Rivals Ranks Terrant and Gilbert

JoeCakeEater

JoeCakeEater

Dodd-Like
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
14,504
Terrant moved up to *** while Gilbert moved to **. That brings our *** total to 8 people per rivals and our overall star average to an even 3.00 which is pretty high unless you're Southern Cal or somebody like that. Maybe we will be able to fill our full allotment of scholarships and get that star average up a little higher with a few more **** commits.;)

Go Jackets!!
 
Don't worry, I have just regraded all of our prospects. The verbals and the ones we don't know about are all 5* now.

To hell with a top 10 class. We're #1 !! :)
 
Joe

Thanks for the post. I always appreciate learning something new. This is good news for those that care about recruiting and rankings.

Not sure what the deal is on pocket. Is he being an unabashed "homer" or a jerk? Only he knows.

But again, I always appreciate coming here and learning something else.
 
ncjacket said:
Or sarcastic?
Click to expand...

Thank you NC.

It definitely is sarcasm, but in my mind the re-ranking game in most cases is an insult.
These and other kids that the "experts" have missed are great players or not on their own merit. Not because magazine and/or internet salesmen say so. No sarcasm there.
 
pocket_watch said:
Thank you NC.

It definitely is sarcasm, but in my mind the re-ranking game in most cases is an insult.
These and other kids that the "experts" have missed are great players or not on their own merit. Not because magazine and/or internet salesmen say so. No sarcasm there.
Click to expand...

I agree. We all know this is an inexact science, however, there is much too much revisionist history in recruiting.
 
So then we believe that the basketball recruiting class is overrated and therefure shouldn't be excited about the upcoming season?
 
dressedcheeseside said:
Are guys ever regraded and moved down in stars?

The Cheese
Click to expand...

Yes.

I know that Rivals ranks kids within position, and they only give "x" amount of 5's, 4's, 3's, etc. for each position. For instance, they give a far smaller number of 5's than Scout. Neither is right or wrong...it is just their way of doing things. Therefore, if one player goes up...another must go down.
 
pocket_watch said:
It definitely is sarcasm, but in my mind the re-ranking game in most cases is an insult.
These and other kids that the "experts" have missed are great players or not on their own merit. Not because magazine and/or internet salesmen say so. No sarcasm there.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If the services were doing the job the claim to be doing to begin with, the "re-ranking" would only need to be done if a kid has a breakout SR season or gets hurt or something.
 
HighwayBuzz said:
Exactly.

If the services were doing the job the claim to be doing to begin with, the "re-ranking" would only need to be done if a kid has a breakout SR season or gets hurt or something.
Click to expand...

A lot of times they do not get film on a kid until late or even know how to contact him.

The kids who have HS coaches that know how to do P.R. jobs have a big advantage with recruiting services. That is why you see a gazillion players from the same schools listed earlier in the process.
 
hiveredtech said:
A lot of times they do not get film on a kid until late or even know how to contact him.
Click to expand...
So why are they including him in their database and assigning stars to a player they know NOTHING ABOUT?

How many players are they actually evaluating based on video/film/camps? Answer: They won't tell you.
 
This isn't a case of re-ranking. This is the first time these players have been evaluated and ranked at all.
 
GGGT said:
I agree. We all know this is an inexact science, however, there is much too much revisionist history in recruiting.
Click to expand...
Is this some kind of oxymoron? Don't you kinda have to revisit recruiting as you see how the kids develop on the field?

Good grief, I'm calling them kids and I just turned thirty-freaking-three.
 
Dont care what they are today or tomorrow--just what they'll be in 2008/2009.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top