07-17-2013, 08:53 AM
Not to be disagreeable, but Arizona and Arizona State does not in any way tie Kansas State, Nebraska and UCLA. The Arizona schools have been mostly above average recently; on the other hand, K-state and Nebraska have consistently fielded top 25 teams, and UCLA's always been full of talent (if inconsistent about using it). I see Phillips's offer list as far more impressive than that hypothetical Veach one.
Not that that indicates Veach is a bad player or anything; in-person accounts have confirmed he's really athletic and the fact that he only played five games last year explains the offers. But still.
---
Anyway, the broader issue. Offer lists are, indeed, one tool -- but the problem with offer lists is they don't tell you where on the board a prospect sits, or even whether it's a real offer. For example, with Phillips, if you believe Nebraska fan's rationalizations, they only offered because we/UCLA did and put a gun to their heads. May or may not be true, but the general point holds: an offer is only an imperfect reflection of how coaches rate a recruit.
Basically, more data the better, I say. In terms of synthesizing it, one of the interesting features 247 has is a "consensus" rating, wherein they have some algorithm produce a normalized score for each recruit drawing on the four major recruiting services. It's a smart feature and can help avoid arguments over whether Ertz was "really" a four-star or not. (FWIW: Scout had him as the #4 TE and a four-star; Rivals had him as the #10 TE and a three-star; ESPN wasn't using the star system at that point but had him on the borderline of what they'd later call four-star. Also the #9 TE. Looks like Scout won that round.)
Not that that indicates Veach is a bad player or anything; in-person accounts have confirmed he's really athletic and the fact that he only played five games last year explains the offers. But still.
---
Anyway, the broader issue. Offer lists are, indeed, one tool -- but the problem with offer lists is they don't tell you where on the board a prospect sits, or even whether it's a real offer. For example, with Phillips, if you believe Nebraska fan's rationalizations, they only offered because we/UCLA did and put a gun to their heads. May or may not be true, but the general point holds: an offer is only an imperfect reflection of how coaches rate a recruit.
Basically, more data the better, I say. In terms of synthesizing it, one of the interesting features 247 has is a "consensus" rating, wherein they have some algorithm produce a normalized score for each recruit drawing on the four major recruiting services. It's a smart feature and can help avoid arguments over whether Ertz was "really" a four-star or not. (FWIW: Scout had him as the #4 TE and a four-star; Rivals had him as the #10 TE and a three-star; ESPN wasn't using the star system at that point but had him on the borderline of what they'd later call four-star. Also the #9 TE. Looks like Scout won that round.)