Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Why Johnny Stanton didn't make 250 from rivals guy

[Dotsee]

Rivals guy

TY TD for making me laff...thank goodness I was not drinking anything or I woulda been drying my keyboard

 

[Red Reign]

Nice conversation between Bils and HIO which I am enjoying....

 

[HuskerInOkieland]

I think that's the most important thing to remember for those that spend a lot of time living and dying by the recruiting process and "stars", etc.

It's not gospel. It's far from perfect. Biased at times. But in general it gives you and idea of who is doing what and roughly how your team is doing v. the competition...and in that sense they can be useful.

BUT...since I'm an argumentative son of a gun...and I'm sure EVERY fan base is like this...but I wonder when the last time anyone said one of THEIR recruits is a little overrated? "Scout just upped Joe Blow to a 4*...I just don't see it!"

Very true. Not likely to happen.


I will say that there have been, if I remember right, two times that I believed our guy was overrated, but I did not dare say anything. I don't remember who they were or how their careers turned out, but I remember thinking "I hope someone doesn't ask me for a critical evaluation here."

I will also say that there have been times when I thought recruits got a bump because Nebraska offered. But in those cases, I felt like the player probably deserved it anyway.

At the risk of sounded arrogant, I don't believe NU recruits 2* athletes (excepting kickers and the occassional Nebraska HS kid). If we are recruiting legitimately 2* athletes, our coaches deserve to be fired. We are too good for that and have too many things to offer. I think Rivals tends to agree and we have seen a lot of kids get their 3rd star after committing to us. I tend to doubt (in some cases but not all) that much evaluation led to the extra star other than "oops, Nebraska recruit, I think we better hedge our bets so we don't look bad."

One other point here. I would agree that most fans tend to think their recruits deserve more stars . . . and perhaps with good reason. Every year, 27 guys are rated 5*s in Rival. That all by itself doesn't really jive with me. Why the cutoff at 27? Why not 25 or 30? Some years are stronger than others. Rivals generally gives out 310 4* or 5* (by my counts several years ago, it may vary a bit now). Some years there are probably 600 4* players. Some years you might struggle to find a legitimate 250. So player #310 is a 4*, and player #311 is a 3*. And player #901 is also a 3*. It's really kind of silly if you take it too seriously. Lots of room to slide players up and down. Lots of different types of talent that do or do not fit into whatever system the school they pledge to uses.

I still say it comes down to upside vs. risk. And even with that formula, there are 3* players with tremendous upside but considerable risk vs. 3* players with limited upside but little to no risk. How can you rate those two players the same. Two entirely different types of recruits. The high risk upside player may be perfect for a solid program looking for a spark to put them over the top and the low risk player may be perfect for a program loaded with talent but in need of stable team oriented players.

If every year, you like the upside of the class and feel that the risk is managable, then you can probably ARGUE that some of your recruits COULD be underrated. In other words, you could at least make a reasonable argument that this guy and that guy and this guy COULD be or COULD turn out to be underrated. I would think that if any competitive school brought in a class that fans (and coaches) would look at and say "you know, I don't think we have anybody that COULD be underrated," then that class would be in trouble. Probably serious trouble.