[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65074#msg65074 date=1375453485]
[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]

You watch highlights, you look at stats, measurable, pedigree and accolades and base your evaluation off of that. Stars are based on subscriptions. How can you take the evaluations seriously from people who thought Toby Gerhart was the 7th best fullback in the nation coming out of HS?
[/quote]

OK, if you have the time and desire (not to mention the expertise) to do that for literally hundreds of potential prospects, that's fine.

P.S. To say that the ratings are useless based on a sample of one (Toby Gerhart) is a little silly, don't you think?

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65074#msg65074 date=1375453485]
[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]

You watch highlights, you look at stats, measurable, pedigree and accolades and base your evaluation off of that. Stars are based on subscriptions. How can you take the evaluations seriously from people who thought Toby Gerhart was the 7th best fullback in the nation coming out of HS?
[/quote]

OK, if you have the time and desire (not to mention the expertise) to do that for literally hundreds of potential prospects, that's fine.

P.S. To say that the ratings are useless based on a sample of one (Toby Gerhart) is a little silly, don't you think?