Rivals, Scouts and other sites that rank HS students are pretty good about grading High school talent.
I never see where they actually grade themselves.
How many of the five star athletes actaully became “All-Americas” and what lowly rated athletes became high draft picks etc.
Doesn;t seem like it would be to difficult to grade.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t already be happening. If I was Rivals, you can bet I’d assign some intern to how many 5-star recruits were drafted (and in which rounds) of both myself as well as Scout and ESPN. If I was 2nd or 3rd, I wouldn’t say anything, but you can believe there’d be a giant banner on the front of the website/magazine if we were first. Same goes for the other two.
Somewhat counterintuitively, it’s easier to rate high school kids as college prospects than it is to rate college kids as NFL prospects.
IMHO, this is because high school and college offenses are so much simpler than NFL ones. Even pro-style college offenses tend to be built around 20 or so staple plays; by contrast, the Colts run 20 or so plays from each formation.
Moreover, when jumping from high school to college, you’re still going to school and playing football on the side (in theory). When jumping from college to the NFL, you’re playing football, and playing more football on the side.
Talk about result-driven logic!
The data you provide, even to the extent you believe it, states that Florida has had better recruiting results than ND. Yet you keep hammering on about how great a recruiter Weis is anyway. So if Meyer, who you yourself claim is not as good at it as Weis despite the data you yourself provide, gets put into Weis’ situation, what’s going to be the result?
Take your time. Hint: The answer does not include the term “BCS”.
Are you being intentionally belligerent or do you have a head injury? The data provided should that the two coaches have almost identical rankings. Bowl appearances, success in Bowls, National TV exposure and Heisman campaigns serve to improve a programs ability to recruit. Florida has had all of that, Notre Dame hasn’t recently, yet their rankings are almost identical. Florida is in a better position to recruit than ND is, yet Weis has recruited almost identically to Meyer. Considering the relative climates of the two Universities that Weis is still pulling in coveted kids speaks highly of his ability to recruit. Whether Meyer or Weis is a better recruiter is not the point, but Weis certain has had a tougher task than Meyer lately.
You saw the rankings. 5th, 12th, 2nd. Do you honestly think that’s not good recruiting?
If Meyer were to get the 5th, 12th, 2nd ranked classes, he would go to the BCS, whether it’s at Florida or Notre Dame.
Where the hell did he say that? He merely ventured a guess that it’s easier to recruit at ND, since you can manage to get roughly the same talent without having to have had demonstrated any bit of success in the way of championships. The goal in recruiting is getting talent - no one has said Meyer hasn’t done that. The rest you’ve just made up.
I still think that overall recruit star ranking is one thing, and recruiting on the defensive side of the ball is aonther. ND has not had much trouble recruiting great offensive guys, and they have had a good offense (at least in terms of talent, and often in terms of production) throughout Charlie’s run, but even just fooling around on the ratings links, it looks like they lag, say, Florida significantly on DL recruiting (for example) since 2005. Some years they aren’t even listed.
ND Didn’t go 6-6 because of their offense. I bet if you looked at the numbers over Weis’ term the blue-chip recruits are predominately on the offensive side of the ball. Is that because that’s where his focus was? Was it recruits self-selecting to Tom Brady’s offensive coordinator? Was it academic standards? Probably a little of each- he did make an effort recently to prop up the D Line, with good results in the 2008 class.
I’ve been poking around a bit and it seems like “There aren’t a lot of smart, elite D-Linemen” is one of those things that everybody says without knowing why. I certainly can’t find evidence for it, and it would seem easy to come up with.
I also however don’t know much about playing on the line, on either side of the ball, in football. Is the offensive line likely to attract a different personality or capacity for study than the defensive line? Is it something in the style of play- the complexity of what one has to learn to block and pass protect effectively? Are coaches putting more studious big guys on the o-line early on, because they have more complex situational stuff to learn? Is this even relevant at the high school level, or do people switch regularly between the OL and DL after freshman year? I’m genuinely curious, so I thought I’d raise it again where there are a few statheads arguing about stuff.
Dude :rolleyes:
Except for Florida being better the majority of the time, despite Weis’ mystical superiority as a recruiter that we keep seeing asserted.
This is as dishonest as you can get in this forum. I’m sorry, Elvis, but you’re being a jerk at this point. NO ONE is suggesting Weis has “mystical superiority as a recruiter”. Please stop putting words in our mouths.
Maybe it is a way to make my second million. (I have given up on my first)
Rivals, Scouts, ESPN etc. can always say that it was the coaches fault that the 5-star player didn’t develop into a NFLer.
It would also illustrate to a potential recruit how good the coaching staff is when it can take marginal recruits and develop them into NFLers.
What world are you living on? What slight are you all pissy about? You keep pissing into the wind here and I can’t locate a single motive beyond trying to piss everyone off.
I realize you’re just rounding off, but the correct figure is at most 16 years. In 1993 ND finished 11-1 and ranked #2 behind Florida State, who the Irish had beaten that year. Seems pretty relevant to me. In 1995 they finished 9-3 ranked 11, which again seems pretty relevant. In '96 they finished 8-3, and beat Texas on the road. That’s not bad either.
That was almost before any current recruits were even alive. That 1993 team is as ancient history to an 18-year-old as the Rockne teams. 16 years might as well be 20 or 2000 years in terms of convincing a kid of how special ND is.
Sure would take an awfully good recruiter to do, don’t you think?
Yes, and the evidence *on the field *is that it hasn’t happened.
The day a college coach sets up a couch, a coffee table, a plate of cookies and actively recruits a high school player on the 50 yard line, your statement will no longer be a strawman. Until then, why don’t you agree that your definition of “recruiting” is not in line with anyone else in the entire world?
Omniscient, Munch, ElvisL1ves, all of you need to tone it down.
Munch, the last I checked, success in football was still measured in wins.
An honest question:
Do you think that being horrendously bad at one aspect of your job makes you bad at other areas of your job?
Let’s say that Brian Kelly convinces the NCAA that Peyton Manning, Adrian Peterson, Andre Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Randy Moss, Troy Polamalu and Darren Sharper all have a year of eligibility left. He then actively recruits them to come back for one final season of college football. That’d be pretty amazing recruiting. Then, for some reason, in every game he has Peyton take a knee on every snap, and has the defense lay down every play. They lose 0-120 every week and finish 0-11.
Does being a brain-damaged play caller make him a bad recruiter?