[CompSci87]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8168.msg65004#msg65004 date=1375332267]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg64965#msg64965 date=1375263596]
As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

I'm sure it's not. What are stars, anyway? They are just a rough, national ranking of prospects by some guys who work for Scout, ESPN, or some other service. If our coaches can't do a more accurate job of rating the smaller set of players who can get into Stanford, in a way that takes into account their specific fit for Stanford's team, then they ought to be in another line of work.
[/quote]

The only problem with saying star ratings don't mean bupkis is that it makes it a little difficult to objectively evaluate the quality of our recruiting class. We are now down to assuming the class is good because the coaches say it is. That would be fine, but when have you ever heard a coach say he didn't have a good recruiting class?
[/quote]

Nice work carving up that straw man. I didn't say that star ratings don't mean bupkis, or that fans can't use them as an objective measure of a recruiting class (though if we do the latter, we need to realize the ratings aren't gospel). I just answered your question as to whether it's a mistake for the coaches not to care how many stars a recruit has. No, it's not a mistake for them. They have a lot more information to go on than the star ratings.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8168.msg65004#msg65004 date=1375332267]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg64965#msg64965 date=1375263596]
As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

I'm sure it's not. What are stars, anyway? They are just a rough, national ranking of prospects by some guys who work for Scout, ESPN, or some other service. If our coaches can't do a more accurate job of rating the smaller set of players who can get into Stanford, in a way that takes into account their specific fit for Stanford's team, then they ought to be in another line of work.
[/quote]

The only problem with saying star ratings don't mean bupkis is that it makes it a little difficult to objectively evaluate the quality of our recruiting class. We are now down to assuming the class is good because the coaches say it is. That would be fine, but when have you ever heard a coach say he didn't have a good recruiting class?
[/quote]

Nice work carving up that straw man. I didn't say that star ratings don't mean bupkis, or that fans can't use them as an objective measure of a recruiting class (though if we do the latter, we need to realize the ratings aren't gospel). I just answered your question as to whether it's a mistake for the coaches not to care how many stars a recruit has. No, it's not a mistake for them. They have a lot more information to go on than the star ratings.

[JohnR34231]

1. If you do it just for the guys (assuming you know exactly who these guys are) we recruit you are still talking about an awful lot of kids. Also, to do a complete job you should also look at other kids that maybe we should have recruited. Anyway, for anyone who decides to try, please post your results. I look forward to reading them.

2. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a disconnect to say that we can objectively judge a recruiting class by how many stars the recruits have, but it's OK for the coaches to ignore how many stars a kid has when they decide whether or not to recruit them.

[JohnR34231]

1. If you do it just for the guys (assuming you know exactly who these guys are) we recruit you are still talking about an awful lot of kids. Also, to do a complete job you should also look at other kids that maybe we should have recruited. Anyway, for anyone who decides to try, please post your results. I look forward to reading them.

2. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a disconnect to say that we can objectively judge a recruiting class by how many stars the recruits have, but it's OK for the coaches to ignore how many stars a kid has when they decide whether or not to recruit them.

[washingtonismoney]

2. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a disconnect to say that we can objectively judge a recruiting class by how many stars the recruits have, but it's OK for the coaches to ignore how many stars a kid has when they decide whether or not to recruit them.

A disconnect, but I think it's a reasonable position. Think of it as being similar to a ratings agency for a financial security. Basically, experienced hands are supposed to go through the particulars of any given entity and come up with a rating for the rubes. The rating is never going to replace an objective, detailed look at the qualities of a given security (or player), but is good enough if you're a yahoo to get an idea of what's going on.

But I think you can go too far in the just-trust-the-coaches direction. Sometimes coaches get a bit too enamored with their own ability. Sometimes coaches are missing the trends of the game. Sometimes there are other cognitive biases involved. Ratings can therefore be a nice external check into what you're doing.

I hope our coaches aren't looking too closely at ratings (though they might be helpful as an initial screen), but I think they're worth taking a peek at.

[washingtonismoney]

2. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a disconnect to say that we can objectively judge a recruiting class by how many stars the recruits have, but it's OK for the coaches to ignore how many stars a kid has when they decide whether or not to recruit them.

A disconnect, but I think it's a reasonable position. Think of it as being similar to a ratings agency for a financial security. Basically, experienced hands are supposed to go through the particulars of any given entity and come up with a rating for the rubes. The rating is never going to replace an objective, detailed look at the qualities of a given security (or player), but is good enough if you're a yahoo to get an idea of what's going on.

But I think you can go too far in the just-trust-the-coaches direction. Sometimes coaches get a bit too enamored with their own ability. Sometimes coaches are missing the trends of the game. Sometimes there are other cognitive biases involved. Ratings can therefore be a nice external check into what you're doing.

I hope our coaches aren't looking too closely at ratings (though they might be helpful as an initial screen), but I think they're worth taking a peek at.

[Bruce Wang]

Think of it as being similar to a ratings agency for a financial security. Basically, experienced hands are supposed to go through the particulars of any given entity and come up with a rating for the rubes. The rating is never going to replace an objective, detailed look at the qualities of a given security (or player), but is good enough if you're a yahoo to get an idea of what's going on.

S&P and Moody's make Rivals, Scout, and 247 look like Hari Seldon.

[Bruce Wang]

Think of it as being similar to a ratings agency for a financial security. Basically, experienced hands are supposed to go through the particulars of any given entity and come up with a rating for the rubes. The rating is never going to replace an objective, detailed look at the qualities of a given security (or player), but is good enough if you're a yahoo to get an idea of what's going on.

S&P and Moody's make Rivals, Scout, and 247 look like Hari Seldon.

[JohnR34231]

When have you ever heard a coach say he didn't have a good recruiting class?

Well, Idiotface came close. He said Willing.ham and Buddy didn't have good recruiting classes.

Actually I thought one of Buddy's (few) strengths was that he was a pretty good recruiter. The difference between Buddy and Harbaugh was that Buddy could take 4/5 star recruits and have them play like 2/3 ones. Harbaugh could take 2/3 star recruits and have them play like 4/5 ones.

[JohnR34231]

When have you ever heard a coach say he didn't have a good recruiting class?

Well, Idiotface came close. He said Willing.ham and Buddy didn't have good recruiting classes.

Actually I thought one of Buddy's (few) strengths was that he was a pretty good recruiter. The difference between Buddy and Harbaugh was that Buddy could take 4/5 star recruits and have them play like 2/3 ones. Harbaugh could take 2/3 star recruits and have them play like 4/5 ones.

[AthleticsDynasty]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65120#msg65120 date=1375468383]
2. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a disconnect to say that we can objectively judge a recruiting class by how many stars the recruits have, but it's OK for the coaches to ignore how many stars a kid has when they decide whether or not to recruit them.

A disconnect, but I think it's a reasonable position. Think of it as being similar to a ratings agency for a financial security. Basically, experienced hands are supposed to go through the particulars of any given entity and come up with a rating for the rubes. The rating is never going to replace an objective, detailed look at the qualities of a given security (or player), but is good enough if you're a yahoo to get an idea of what's going on.

But I think you can go too far in the just-trust-the-coaches direction. Sometimes coaches get a bit too enamored with their own ability. Sometimes coaches are missing the trends of the game. Sometimes there are other cognitive biases involved. Ratings can therefore be a nice external check into what you're doing.

I hope our coaches aren't looking too closely at ratings (though they might be helpful as an initial screen), but I think they're worth taking a peek at.
[/quote]

There are recruiting services that coaches use. But they are guys who are actually paid to scout and/or gather information not paid to sell subscriptions.

[AthleticsDynasty]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65120#msg65120 date=1375468383]
2. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a disconnect to say that we can objectively judge a recruiting class by how many stars the recruits have, but it's OK for the coaches to ignore how many stars a kid has when they decide whether or not to recruit them.

A disconnect, but I think it's a reasonable position. Think of it as being similar to a ratings agency for a financial security. Basically, experienced hands are supposed to go through the particulars of any given entity and come up with a rating for the rubes. The rating is never going to replace an objective, detailed look at the qualities of a given security (or player), but is good enough if you're a yahoo to get an idea of what's going on.

But I think you can go too far in the just-trust-the-coaches direction. Sometimes coaches get a bit too enamored with their own ability. Sometimes coaches are missing the trends of the game. Sometimes there are other cognitive biases involved. Ratings can therefore be a nice external check into what you're doing.

I hope our coaches aren't looking too closely at ratings (though they might be helpful as an initial screen), but I think they're worth taking a peek at.
[/quote]

There are recruiting services that coaches use. But they are guys who are actually paid to scout and/or gather information not paid to sell subscriptions.

[2 for 2028]

Also, don't we typically start recruiting players BEFORE they are rated by rivals, espn, etc.?

[2 for 2028]

Also, don't we typically start recruiting players BEFORE they are rated by rivals, espn, etc.?

[AthleticsDynasty]

Also, don't we typically start recruiting players BEFORE they are rated by rivals, espn, etc.?

Yes

[AthleticsDynasty]

Also, don't we typically start recruiting players BEFORE they are rated by rivals, espn, etc.?

Yes