Does anyone have a general explanation of the rating differences between ESPN, Scout, and Rivals? For example, under four star recruits we have 6, 9, and 12. I understand it is subjective, but that is quite a difference.
are you talking about the point systems they use? or just overall player rankings. I believe on all sites they have a chart to go off of. for example on rivals something like 6.1 projected instant starter and impact player etc.
I was wondering how experts can look at the same 20 recruits and have such a big difference in ratings. You may have alluded to one issue. Does the label of four star mean the same thing on each site?
I had the same qustion. ESPN has our 2012 class ranked 13th, while both scout and rivals have us at 5th(as of 12/09/2011). That's a pretty big difference.
They do, but not every 4 star on rivals is a 4 star on espn. I guess they just see different things in players. For example: Derek Edinburgh on rivals is a 5.8 4 star. meaning in rivals prediction of his on the field production he will and i quote, " 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team " Rivals system goes like this 6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team 5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team 5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player 4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about 6.1 is a 5* 6.0-5.8 is a 4* and so on. Espn's goes like this. Derek Edinburgh 3* 78 overall. and they have numbers to go through the stars.
It's got to be difficult to evaluate from film alone...I mean every film package is a highlight reel. Just like it's probably hard to evaluate chicks from their pictures on those hook up sites.
Also some Coaches(Assistant & Head) are friends with the Scouting Service people. Because Coach ---- is a great recruiter (their Buddy) stars get bumped up.
I would think it is nearly impossible to truly evaluate that many players, especially objectively. I agree that they probably rely heavily on what see at camps as well as who the major programs seem to be showing the most interest in. I recall that neither Tyrann Mathieu nor Mo Claiborne were more than two stars when LSU got committments from them but by signing day they were three or four stars, depending on which service you were looking at.
Exactly! Stars much like statistics are for losers. Don't get caught up in star hysteria and recruiting class rankings. Look at Texas for example, always have big recruiting classes no results. LSU's recruiting class this year on paper doesn't look as glamorous as some of the other schools, but in 2014 when they're hoisting crystal the stars or lack of won't mean dirt.
Yes, but there is a correlation between BCSNC winners and the recruiting rankings. I don't think it matters where you are in the top 10, as long as you can be there every year. I think Auburn won with the worst recruiting, they are the exception.
