(01-31-2019 10:33 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Are services just ranking players higher each year? Maybe there are legitimately more three stars players than in the past.

Yes. The national rankings matter more.

P5 school offers matter most. Troy now signing HS recruits with offers from schools such as Michigan, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Memphis, etc is really encouraging.

https://247sports.com/Article/13-new-nam...128530471/

Looks like Cajuns get a 4 star DE

(01-31-2019 04:44 PM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  https://247sports.com/Article/13-new-nam...128530471/

Looks like Cajuns get a 4 star DE

Congrats. He will be tough to handle.

(01-31-2019 04:44 PM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  https://247sports.com/Article/13-new-nam...128530471/

Looks like Cajuns get a 4 star DE

with 247sports updating their ranking for him, causing his composite to improve.
Louisiana new average per commit is 82.44 up from 82.38.

Added CUSA's rankings


65. Marshall
69. Louisiana
70. North Texas
72. Troy
73. Southern Miss
75. MTSU
78. UAB
79. FAU
80. La Tech
88. WKU
90. Ark. State
94. UTSA
95. Old Dominion
95. Ga. State
99. FAU
105. App. State
109. So. Alabama
110. Rice
116. Charlotte
117. Ga. Southern
122. ULM
126. Coastal Car.
127. Tx. State
132. UNCC


And this right here is why I don't take these rankings at the G5 level all that seriously. Sorry, but there's no way their talent is that much better across the board (and this year isn't an anomaly, theirs is usually higher).

I don't think they even have the same people evaluating commits across conferences, which makes the entire process questionable at best.

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  And this right here is why I don't take these rankings at the G5 level all that seriously.

It's always interesting to watch ever year. The teams that aren't doing well in the ratings don't trust the system, and are vocal about it. The one's on top are finding ways to defend it ad nauseam. Human nature is awesome. Social psychologist Johnathan Haidt describes the simple phenomenon as such: when people want to believe something they ask, ”Can I believe this?”, when they don’t want to believe something, they ask “Must I believe this?”

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I don't think they even have the same people evaluating commits across conferences, which makes the entire process questionable at best.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Athletes should be evaluated well before they commit to a school. I know a lot of times it doesn't happen until later in the process, but it's very, very doubtful that evaluators are only assigning ratings based on the school or conference a recruit is committed to. I don't think the talent evaluators are the same guys who run the individual sites.

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Added CUSA's rankings


65. Marshall
69. Louisiana
70. North Texas
72. Troy
73. Southern Miss
75. MTSU
78. UAB
79. FAU
80. La Tech
88. WKU
90. Ark. State
94. UTSA
95. Old Dominion
95. Ga. State
99. FAU
105. App. State
109. So. Alabama
110. Rice
116. Charlotte
117. Ga. Southern
122. ULM
126. Coastal Car.
127. Tx. State
132. UNCC


And this right here is why I don't take these rankings at the G5 level all that seriously. Sorry, but there's no way their talent is that much better across the board (and this year isn't an anomaly, theirs is usually higher).

I don't think they even have the same people evaluating commits across conferences, which makes the entire process questionable at best.

Good to see a new coaching hire and all the money in the world is helping UNCConcord surpass us all in the rankings ...

(01-31-2019 10:04 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  It's always interesting to watch ever year. The teams that aren't doing well in the ratings don't trust the system, and are vocal about it. The one's on top are finding ways to defend it ad nauseam. Human nature is awesome. Social psychologist Johnathan Haidt describes the simple phenomenon as such: when people want to believe something they ask, ”Can I believe this?”, when they don’t want to believe something, they ask “Must I believe this?”

I disagree. I think most people here take these with a grain of salt and don't look at them as destiny. How many times has this board discussed how they think the upcoming season will go and anyone even mentions the recruiting ratings? Pretty much no one. It's just off-season discussion fodder and entertainment.

My opinion isn't any different than it was over the last four years when we've done better in 247 recruiting than every team in the conference except maybe Ark State.

(01-31-2019 10:04 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  And this right here is why I don't take these rankings at the G5 level all that seriously.

It's always interesting to watch ever year. The teams that aren't doing well in the ratings don't trust the system, and are vocal about it. The one's on top are finding ways to defend it ad nauseam. Human nature is awesome. Social psychologist Johnathan Haidt describes the simple phenomenon as such: when people want to believe something they ask, ”Can I believe this?”, when they don’t want to believe something, they ask “Must I believe this?”

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I don't think they even have the same people evaluating commits across conferences, which makes the entire process questionable at best.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Athletes should be evaluated well before they commit to a school. I know a lot of times it doesn't happen until later in the process, but it's very, very doubtful that evaluators are only assigning ratings based on the school or conference a recruit is committed to. I don't think the talent evaluators are the same guys who run the individual sites.

I've always been on the record stating I don't trust the system... even when rated with a top class. So don't paint us all in that brush.

(02-01-2019 11:56 AM)CoachWillRob Wrote:  Good to see a new coaching hire and all the money in the world is helping UNCConcord surpass us all in the rankings ...

That's because they're a basketball school. Just not this year. Or last year. Or the year before that or the one before that.

(01-31-2019 10:04 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  And this right here is why I don't take these rankings at the G5 level all that seriously.

It's always interesting to watch ever year. The teams that aren't doing well in the ratings don't trust the system, and are vocal about it. The one's on top are finding ways to defend it ad nauseam. Human nature is awesome. Social psychologist Johnathan Haidt describes the simple phenomenon as such: when people want to believe something they ask, ”Can I believe this?”, when they don’t want to believe something, they ask “Must I believe this?”

(01-31-2019 09:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I don't think they even have the same people evaluating commits across conferences, which makes the entire process questionable at best.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Athletes should be evaluated well before they commit to a school. I know a lot of times it doesn't happen until later in the process, but it's very, very doubtful that evaluators are only assigning ratings based on the school or conference a recruit is committed to. I don't think the talent evaluators are the same guys who run the individual sites.

Key word there is SHOULD. I don't follow recruiting nearly as close as most, but we have all seen a recruit whose ratings go up when they get a solid P5 offer or go down when they commit to a G5 program. I don't think that they are assigning ratings "solely" on offers, but I think it does play a part sometimes.

Sure ratings are meaningful but evaluating talent is waaay more complicated than stars. Its a three legged stool. How entrenched is the staff in the region? Does the program have a history “predictable history” of developing talent?

When GS is rated higher stars matter, when they aren’t they don’t.

(02-01-2019 09:31 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  When GS is rated higher stars matter, when they aren’t they don’t.

Cool narrative.

(02-01-2019 09:31 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  When GS is rated higher stars matter, when they aren’t they don’t.

Oh please, y'all are the kings of the "Stars don't matter. We've never had a problem turning recruits into athletes" rhetoric.

Now y'all are in the stars DO matter camp because you have an above average class for once? Gimme a break.

App has a history of stacking the box early. A direct result of relationships developed over time that discourage multiple offers. Keeps the ratings lower. 750 years with little to zero staff turnover gave App a nice advantage. GS has so far outperformed Apps ‘star’ recruiting we not sweating one class. The fourth leg is can your coach coach?

Absolutely true when it comes to ratings. Me, they don’t matter a single bit, but fellow Eagle fans love them when the work out for us, question everthing when they donvvv

(02-02-2019 01:41 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  Absolutely true when it comes to ratings. Me, they don’t matter a single bit, but fellow Eagle fans love them when the work out for us, question everthing when they donvvv

I used to think stars matter. But one of our 247 guys is very candid about the deficiencies (and benefits) of the service. Especially where they fall short in terms of G5 recruiting.

He doesn't care about stars, and our highly paid coaches don't care about stars, so I don't see why I should.

That, and after about 5 years of watching our lowest "rated" recruits dominate, while a fair amount of the highest that didn't pan out.

(02-02-2019 06:03 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 01:41 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  Absolutely true when it comes to ratings. Me, they don’t matter a single bit, but fellow Eagle fans love them when the work out for us, question everthing when they donvvv

I used to think stars matter. But one of our 247 guys is very candid about the deficiencies (and benefits) of the service. Especially where they fall short in terms of G5 recruiting.

He doesn't care about stars, and our highly paid coaches don't care about stars, so I don't see why I should.

That, and after about 5 years of watching our lowest "rated" recruits dominate, while a fair amount of the highest that didn't pan out.

how about sharing what the deficiencies (and benefits) are from your 247 guys experience.