Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football Recruiting
Topic:  Recruiting service comparison

Topic:  Recruiting service comparison
Author
Message
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 1/30/2014 1:17:42 PM 
Rather than comparing them on accuracy, how about a comparison based on volume? Which recruiting services put in at least a little effort at identifying recruits for the MAC, and evaluating them? Since I noted that Rivals is way behind on Ohio, showing Ohio with a whopping 8 recruits, I decided to take a quick look at the whole MAC.

Rivals - Identified 166 MAC recruits (8 for Ohio)
Scout - Identified 189 MAC recruits (15 for Ohio)
ESPN - Identified 223 MAC recruits (19 for Ohio), but they only evaluated 58 of them
247Sports - Identified 223 MAC recruits (20 for Ohio)

Rivals, Scout, and 247 try to rate all players as they identify them. They are behind in a few cases, and so there are some unrated players out there. Scout hasn't rated Brunis, for example, and 247 hasn't rated Dudziak, Royster, or Meyer. On the whole you can see that Rivals doesn't concern themselves with the MAC at all, while Scout does a little bit. ESPN does pay attention to the MAC, but they made a decision to only rank 3 star or better players, so most MAC players go unranked. 247 is the clear winner when it comes to paying attention to the MAC, and MAC-caliber recruits as they not only identify MAC recruits, they rated most of them as well.

Last Edited: 1/30/2014 1:20:17 PM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 2,918

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 1/30/2014 3:16:42 PM 
As usual, good stuff here.  I will never go to Rivals or Scout again to review/evaluate our recruits.  Might as well use the most complete service, 247.

Last Edited: 1/30/2014 3:17:15 PM by Casper71
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 1/30/2014 4:02:46 PM 
247 also seems to have acquired bucknuts.com, including recruiting analyst Duane Long, who was formerly of Ohio High, and known for ranking the Top 100 in Ohio, so I would guess that their ratings of Ohio recruits are better than most in terms of accuracy.

Also, if you look at 247 you will find two ratings. One is their own rating, and the other is a composite rating, which picks up numbers from other publicly available ratings (i.e. Scout, Rivals, ESPN). They don't consistently pick up all the other ratings for each player, but they seem to get most of them. Some examples:
1. While they haven't rated Dudziak, they picked up the 3 star Scout rating, which gives him an .8333 composite rating.
2. While they like Connor Brown, and gave him an 83, a 2 star rating from someone else lowered his composite to .7983.
3. They gave Kyle Kuhar a 74, but factoring in ratings from 2 other services raises him to .7726.

If I was going to pick one and only one service to use, it would be 247, without a doubt.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Grad 86
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 1,397

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/5/2014 7:19:16 PM 
Rivals 2-Star ** Rating!

http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Russell-Wilson-45472;_ylt=Ahm5ZyHJFWNVF0X.zZS52mpDPZB4
Back to Top
  
Doc Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,219

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/5/2014 7:33:57 PM 
[QUOTE=Bobcat Grad 86]Rivals 2-Star ** Rating!

http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recru...]
Agony....agony.

No....it can't be.

2 star recruits may be 3....or 4....or 5?

R u saying our recruits may not suck?

It must be the apocalypse ?
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/5/2014 10:33:54 PM 
Rivals still shows Ohio with 9 recruits.

ESPN shows all the recruits, but doesn't rank the MAC.

Scout.com has all the recruits, and shows Ohio ranked 78th overall and 2d in the MAC with 843 points, well behind the 1504 for WMU, and barely ahead of Ball State  at 811 and Toledo at 746. 843 would put Ohio in 2d in CUSA as well (behind Marshall). Ohio would be in the top half of the MWC or the AAC as well. Several Ohio recruits are as yet unranked, but no doubt will by tomorrow have the automatic and meaningless 2-star rating.

247Sports has all the recruits, of which 4 remain unranked. They have now moved Ohio down to 105 overall, and 7th in the MAC.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 2,918

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/5/2014 11:32:53 PM 
L.C., confusion reigns!  I thought your feeling was that 247 was the "best" of the recruiting sites.  And they have us #7 MAC and in the 100s.  Is OUr recruiting this year really that bad?
Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 8:44:45 AM 
L.C. wrote:
Rivals still shows Ohio with 9 recruits.

ESPN shows all the recruits, but doesn't rank the MAC.

Scout.com has all the recruits, and shows Ohio ranked 78th overall and 2d in the MAC with 843 points, well behind the 1504 for WMU, and barely ahead of Ball State at 811 and Toledo at 746. 843 would put Ohio in 2d in CUSA as well (behind Marshall). Ohio would be in the top half of the MWC or the AAC as well. Several Ohio recruits are as yet unranked, but no doubt will by tomorrow have the automatic and meaningless 2-star rating.

247Sports has all the recruits, of which 4 remain unranked. They have now moved Ohio down to 105 overall, and 7th in the MAC.



So, if your glass is half full, go with Scout. If you are a half empty guy, go with 247. My problem with thee "expert" ratings is they are only beauty contests whose judges are not experts, who rate players without critical tangible and intangible information important to determine who or what these young men will be going forward. So many high school heroes, three stars and up have achieved their potential, will never be bigger, stronger or faster. Lifting now begins in middle school. Our local high school has been lifting like a college since the late 1990s. It takes, attending games, observing the player on the sideline, meeting the player, checking grades, test scores, birthdays, is he the youngest in the class or already 19 and still in high school, to determine the players upside potential if there is one. Casper71 is correct all these services really do is confuse the issue. They do tell us who the top high school players are without even attempting to address who will become a college student athlete. How often have we heard a coach say, "I went to see this RB with the stats, but, I was really impressed with the tackle."

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,312

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 10:20:12 AM 
Casper71 wrote:
L.C., confusion reigns! I thought your feeling was that 247 was the "best" of the recruiting sites. And they have us #7 MAC and in the 100s. Is OUr recruiting this year really that bad?

Lots of reason to be confused here. While 247 seems to have more players listed because they gather from all sources, they still factor in the no ratings so their composite comes out lower. It seems to me that if you look at their own data, we would be ranked ahead of more of the MAC schools if you leave out the not ranked players. Since they base their rankings on average composites and we have a lot more NR than some other MAC schools, then our ranking is lower just because if that. The whole thing makes little sense for teams in the MAC because the rating services tend to stick with the big boys and the "perceived" top players and don't care much about anybody else.
It's fun to look at this stuff in a way, but results on the field matter more.
Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 2,918

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 12:42:01 PM 
It does make sense when you recruit a bunch of NR guys.  I fully understand they are under the radar and some may really blossom into very good playersbut you don't see WMU with that "NR"probelem.  In their recruiting, they stretched, went after, and somehow signed a bunch of 3-star type guys that lots of Big 10/BCS schools were after.  I simply wish we would do more of that.  If we did, I still believe we would be light years ahead of where we are now.
Back to Top
  
akroncat
General User

Member Since: 7/23/2010
Location: Akron, OH
Post Count: 190

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 1:33:09 PM 
Hustlebelt has a great review on the Bobcats.  It gives us an A grade for this year's class.  The link is in another thread which talked about Toledo and WMU recruiting.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 4:17:38 PM 
Casper71 wrote:
L.C., confusion reigns!  I thought your feeling was that 247 was the "best" of the recruiting sites.  And they have us #7 MAC and in the 100s.  Is OUr recruiting this year really that bad?

Indeed confusion reigns. Increasingly I am forced to come to the conclusion that even the "best" of the sites is still bad. The problems are:
1. They don't rate all the players - There are an awful lot of prospects out there, and they can't possibly rate everyone. I get that. They rate the best, or try to, meaning that they have the best coverage for the top teams, but as you get down to the bottom teams, you lose accuracy because of unrated players. It is probably inevitable. The one solution would be if, after the fact, they actually attempted to rate each player. Instead, come signing day if they haven't rated player, all the sites do the same thing, they give the player the lowest rating possible, and then forget it, and move on.
2. They use cryptic rating systems - it is hard sometimes to get from their ratings of individual players to their rating for the team. Sometimes they just don't make sense. Worse, volume of recruits is at least as important as quality.  Thus, since Ohio's class next year will be small, you know Ohio will have a bad rating even if all the players they recruit are very, very good.
3. At the top there is a lot of separation, but as you get lower down the ratings, all the teams get very close together, so there is little to separate one team from the next. Taking 247 as an example, the difference between #1 Alabama and the #2 team is 22 points.  Ohio is ranked 105 with 102 points. 22 points less would put Ohio in 125th place. 22 points more and Ohio would be in 82d place.
4. Even when they have the rating, can they connect it to the player? Rivals has a nice 3-star rating for McCray, but they seem to think Ohio signed someone named McCrary, who must, obviously, be a minimum rating player, as they never heard of him.

Combine all these factors together, and you end up scratching your head and wondering why we even go to these sites. Consider that in the last 2 days of ratings, Ohio bounced from 5th to 2d to 7th in the MAC. That isn't exactly a stable ratings system.  What caused the drop from 2d to 7th, by the way, was the loss of 2 players from the recruit list. One was Murray, and I'll give them that. The other was Royster, who actually isn't lost at all, but is a preferred walkon. Then, when Ohio added lots of other players, they were all ones 247 didn't know.

Continuing to pick on 247Sports (actually one of the best sites), if they don't know a recruit, during the season they try to rate that recruit, but if it is signing day, they do the same as all the other websites - give them a minimum rating automatically, which means that the team gets no points at all for them, whereas higher rated players are worth many points. I can see that a team gets no points at all for a minimum rated player, while a 2-star player might be worth 4 points, and a 3-star player worth 6-8 points, I think. The players that 247Sports has rated as worthless to the Ohio class happen to be:
Maleek Irons
Papi White
Mitch Bonnstetter
Check Washington
Kylan Nelson
Bretty Layton

If Ohio had not  been able to sign any of these players, 247Sports would not have changed their team rating at all.  Now, it just so happens that I have watched the video on all these players, and I happen to think some of those are very, very good, and none are horrible. Giving 247 some credit, without these players, perhaps 7th is where Ohio might have belonged. With them? 7th isn't even close, in my opinion. Note that if they all were rated a middle 2-star rating so that Ohio got 4 points each for them, that would be 24 more points, and Ohio would be back to 2d in the MAC and 80th or so overall. If a couple were 3-star players, Ohio would be higher than that.

Sigh.... In the end it seems like just a waste of time even looking at these ratings.

Last Edited: 2/6/2014 4:34:50 PM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 4:40:12 PM 
L.C. wrote:

Sigh.... In the end it seems like just a waste of time even looking at these ratings.


LOL, I think you just answered your own question!
Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 5:03:25 PM 
L.C. wrote:
Casper71 wrote:
L.C., confusion reigns! I thought your feeling was that 247 was the "best" of the recruiting sites. And they have us #7 MAC and in the 100s. Is OUr recruiting this year really that bad?

Indeed confusion reigns. Increasingly I am forced to come to the conclusion that even the "best" of the sites is still bad. The problems are:
1. They don't rate all the players - There are an awful lot of prospects out there, and they can't possibly rate everyone. I get that. They rate the best, or try to, meaning that they have the best coverage for the top teams, but as you get down to the bottom teams, you lose accuracy because of unrated players. It is probably inevitable. The one solution would be if, after the fact, they actually attempted to rate each player. Instead, come signing day if they haven't rated player, all the sites do the same thing, they give the player the lowest rating possible, and then forget it, and move on.
2. They use cryptic rating systems - it is hard sometimes to get from their ratings of individual players to their rating for the team. Sometimes they just don't make sense. Worse, volume of recruits is at least as important as quality. Thus, since Ohio's class next year will be small, you know Ohio will have a bad rating even if all the players they recruit are very, very good.
3. At the top there is a lot of separation, but as you get lower down the ratings, all the teams get very close together, so there is little to separate one team from the next. Taking 247 as an example, the difference between #1 Alabama and the #2 team is 22 points. Ohio is ranked 105 with 102 points. 22 points less would put Ohio in 125th place. 22 points more and Ohio would be in 82d place.
4. Even when they have the rating, can they connect it to the player? Rivals has a nice 3-star rating for McCray, but they seem to think Ohio signed someone named McCrary, who must, obviously, be a minimum rating player, as they never heard of him.

Combine all these factors together, and you end up scratching your head and wondering why we even go to these sites. Consider that in the last 2 days of ratings, Ohio bounced from 5th to 2d to 7th in the MAC. That isn't exactly a stable ratings system. What caused the drop from 2d to 7th, by the way, was the loss of 2 players from the recruit list. One was Murray, and I'll give them that. The other was Royster, who actually isn't lost at all, but is a preferred walkon. Then, when Ohio added lots of other players, they were all ones 247 didn't know.

Continuing to pick on 247Sports (actually one of the best sites), if they don't know a recruit, during the season they try to rate that recruit, but if it is signing day, they do the same as all the other websites - give them a minimum rating automatically, which means that the team gets no points at all for them, whereas higher rated players are worth many points. I can see that a team gets no points at all for a minimum rated player, while a 2-star player might be worth 4 points, and a 3-star player worth 6-8 points, I think. The players that 247Sports has rated as worthless to the Ohio class happen to be:
Maleek Irons
Papi White
Mitch Bonnstetter
Check Washington
Kylan Nelson
Bretty Layton

If Ohio had not been able to sign any of these players, 247Sports would not have changed their team rating at all. Now, it just so happens that I have watched the video on all these players, and I happen to think some of those are very, very good, and none are horrible. Giving 247 some credit, without these players, perhaps 7th is where Ohio might have belonged. With them? 7th isn't even close, in my opinion. Note that if they all were rated a middle 2-star rating so that Ohio got 4 points each for them, that would be 24 more points, and Ohio would be back to 2d in the MAC and 80th or so overall. If a couple were 3-star players, Ohio would be higher than that.

Sigh.... In the end it seems like just a waste of time even looking at these ratings.


Even when they do evaluate a player they only look at about 50% of what a coaching staff member would need to know. And yet they are repeatedly counted as experts. I don't get it.

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 8:14:57 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
LOL, I think you just answered your own question!

No, but I will. Yes, we all know these services can't really do what they claim, i.e. compare the classes accurately, yet we go there because we want to know, and because, in this time of year, there isn't anything else about football to talk about.

I will say that as time goes on, I'm paying less attention to these sites, and spending more time actually watching the videos myself.  If, after a few years, it turns out that my evaluations have any accuracy, I may become more outspoken about them. For now mostly I keep them to myself, except the rare players that I really like a lot.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
TWT
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 4,998

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 8:31:50 PM 
Sometimes it takes the recruiting services a couple of days after signing day to get all the data. Scout has Ohio with 26 recruits including the Royster and ranks Ohio #2 (#77 Nationally) in the MAC behind Western Michigan. That is the highest rating I believe they've ever given Ohio in football recruiting and it would be good enough for middle of the pack in the AAC. Its a borderline Big Ten class and 50 spots ahead of what Terry Bowden has put together in Akron. Western Michigan they have at #55 nationally the highest a MAC school has ever finished in the recruiting rankings.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&...

Last Edited: 2/6/2014 8:32:56 PM by TWT

Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 10:42:39 PM 
The one thing I don't understood about the recruiting services is their behavior at the end when they arbitrarily give minimum ratings to people they have no clue about. That only makes them look foolish down the road when someone under the radar turns out to be good, such as Russell Wilson, or Lavon Brazill. It makes them look like they looked at the film, but they don't know talent when they see it.

If they want to rate all the players so that they can say they did, have someone look at the film and assign a serious rating. If they aren't going to look at the film, they should have the intellectual honesty to admit it, and either not rate them at all, of do as rivals used to do a few years back - give them a rating that means "we don't have any idea how good this player is so we aren't going to rate him". Back in those days a 4.9, which meant "we don't know", tended to be better players than players rated 5.0 or a 5.1 which meant, "we looked at this player and we weren't impressed".

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,156

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/6/2014 10:45:21 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
L.C. wrote:

Sigh.... In the end it seems like just a waste of time even looking at these ratings.


LOL, I think you just answered your own question!


I came to this conclusion several years ago.  I still read other BAers take on these ratings, but I rarely look at them myself.  I look at some of the videos posted here and make my own analysis, which is probably not very sophisticated.  I did find Brunis to look very good and declared in a thread that I thought he was a "diamond in the rough."  I guess that's my equivalent of a four star recruit that no one else will give more than a default one or two star to.  My bottom line is that after a recruiting class is final I use the Frank Solich Rating System: I listen to what Frank says about his recruits and I believe in his general accuracy given his long track record.  I do subtract obvious "coach speak" so I guess you'd call this Reformed Frank Solich Rating System.  Perhaps some would call this The Apologist Rating System! 

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/7/2014 7:03:47 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
L.C. wrote:

Sigh.... In the end it seems like just a waste of time even looking at these ratings.


LOL, I think you just answered your own question!


I came to this conclusion several years ago. I still read other BAers take on these ratings, but I rarely look at them myself. I look at some of the videos posted here and make my own analysis, which is probably not very sophisticated. I did find Brunis to look very good and declared in a thread that I thought he was a "diamond in the rough." I guess that's my equivalent of a four star recruit that no one else will give more than a default one or two star to. My bottom line is that after a recruiting class is final I use the Frank Solich Rating System: I listen to what Frank says about his recruits and I believe in his general accuracy given his long track record. I do subtract obvious "coach speak" so I guess you'd call this Reformed Frank Solich Rating System. Perhaps some would call this The Apologist Rating System!


I would be a subscriber.

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/8/2014 2:10:05 PM 
Casper71 wrote:
It does make sense when you recruit a bunch of NR guys.  I fully understand they are under the radar and some may really blossom into very good playersbut you don't see WMU with that "NR"probelem.  In their recruiting, they stretched, went after, and somehow signed a bunch of 3-star type guys that lots of Big 10/BCS schools were after.  I simply wish we would do more of that.  If we did, I still believe we would be light years ahead of where we are now.

You can find the guys Ohio offered at 247Sports by changing from "Commits" to "Offers". Remember that Ohio generally makes the offers before the rankings come out, so the offers are based on evaluations by Ohio staff. Based on the later evaluations by experts, you find a sort of bell curve with a peak from 83-85:

98 1
97 0
96 0
95 0
94 1
93 0
92 2
91 1
90 1
89 4
88 2
87 5
86 8
85 17
84 14
83 17
82 11
81 7
80 6
79 6
78 3
77 4
76 7
75 5
74 4
73 1
unranked  6

My guess is that the lower rated players are ones that the staff thought were comparable to the higher rated ones, but the services felt differently.
1 was lost to ND, average .892
15 were lost to the SEC , average .869 (6 to Kentucky)
29 were lost to the Big Ten, average .851 (5 to Ind, 3 each to Penn St, Nebr, Mich St, Minn, and Mich)
6 were lost to the PAC 10, average .847 (3 to Stanford)
21 were lost to the ACC, average .846 (3 each to Duke, WF, Pitt, and Louisville)
4 were lost to the Big 12, average .842 (2 ea to WV and Iowa St)
4 were lost to the AAC, average .820 (2 to Cincy)
4 were lost to CUSA, average .800
2 were lost to other FBS, average .807
12 were lost to the MAC, average .797
5 were lost to FCS, average .772

Ohio does stretch and go after good players, but it still remains a challenge for Ohio to sell a top player on choosing Ohio over AQ teams, so the AQ teams pick off the best of the players that Ohio offers. How did WMU do it? If everyone knew, everyone would do it. WMU's class this year was unique in that I have never seen another MAC incoming class like it. Can he repeat that, year after year? We shall see.

To me Ohio needs to continue doing what they are doing, and try to get keep getting more competitive, and winning more often, against AAC and CUSA teams, and continue to beat MAC teams most of the time on the players they want.




“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Mark Lembright '85
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,447

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/8/2014 4:41:02 PM 
Are we so sure PJ Fleck's above board?  I'm not buying the fact that he's so "charismatic" that he attracts 3 star recruits merely because of it or that WMU is so special 3 stars go there when they could be going to the 2 other Big 10 schools in that state.   I would not be shocked to hear of some sort of NCAA investigation in WMU's future or some sort of recruiting controversy.  I'm sorry, I'm just not buying into PJ Fleck or WMU.
Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 2,918

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/17/2014 3:24:40 PM 
This was in a basketball thread but it is what I have been saying about OHIO FB recruiting.  Like the under the radar guys and NR guys who can develop but this is where it starts:

“Illinois went toe-to-toe with Kansas for Alexander and lost and now they are back in the ring again duking it out,” said Henricksen. “That’s a positive. You can’t have a defeatist attitude in recruiting, you have to swing for the fences. Pick your spots and be realistic, but you can’t just give up, especially on the elite in-state players.”

I believe this is really the way WMU approached their recruiting this year and somehow they got a bunch of good players.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/17/2014 4:08:09 PM 
Here is a list of Ohio offers for 2015 and a list of Ohio offers for 2014. Ohio is definitely going after 3-4 star athletes.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Checkrama
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 63

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/17/2014 7:39:05 PM 
www.vandelaysports.com/football/recruit/2014/
In case you missed it, here's Vandelay Sports recruiting ranking.  He studies the MAC and is usually very accurate. We came in a very respectable 3rd place overall, but only had 4 of the top 50 recruits. WMU is just killing it with 11 of the top 50 recruits. That is what you call some dominant recruiting, assuming that most of them pan out.


cfn.scout.com/2/1374053.html
Also in Scout's final rankings we finished at #77. Here is the little capsule the wrote:
The 2014 Class Is Heavy On ... Receivers. Ohio has a decent history of good receivers, and with QB Joey Duckworth coming in to potentially challenge for the starting job right away, the program needs to upgrade the targets. There aren’t any superstar prospects, but there are lots and lots of them with JUCO transfer Chris Murray likely to see time early on. Connor Brown and JUCO transfer Brennan Boland are good-looking tight ends, and tackles Joe Lowery and Brennan Dudziak are going to be cornerstones.





Last Edited: 2/17/2014 7:53:14 PM by Checkrama
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,272

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Recruiting service comparison
   Posted: 2/17/2014 8:08:04 PM 
Checkrama wrote:
... He studies the MAC and is usually very accurate....

I agree that he studies the MAC, but I'm curious what you base your claim on that he is "very accurate"?

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 25  of 31 Posts
Jump to Page:  1 | 2    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football Recruiting' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 155 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
152 Guests
3 Registered Users:
 GraffZ06, Deciduous Forest Cat, 100%Cat
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties