Insider says the 'star rankings' are a deliberate scam

Recruiting rankings are useful for fans who think the MNC is decided on Feb 6th or for fans interested in a coaching change.

Basically, they are for the fans and serve no other purpose.
 
Sounds like a whine to me.

Sorry, Mr. Lawing, but you don't keep your job longer just because expectations are lower for particular prospects.

Lawing added that a danger of the rating systems is the fans are sometimes misled about the talent level of a prospect and a class overall.
“There are a lot of staffs getting fired for unrealistic expectations,” Lawing said.
Click to expand...

If fans of a school have a certain expectation, then they don't lower that standard if you happen to recruit badly. The expectations are around how much you win, not around how much you win given the talent you were able to get.

No staff is getting fired because it got great recruits and failed to win. He seems to imply if those same recruits had been rated lower and the staff got the same results they'd be okay.

When you are responsible for recruiting and coaching then it doesn't matter why you are winning; it only matters if you are winning.
 
I know this is in football, but does this mean Favors actually sucks at basketball? :ugh:
 
lonestarjacket said:
No staff is getting fired because it got great recruits and failed to win.
Click to expand...

$20 says that if Miami doesn't top 6/7 wins this year we might see that happen to Shannon.

While the failing to win will always be the primary reason, you might get significantly less tolerance from the athletic department and alumni if everyone believes your team is very talented yet you don't win.
 
lsj, give Donnan & Goff a call bout that theory. Check in with Curry too.
 
People get fired for underachieving. Those lofty expectations often come from years of playing well AND good recruiting classes. Jim D at UGAg. He was bringing in the best recruits the nation had to offer but he never reached the heights that everyone thought he should. He had ONE 10 win season in his tenure and never sniffed a national title. Granted, one of his big problems was losing 3IAR to US but if they had been in a title hunt each year and managed to play for one/ win one at least once, grace would have been given for the Tech losses.

What Lawing said is not that far-fetched.
 
Granted, one of his big problems was losing 3IAR to US
Click to expand...

If he'd won those 3, he'da had two ten win seasons and two nine win seasons, right?
 
GTLiebs said:
$20 says that if Miami doesn't top 6/7 wins this year we might see that happen to Shannon.

While the failing to win will always be the primary reason, you might get significantly less tolerance from the athletic department and alumni if everyone believes your team is very talented yet you don't win.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he isn't talking about the opposite, where individual coaches get fired for not recruiting well enough (according to the stars).

Also basketball is way different because of the AAU ball where all the best players play against eachother on a level playing field.;) Since there is no equivalent for football it is very, very tough to know if a guy like Wayshon down at ECI is really great or not.:eek:
 
beej67 said:
If he'd won those 3, he'da had two ten win seasons and two nine win seasons, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is beside the point. He didn't win those games.

If he HAD won them, it still wouldn't have measured up to the lofty expectations of the school based on their supposed level of talent.
 
Yes, but that is beside the point.
Click to expand...
It sorta is the point. At least the point I was going for.

Donnon got fired because he lost to Tech.

Richt has held his job because he's beaten Tech.
 
GTLiebs said:
$20 says that if Miami doesn't top 6/7 wins this year we might see that happen to Shannon.

While the failing to win will always be the primary reason, you might get significantly less tolerance from the athletic department and alumni if everyone believes your team is very talented yet you don't win.
Click to expand...


Failing to win is the only reason. If the expectation is to win at a certain level then you've got to recruit and coach to reach that level.

They don't grade on a curve based on your recruiting results.
 
GoldZ said:
lsj, give Donnan & Goff a call bout that theory. Check in with Curry too.
Click to expand...

?

All three fit my theory just fine. Georgia and Alabama have certain expectation of results.

If they got the same results with lower rated recruits then they would be in the same boat.

You've got to get the recruits and win with them.
 
My point is that if you win then recruiting rankings don't matter. If you lose, then recruiting rankings dont' matter.

They only matter when someone decides to rank teams for over or under achieving. Or they matter when we label a coach as an X and O guy, a recruiter, or balanced.

But, if you are Mack Brown and have a rep as a recruiter who isn't the best strategic thinker, then it doesn't matter because you won anyway. If you are Pete Carroll and you have a rep as a strategist and recruiter, then it doesn't matter because you won anyway.
 
THWUGA said:
Nice find. Pretty easy to determine which site he manipulated (although I don't doubt that both are about equal in this department):

Culliver's Scout Profile

Culliver's Rivals Profile
Click to expand...

I think Rivals is worse. I ran the numbers from 2002-2007 seasons and found that Rivals was generally very skewed towards larger-market schools, and biased against smaller-market schools. In particular this is true in the Southeast.

Scout on the whole seems more even, and less biased by what will make them the most money -- at least to these eyes. This also makes sense because the total number of Scout subscribers is more even between the big schools and small schools. Most of the smaller ACC schools' primary boards are either on Scout or independent, and they have next to no presence on Rivals. Meanwhile FSU and the big SEC schools' primary boards are generally on rivals, with only minorities of their much bigger fanbases on Scout.
 
IMO, I see no reason recruiting services couldn't use an inhuman formula for ranking based on offers. Average the BCS ranking of the team of each offer, or something like that.

Actually I do know why services don't do this, SEC fans desire their dream world too much.
 
Just an observation, but I think the rankings of Denzel McCoy and Kolton Houston demonstrate, at least somewhat, the original point of this thread. McCoy, last fall, was suggested to be one of the top few DT's in the country. After picking the Jackets, he debuts at #26 and having not played or practiced since then has moved into the 50's. Kolton Houston, a not-that-highly-touted (although I admit I have no idea about him--he could be great, just don't know) player moves from 3 to 4 star (#6 OG) without having practiced or played. Just thought this was interesting.
 
as far as on topic and coaches being fired for expectations--it all depends on the fanbase.

some amongst the fans are more knowledgeable than others about recruiting and possibly talent levels of squads. these people also are more likely to be the most outspoken.

but, you're also going to have the contingent that has NO idea about football recruiting and just casually know the team and it's ALL is going to boil down to W/L to them.

i'm pretty sure most of us on stingtalk are the former but most fanbases are going to be a majority of the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top