BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football Recruiting

Topic: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Topic: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Author

Message

L.C.
General User

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

Status: Offline

Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/5/2013 11:26:20 AM

I don't mean to knock the recruiting services. They try hard, and they have to evaluate a lot of players. Clearly their focus has a much higher priority on the 5 and 4 star players than the 2 star players. I happened to be looking at the recruiting rankings from last year's class. It seems to be a very good class, and of the 20 that enrolled, 7 of them have already been impact players (Basham, Sayles, McLeod, Wood, Stewart, Tautuaiki, and Mangen). Did the recruiting services consider those 7 to be our best recruits? Hardly. In fact, they were almost all rated as some of the lowest ranked recruits in the class.

247Sports:
Their ratings were remarkably off. Of the six players at the bottom of the class, they managed to hit 4 of the seven impact players (Basham 70, McLeod 70, Wood 72, Mangen 73). Sayles 76 and Tautuaki 77 were middle of the class, while they stuck Stewart in the 2012 class, and listed him at 73, again on the low side.

Scout.com
They are a little harder since pretty much everyone is 2 stars.except Leon Alexander and Tate Leavitt. Ten of the recruits they considered good enough to rank them nationally. Of those, 2 didn't enroll (Graves, Leavitt), and of the remaining eight, 25% of them have played (Mangen, Wood). Of the 12 players not considered good enough to be ranked nationally, 42% have played (Sayles, McLeod, Tautuaiki, Basham, and Stewart).

Rivals
Rivals did a bit better than the first two. They are only slightly upside down, and mostly just have the impact players randomly scattered through the rankings.Of the 7 players they rank at the bottom (5.2), three (43%) have been impact players (Mangen, McLeod, Stewart). Excluding Graves, one of the three players at 5.3 (33%) has played (Tautuaiki). Excluding Leavitt, of the nine players at 5.4, three of them (33%) have been impact players (Wood, Sayles, Basham).

ESPN
ESPN ratings are useless for Ohio recruits. They almost never even evaluate any Ohio recruits. Maybe in the end that's really the most honest rating of all - admitting they don't really know anything at all about them.

Every time I look at this subject, I reach the same conclusion - the accuracy of the recruiting services at the 2-3 star level is not very high. There are simply far too many of them for the services to be accurate in rating them. While I agree that Ohio needs "3-star recruits", it seems like Ohio really may be getting 3-star recruits, but the services are missing them, or mis-rating them. I think most people here would agree that they are happy to have guys like Basham, Sayles, Mangen, Wood and Stewart, and most would agree that they really should have been rated as 3-star recruits (or better).

For me, then the key remains - If Ohio is getting the players they want, that's a good thing. When I see a class like the last two years, where the vast majority of the class is made of from the initial offers (the coach's first choices), then I can be confident it is going to be a very good class, and I feel that way regardless of whether the services give them 2 or 3 stars.

Last Edited: 11/5/2013 2:07:23 PM by L.C.

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

L.C.
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/5/2013 2:55:21 PM

Going back a year further, to 2012, what do we find? Excluding Clark, Murray, Wells, and Roberts, who didn't enroll (or left immediately), and Stewart and Jarid Brown, who should have been in the 2013 class, and Tanner, who may never play, there were a total of 16 recruits, including 3 Jucos a transfer, and 12 Freshmen. Since almost all have either played, or been injured, I'm just going to divide these into 3 groups - those that have started at least one game, those that have played in 6 or more games, and those that have played less.
Starts
Laseak - 6 starts, played in 2 other games
Branz - 4 starts, played 2 others
Waters - 3 starts, played 5 others
Kendrick Smith - 3 starts, 4 other games
Watson - 2 starts, played in 4 other games
Gibbons - 1 start, played in 4 other games

6 or more games
Edmond - played in all 8 games
Reid - played in 8 games
Sebastian Smith - played in 7 games
Patterson - played in 7 games
Davis - played in 7 games
Wm Johnson - played in 6 games

less than 6 games
Schany - injured, has not played
Windham - has not played
Rodriguez - played in 1 game
Henry - injured, has not played

247Sports
Those with starts - average rating = 73.8
Those with 6 games - average rating = 75
Those with less than 6 games - average rating = 73
No correlation here

Scout
Starts - average rating 2 stars, 3 of 6 ranked nationally
6+ - average rating 2.16 stars, 1 of 6 ranked nationally
<6 games - average rating 2 stars - 2 of 4 ranked nationally
No correlation here

Rivals
Starts - Average rating 5.32
6+ - Average rating 5.35
<6 games - Average rating 5.35
No correlation here

ESPN
They actually rated a few players this year
Starts - 2 of 6 players rated, average rating of 71.5
6+ - 4 of 6 players have been rated - average rating of 72.0
<6 games - 2 of 4 players rated - average rating of 75.5
Seems to be a slight negative correlation here

Overall, I find no evidence that any of the recruiting rankings for 2012 were correlated to how the players have done on the field.

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

colobobcat66
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/6/2013 11:08:32 AM

I'm not sure that the fact that a player plays in his first year means that somehow they're a 3 star player. We were almost completely wiped out, depth-wise, along the defensive line and tight end. We put in new guys we recruited, not sure we had any choice. Basham and Sayles seem to be doing okay, don't know about the other guys.

Last Edited: 11/6/2013 11:11:15 AM by colobobcat66

Casper71
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/6/2013 2:10:06 PM

And, perhaps these youngsters really weren't physically ready to play against upper level competition?

L.C.
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/6/2013 2:35:49 PM

colobobcat66 wrote:

Yes, there were injuries that are reasons why some are playing, but note that they aren't the only ones at the position.
McLeod - Is currently starting, putting him ahead of guys like Tony Davis, Andrew Bennett, and Brandon Purdum
Basham and Laseak - have been playing a lot/starting, but while DE is thin, there are others, like Nic Barber, Eric Price (a 3-Star recruit from 2011), and Trent Smart at DE.
Mangen - Yes, he's playing because of injury, but note that if the recruiting rankings are accurate, it would be Mason Morgan playing, since they ranked him much higher (247Sports 80 versus 73, Rivals 5.4 versus 5.2, Scout 95 National Rank versus 124).
Stewart - There is plenty of depth there at Safety
Watson, Gibbons, Wood - Yes, they would not be playing but for injuries, but...they have played well, much better than you'd expect, and much better than some of this year's Senior starters had when they were Freshmen. For example, Watson's grades at RT are not nearly as good as McGrath's are today, but are better than McGrath's were as a Freshman. Similarly Wood and Gibbons both grade out at RG comparable to or better than Eric Herman did as a Freshman.

I'm not saying that this analysis is perfect, and maybe some of these guys are just being used now, and will not continue to develop into stars. This is just one more look at recruiting, and one more way to try to determine the validity of the recruiting services. The point is that no matter how many times I look at it, or what data I look at, I never find much, if any, correlation. For those that think that the ratings have substantial merit, what do they base that conclusion on?

I would agree that nationwide, for all the services, 3-Star recruits on average are better than 2-Star recruits. When you start looking at the subset of recruits that have 2-Stars, but accept offers from Ohio, and the group with 3-stars but who accept offers from Ohio, there doesn't seem to be a discernible difference. Why not? My assumption is that Ohio Is cherry-picking the best of the 2-Star recruits, and that Ohio is only able to land the worst of the 3-star recruits.

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

colobobcat66
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/6/2013 10:57:52 PM

I agree with your overall analysis of the randomness of rankings/ratings of 2 and maybe even most 3 star players. There's just too much variability and failure of the rating services to evaluate all the players. Case closed in that regard. I tend to think number of offers may be more of an indicator of potential than what the rating services say. Anyway, it is a flawed system to say the least.

L.C.
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/7/2013 12:36:00 AM

colobobcat66 wrote:

I'm not sure that the fact that a player plays in his first year means that somehow they're a 3 star player. ...

I would add this note - Every single player that has been drafted from Ohio under Solich played as a true freshman. Obviously the reverse is not true, though. Still, given that perhaps 1/4 of the players that have played as true freshmen have been drafted, it has to be a positive sign of their ultimate potential.

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

bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 1,925

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/7/2013 2:40:59 PM

Just because a kid redshirted this year doesn't mean he won't become an impact player. A lot of guys don't redshirt because they are at a position of need, not necessarily because they are better than other guys.

Donte Foster, Xavier Hughes, Jon Lechner, and Keith Moore are all guys who redshirted their first years and still became impact players.

L.C.
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/7/2013 5:18:53 PM

I think that anytime a player does play as a true freshman, it's an early indication that he has some ability. On the other hand, just because they do redshirt, I agree that it isn't a sign than they don't have ability. The better the depth situation, the more kids they can redshirt, and I'd rather have an impact player as a 5th year Senior rather than as a true freshman.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't see much correlation between the recruiting rankings and what we get. I think it is significant that no one has tried to make the reverse case - that the recruiting rankings are a good predictor of how they will turn out.

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

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,797

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/7/2013 10:22:11 PM

In general, I think this certainly shows that these recruiting serves don't have much of a clue for two- and three- star recruits. I'm sure you can draw it out over time and see that.

However, I'd point out that the best freshmen don't always play, even at the same position. If a guy is only going to be needed for a few plays a game, sometimes coaches will take a lesser freshman at the position so as to not waste the redshirt of a better player for only a handful of plays.

Casper71
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/10/2013 8:15:48 PM

This makes me think two things:

1. If true frosh are starting now we have had some "worse than you think" recruiting classes in the past based on the players that made it to OHIO. We should not have that many holes 9 years into a program. Many of these guys will turn out fine but maybe they really aren't ready physically to play the upper crust of the MAC.

2. I don't care what anyone says, we get 15 3 star guys a years for three to four years and we are much better team than we are today. That's the kind of numbers a UC has gotten lately and they are just a step from moving to the BCS level (next realignment...)

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,779

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/10/2013 9:11:12 PM

Casper71 wrote:

This makes me think two things:

1. If true frosh are starting now we have had some "worse than you think" recruiting classes in the past based on the players that made it to OHIO. We should not have that many holes 9 years into a program. Many of these guys will turn out fine but maybe they really aren't ready physically to play the upper crust of the MAC.

2. I don't care what anyone says, we get 15 3 star guys a years for three to four years and we are much better team than we are today. That's the kind of numbers a UC has gotten lately and they are just a step from moving to the BCS level (next realignment...)

You are correct, there is one heck of a difference between a 18 and 22 year old athlete.

L.C.
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Accuracy of recruiting rankings

Posted: 11/11/2013 12:58:53 AM

Casper71 wrote:

This makes me think two things:

1. If true frosh are starting now we have had some "worse than you think" recruiting classes in the past based on the players that made it to OHIO.....

I have said it before, but the 2010 class, under Isphording, turned out to be very bad:
Gone or No Show
Kenny Ashley - no show
Bryce Dietz - Injured, career over
Blake Jones - left
Kyle Kozak - left
Octavious Leftwich - Juco, gone
Omar Leftwich - juco, gone
Joe Morales - left
Kyle Snyder - left
Joe Stefanski - gone
Jamal Tarrent - gone

Not Playing due to injury, I think
Mark Smith - injured, I think, not playing
AJ Grady

These guys are what is left from 2010 that are still playing:
Josh Kristoff - S
Brandon Atwell - SLB
Nathan Carpenter - #1 Nickle back
Chase Cochran - WR
Thad Ingol - S

Because of the way the 2010 class turned out, it means that a lot more than usual Freshmen and Sophomores are playing, and there are less Juniors. The 2011 class was better, but has a few issues, too, but the 2012 and 2013 classes look very good. When the 2009 class leaves this year, I'm expecting a down year next year, but then a very strong team the year after.

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

Showing Replies:	1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football Recruiting' Topics

There are 148 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

147 Guests
1 Registered User:
	Cats5

There are no other users looking at this page.