwise, and the kid's offers says otherwise.
Pay close attention, those of you who lay so much faith into the star system. You heard it from his father's mouth, and it even came with pictures for those of you that would prefer not to do any extensive reading.
Now we can stop asking questions like "Why isn't Kengera a 4 or 5 star DE?" or "Why isn't Javon Provitt a 4 or 5 star DT" or "Why isn't Sihiem King a 4 or 5 star RB".
This article will tell you everything that you would like to know.
Awesome post, OP. Thank you for it, and thank you to Kengera's father for sharing your insight into the recruiting process, and your knowledge of the mythical star crap that I've grown so tired of people relying on so heavily. More valuable than you may realize.

All of this just tells us again what many of us have known for a long time. For all the reasons given by this father and more, star ratings are an inadequate way to form conclusions about a high school player. They don't measure his desire. They don't measure his ability to improve his skills and blow up in the gym. They are often biased by what camps the player does or does not attend. The player's offer sheet is a better indicator. And in some cases where a player commits to a school early in the recruiting season, the offer sheet may not tell the real story either. Fans should look at the way a coach recruits over the years and base their expectations for recruiting on the coach's performance record. If the coach is delivering, then trust him and stop making a big deal about players who go somewhere else. I watched Stoops' signing day presser. He explained how Kentucky is fishing in the right waters, since Ohio State and Alabama want many of the same players we recruit now. As Stoops said, we will win some and lose some. Signing Kengera Daniel and getting him enrolled for the spring semester is huge for us.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by C1180:
Let me take a shot at why. Missouri over achieved because of great coaching and player evaluation and UT has underachieved because of just the opposite poor coaching and poor player evaluation.

======================================================================================

Would have to disagree. Missouri high becasue of heavy redshirting, low attrition and excellent player development. UT low becasue of massive attrition and multiple coaching changes.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Blue Decade:

For all the reasons given by this father and more, star ratings are an inadequate way to form conclusions about a high school player.

I wouldn't say they are inadequate as Justin Rowland's extensive 15 year research posted on the premy board proves otherwise. Rather I would say the rankings are like a 3 day weather forecast. On average there is a 60-70% chance that the forecast will be fairly accurate but that leaves 30-40% change of missing the mark which is about what we see in the way of player's eventually over or underachieving their high school ranking. However as the aforementioned research confirmed the the larger the sample size the more performance tends to revert to the mean.

The first hand account posted my Mr. Daniel certainly underlines some of the imperfections in the process of evaluating recruits.


This post was edited on 2/20 10:32 AM by Deeeefense

 

[hmt5000]

a lot depends on how your qb pans out and do you get a couple home run guys in a class. we weren't more talented the year mumme got here from the year before. we just let the best qb in the country throw the ball down field and dared teams to stop us.

if woodson hadn't developed like he did we would of never sniffed 7 wins his sr year let alone 8. florida had very shaky qb play the last few years and people act like the whole team sucked. but they put 3 to 5 guys in the pro's each year just on defense... but the skill position guys on O were transferring out or not able to showcase skills.

what sucks about this is that when you have guys that are fairly obvious 4* and dont get it. ala kengera daniel. the definition i read of the breakdown for the stars was: 5* all conference type talent nfl probable, 4* multi year starter with good chance at all conference and nfl, 3* solid contributor and potential to start last couple of years small chance at nfl. 2* midmajor talent.

well KD is gonna be a multiyear starter and have a really good shot at all conference and the nfl. the only thing barring that are the things you cant scout. hurd was rated over chubb and i dont know how any evaluator could of looked at chubbs tape and not thought he was one of the best 2 or 3 players in hs.

we are arguing this because our class isn't ranked as high as we think (hope) it should be. but im sure other teams have guys they feel are undervalued as well so it all probably averages out. the thing about this class is you have 12 guys that are probably gonna start multiple years and have a good chance at the nfl (if they work hard and stay healthy). in all honesty if you can bring in 12 guys every year that you expect to start for 3 years... your doing really well and building depth with guys who are not a big dropoff from the 1st string. if a couple more of them end up being solid contributors then we did really well.

barkers rs sr year will have most of his class still here so if 12 to 15 of these guys develop to a high level then we got ourselves a football team. the 16 class is already shaping up to be really good so there will plenty of young talent behind drew and if he develops the way we all think then we could compete for the east.

 

[jauk11]

Very good post.

I really appreciate the info on how a qualified potential superstar can be overlooked and over OR under rated, but most recruits play the game and get their rating. AND the star ratings still should carry a lot of weight-------but not NEARLY as much as Rivals numerical ratings which are a little harder to find sometimes, a class with all 5.7s is going to be a LOT better than a class with all 5.5s, but they are all three stars.

 

[Parabolicsecan]

What I wanted to highlight in my original post was the
nature of the recruiting agencies 'Pay to play/be ranked' platform. Everything I have read by those that attempt
to justify its utility based on correlations between class ranks and success does
not disprove the platform exist (which was the point of the original article I
referenced in the original post). You
would expect that players who are evaluated as 4 and 5 stars by the recruiting agency
measure are MORE LIKELY to have the POTENTIAL to impact the success of the school they
commit to, that's common sense, it doesn't take 15 years of historical analysis
to prove that. Evaluating talent the way Rivals, Scout etc… do it is not rocket
science. If you demonstrate on a given tour stop that you are faster, stronger than your counterpart, you will receive more
stars than your counterpart. If you fail to do so, you may lose a star or lose
your ranking as top player (https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1642383).
Note the first line of the second paragraph in the link above.




The question becomes how well do the recruiting analysts
identify 3, 4 and 5 star athletes that do not pay to attend multiple camps or
have multiple reps at the camp to 'earn that coveted star' or in some cases,
keep that star/position.


KG attended FSUs camp in 2013, he performed well (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2013/6/12/4424734/florida-state-recruiting-jimbo-fisher-football-camp-notes).
Didn't get an offer, didn't get a ranking. He was put on the map however via
Sal Sunseri to other coaches, invited to
the US Army Combine, performed well. (https://twitter.com/rtaylorfbscout/status/419271026204086273).
Visited Alabama, got an offer, got a ranking, coincidence? His counterpart that season, Sam Blue (http://247sports.com/Player/Sam-Blue-32996),
read the Bio at the end (All time North Carolina sack leader among other
accolades) was ranked a two star, why? He didn't' touch the recruiting circuit
and he was not evaluated based on his on the field performance. There are
plenty of talented athletes like Sam that develop and have meaningful
contributions to their program, these aren't exceptions, these are examples of the
flaw in this Pay to play/be ranked system.




KG shut down recruiting before the final reevaluation period
with two reps at a camp under his belt and a solid season in the works. I
inquired in December about the ranking process and was told by Mr. Woody
Womack, "Players are ranked at the position they project to at the next level",
in KG's case, SDE even though he never played a down this year at that
position. His initial ranking was based on WDE, I encourage you to evaluate
that list and note the WDEs currently ranked higher than him. Naturally, I interpreted
Mr. Womacks's response as 'we don't have
enough camp film on him to make a fair evaluation within our framework,
therefore we will rank him at a position he has yet to play in high school because he may play it in college'.




The obvious denominator for the programs that have had
success is the ability to attract and retain coaching talent that has been at
this recruiting thing long before these recruiting agencies existed. Point
being, fans should lend more credence to the coaching staff in place as a
variable of influence on how successful a program may be and BBN has a great
staff.

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by Parabolicsecan:

What I wanted to highlight in my original post was the
nature of the recruiting agencies 'Pay to play/be ranked' platform. Everything I have read by those that attempt
to justify its utility based on correlations between class ranks and success does
not disprove the platform exist (which was the point of the original article I
referenced in the original post). You
would expect that players who are evaluated as 4 and 5 stars by the recruiting agency
measure are MORE LIKELY to have the POTENTIAL to impact the success of the school they
commit to, that's common sense, it doesn't take 15 years of historical analysis
to prove that. Evaluating talent the way Rivals, Scout etc… do it is not rocket
science. If you demonstrate on a given tour stop that you are faster, stronger than your counterpart, you will receive more
stars than your counterpart. If you fail to do so, you may lose a star or lose
your ranking as top player (https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1642383).
Note the first line of the second paragraph in the link above.



The question becomes how well do the recruiting analysts
identify 3, 4 and 5 star athletes that do not pay to attend multiple camps or
have multiple reps at the camp to 'earn that coveted star' or in some cases,
keep that star/position.


KG attended FSUs camp in 2013, he performed well (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2013/6/12/4424734/florida-state-recruiting-jimbo-fisher-football-camp-notes).
Didn't get an offer, didn't get a ranking. He was put on the map however via
Sal Sunseri to other coaches, invited to
the US Army Combine, performed well. (https://twitter.com/rtaylorfbscout/status/419271026204086273).
Visited Alabama, got an offer, got a ranking, coincidence? His counterpart that season, Sam Blue (http://247sports.com/Player/Sam-Blue-32996),
read the Bio at the end (All time North Carolina sack leader among other
accolades) was ranked a two star, why? He didn't' touch the recruiting circuit
and he was not evaluated based on his on the field performance. There are
plenty of talented athletes like Sam that develop and have meaningful
contributions to their program, these aren't exceptions, these are examples of the
flaw in this Pay to play/be ranked system.



KG shut down recruiting before the final reevaluation period
with two reps at a camp under his belt and a solid season in the works. I
inquired in December about the ranking process and was told by Mr. Woody
Womack, "Players are ranked at the position they project to at the next level",
in KG's case, SDE even though he never played a down this year at that
position. His initial ranking was based on WDE, I encourage you to evaluate
that list and note the WDEs currently ranked higher than him. Naturally, I interpreted
Mr. Womacks's response as 'we don't have
enough camp film on him to make a fair evaluation within our framework,
therefore we will rank him at a position he has yet to play in high school because he may play it in college'.



The obvious denominator for the programs that have had
success is the ability to attract and retain coaching talent that has been at
this recruiting thing long before these recruiting agencies existed. Point
being, fans should lend more credence to the coaching staff in place as a
variable of influence on how successful a program may be and BBN has a great
staff.

3 posts, and I wish I could give you an award for "most intelligent poster of the year". Some of it is based on good evaluation, but some people think that a group of guys can have camps for however many hundreds of players, and be able to accurately evaluate every player who plays high school football, even those who don't attend camps.
It's nice hearing the experience that you had as the father of a player that went through the kind of recruitment that he went through, and had the interactions with these "scouting gurus" that he had. Many of us thank you for telling us about your experience, it answers a lot of questions for many of us about the recruiting process, and how a lot of kids get the rankings that they do.