After Scout and 24/7 merged has the composite ranking become worthless?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

Previously, only Scout and 24/7 had real dedicated West coast presence.  Rivals had some but much less than the afore two mentioned.  ESPN has always been far behind those three.  Now that scout and 24/7 merged, the composite is basically worthless IMO.  The 24/7 staff has 10 times the amount of scouts out West as the other two combined, easily, after they absorbed Scout.  With the combined 24/7 and Scout  employees accounting for 85% percent of the scouts out West, the composite basically does not mean much.  It meant something to us out West when Scout and 24/7 (or prior the Rivals guys who left to create 24/7) were separate.  

[Rofl_copter_dos]

I've made this point elsewhere, actually.  The composite is now an average of Rivals and 247 for 90% of the MWC's recruits, and Rivals obviously has barely enough west coast presence to handle the P5 schools, let alone ours, so they spin the wheel and assign a random 5.2 to 5.4 rating.

 

It's not going away though, because it's a huge part of 247's brand now and most P5 recruits end up getting a rating on ESPN, which at least means it isn't pointless.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

6 minutes ago, Rofl_copter_dos said:

I've made this point elsewhere, actually.  The composite is now an average of Rivals and 247 for 90% of the MWC's recruits, and Rivals obviously has barely enough west coast presence to handle the P5 schools, let alone ours, so they spin the wheel and assign a random 5.2 to 5.4 rating.

 

It's not going away though, because it's a huge part of 247's brand now and most P5 recruits end up getting a rating on ESPN, which at least means it isn't pointless.

For us recruiting junkies on here though, I think the 24/7 rankings should be the point of reference, for obvious reasons.  Not the composite.  The 24/7 rankings are the only ones with scouts who follow the West Coast down to the G5 level and grade our recruits fairly.  And it is not just the West coast anymore, the merger has funneled all the top talent in the industry to them.

The 24/7 rankings are a much better indicator of the MWC classes than the composite these days.  Their rankings should be valued at 75% of the composite.

[Rofl_copter_dos]

11 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

For us recruiting junkies on here though, I think the 24/7 rankings should be the point of reference, for obvious reasons.  Not the composite.  The 24/7 rankings are the only ones with scouts who follow the West Coast down to the G5 level and grade our recruits fairly.  And it is not just the West coast anymore, the merger has funneled all the top talent in the industry to them.

The 24/7 rankings are a much better indicator of the MWC classes than the composite these days.  Their rankings should be valued at 75% of the composite.

Agreed. I still have qualms with some of 247's assessments but they'll likely improve going forward with the full addition of scout's people, and they're miles better than rivals'.

The ironic thing is that 247 has removed any direct links to their own rankings on their site; you have to go into the URL for the composite rankings and remove "composite" to get to it.

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=M-West

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/TeamRankings?Conference=M-West

 

[BSUTOP25]

12 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

For us recruiting junkies on here though, I think the 24/7 rankings should be the point of reference, for obvious reasons.  Not the composite.  The 24/7 rankings are the only ones with scouts who follow the West Coast down to the G5 level and grade our recruits fairly.  And it is not just the West coast anymore, the merger has funneled all the top talent in the industry to them.

The 24/7 rankings are a much better indicator of the MWC classes than the composite these days.  Their rankings should be valued at 75% of the composite.

I just pay attention to @LoFasZz's recruiting rankings. They always seem to be the most accurate. 

[Del Scorcho]

if my school is ranked high then it is precisely accurate

if low its a sack of bleep

[trvitmvnz]

I don't give a shit about stars and ratings already. If he has good film, he's good enough to me. Just show up and play 

[LoFasZz]

On 2/7/2018 at 11:36 PM, Rofl_copter_dos said:

I've made this point elsewhere, actually.  The composite is now an average of Rivals and 247 for 90% of the MWC's recruits, and Rivals obviously has barely enough west coast presence to handle the P5 schools, let alone ours, so they spin the wheel and assign a random 5.2 to 5.4 rating.

 

It's not going away though, because it's a huge part of 247's brand now and most P5 recruits end up getting a rating on ESPN, which at least means it isn't pointless.

My favorite was when Rivals had two different profiles for one our our commits with two different rankings. LJ and Lionel Anderson (who signed w SJSU) had one as a 5.2 and one as a 5.4 rating. 

 

They clearly didn’t even watch the kids tape and assigned him those arbitrary G5 ratings

[BSUTOP25]

18 minutes ago, LoFasZz said:

My favorite was when Rivals had two different profiles for one our our commits with two different rankings. LJ and Lionel Anderson (who signed w SJSU) had one as a 5.2 and one as a 5.4 rating. 

 

They clearly didn’t even watch the kids tape and assigned him those arbitrary G5 ratings

So do you think CSU out-recruited Alabama again this year?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

7 hours ago, HI_Niner said:

I don't give a shit about stars and ratings already. If he has good film, he's good enough to me. Just show up and play 

Well, you never see a kids film.  Ever.  You see a HUDL highlight reel and every single kid looks amazing in those.  Judging a kid by his HUDL is much worse than stars and ratings to be frank even high level D1 coaches would not try to do so.  Most want complete game film.

[steveem]

Stars are pretty much nonsense, sure certain guys are obviously very talented but how many times have we seen a guy like Calvin Munson or several ormer Boise players go unnoticed and then  tear it up. How , many four star flops,quite a few.

[trvitmvnz]

4 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Well, you never see a kids film.  Ever.  You see a HUDL highlight reel and every single kid looks amazing in those.  Judging a kid by his HUDL is much worse than stars and ratings to be frank even high level D1 coaches would not try to do so.  Most want complete game film.

I cant speak for the mainland kids but watching the local Hawaii commits on tv, we got some ballers on our squad

[creeper86]

6 hours ago, LoFasZz said:

My favorite was when Rivals had two different profiles for one our our commits with two different rankings. LJ and Lionel Anderson (who signed w SJSU) had one as a 5.2 and one as a 5.4 rating. 

 

They clearly didn’t even watch the kids tape and assigned him those arbitrary G5 ratings

agreed.. we all know Anderson is a four star......#spartanup

[halfmanhalfbronco]

9 hours ago, steveem said:

Stars are pretty much nonsense, sure certain guys are obviously very talented but how many times have we seen a guy like Calvin Munson or several ormer Boise players go unnoticed and then  tear it up. How , many four star flops,quite a few.

IMO offers mean more.  However a kid who shut down recruiting in the spring could project better than a kid who did not commit until the late signing period thus garnered more impressive offers.

Star ratings may be flawed but they are not nonsense.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to make the NFL.  More likely to be impact players.  

"Considering that there are 32 five-star prospects and just over 300 four-star prospects each cycle compared to well over 3,000 a year of the three-star and below variety, the pool the five and four-star prospects comes from is considerably smaller yet makes up a significant chunk of those drafted.

That’s a reflection of the natural athleticism and talent of those players, of course, which is why recruiting ranking tend to correlate so frequently with wins in college. The most talented players are ranked highly, and that usually translates with three to five years of college development."

https://247sports.com/Article/Do-recruiting-rankings-matter-The-2017-NFL-Draft-says-yes-52571897

[creeper86]

No doubt offers mean more...I’ll take a two star with multiple offers over the three star with none, every day of the week. If several recruiters deem a recruit worthy of a scholarship that means something (I mean they are paid to find players that will help them win and retain employment). On the contrary if a higher rated recruit is not offered.

[WilliamHicks]

24/7 certainly has the most impressive amount of advertisements. 11 ads per freaking page. 

[Rofl_copter_dos]

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

IMO offers mean more.  However a kid who shut down recruiting in the spring could project better than a kid who did not commit until the late signing period thus garnered more impressive offers.

Star ratings may be flawed but they are not nonsense.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to make the NFL.  More likely to be impact players.  

"Considering that there are 32 five-star prospects and just over 300 four-star prospects each cycle compared to well over 3,000 a year of the three-star and below variety, the pool the five and four-star prospects comes from is considerably smaller yet makes up a significant chunk of those drafted.

That’s a reflection of the natural athleticism and talent of those players, of course, which is why recruiting ranking tend to correlate so frequently with wins in college. The most talented players are ranked highly, and that usually translates with three to five years of college development."

https://247sports.com/Article/Do-recruiting-rankings-matter-The-2017-NFL-Draft-says-yes-52571897

once you hit three and two star territory it gets dicey, because so many players get a 3 star bump merely from having p5 interest, and, well...not all of them are objectively "three star".    It gets most egregious with the iowa states and the purdues, who field terrible teams even against G5 opponents despite having rosters loaded with "three star" talent.  There's less projection and evaluation and more reaction to which schools have shown interest.

[Lobo Amor]

I don't like how a player has rating points deducted for choosing a G5 over p5 or how his points go up for signing with a p5. The player's film doesn't get better or worse because of who he signs with on NSD.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

Just now, Lobo Amor said:

I don't like how a player has rating points deducted for choosing a G5 over p5 or how his points go up for signing with a p5. The player's film doesn't get better or worse because of who he signs with on NSD.

I know Boise is not a typical G5 but we had a lot of players see a bump in the months after committing to us this year.

[creeper86]

Don’t go fooling yourself....you’re typical G5.