In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2139
Online now 2167 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm not whining where our recruit is ranked. If anything I'm actually whining that he is too high if you want to look at it like that. Also since this staff has never been together we really don't know what their strengths and weaknesses will be truly.
Well, that at least explains many of the discrepancies from the other recruiting sites. And for the record I don't agree with it either. This is actually a problem created by ranking players based on NFL potential. No one here cares about NFL potential.
If this is the case than JT Barrett should be a top 32 guy for 247. Urban has had two qbs drafted in the 1st through his system and Braxton is already being mocked a 1st round qb. Makes Barretts ranking an absolute joke if this is the theory.
Our quarterback does front flips, suck it.
Agreed. So my question is, what does it matter?
These services provide us with their best opinion on what kind of player a recruit will be. I do not think its wrong to upgrade or downgrade a recruits rating based on the team/system he will LIKELY be playing in. Makes perfect sense to me. So if this sites analysts believe that JJ likelihood for success is better, and he would be a better player with better production in a spread system why wouldnt you rate him higher. Same system has been hurting Derrick Henry while he was rated as an athlete based on the analysts believe he wouldnt play running back.
If I had one criticism to make, I would like to see the sites rate players on the position they want to play, or the position the coaching staff has said they want them to play instead of where they think the recruit will play. One of our players is (was) listed as an athlete and told he would play running back. We have another who is listed as an athlete who has said and been told he would play receiver. Instead of showing their ranking compared to other athletes I would like to see them ranked at the position it is likely they will play.
If there hasnt been anything said, then leave em as an athlete. Maybe more work but the team site guys should be able to provide the info.
Can Jimbo and Co develope them is my big concern.
I know this is a recruiting message board but I don't get all worked up about ratings. Learned the hard way.
JF learned from the best in the biz.
This post was edited by free shoes 15 months ago
If they perform and win championships in college, think we care if its another 30 years? I know you have to dig deep to flame Bama but this one is pretty weak.
Who let the riff raff in here?
People that do so are either desperate for some form of hope for the future, or they don't trust their coaches. I know I never trusted Shula.
Pretty sure he had hack a the top of his board
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
If what you're saying is true then I disagree as well. I don't think a kid should be ranked higher or lower just because of who the coaches are at the school they committed too or the scheme that school runs defensively or offensively.
lol Tyrone Swoopes
That was the word
I forgot about that guy. Wasn't he like ranked in the top 20 at the beginning of the year??
$50 bet with Rebels10 - Best of 3 Egg Bowls
**the $50 goes to others schools athletics dept**
This. And people are taking it totally out of context and thinking it impacts all positions drastically. I was asked if Johnson were committed to Alabama would he be in the Top247 and I answered no. I also said that one of the reasons Johnson made the cut is that we feel like he's a great fit for what Malzahn does and that he and his staff can coach him up.
Johnson is at the bottom of the Top247 and it would have been the difference in another "just missed" prospect going in and Johnson being just outside. Fans think that 20 spots is a big move when it isn't, so dropped 2-4 spots based on something like that isn't a stretch.
E-mail: jc@247Sports.com/Twitter: @jcshurburtt/Instagram jcshurburtt
Yeah, then he led his 2a team to a 1-11 record! His numbers were so.... bad, the fact this guy is a 4 star is a joke, he couldn't hold a guy like Kenny Hill's jock strap, but he's commited to tu and Mack Brown is great at finding and developing talent I guess..
Uhh, where are you getting this from?
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
On the Auburn site. I quoted it below the post you responded to.
You said "Quite frankly, if we didn't have faith your staff could coach him up and he was a great fit for scheme, it would be a joke if Johnson were in there. " I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like 2-4 spots. That sounds like a considerable amount of spots. I don't think any of the staff are bias but the evaluation using coaching scheme's to re evaluate people is something I and many others disagree with.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here.
It's A factor, not THE factor in determining their ranking. I agree with it too. There are numerous examples we could come up with of where a prospect goes affecting his success and maximizing his potential.
This is another way of trying to more accurately project (which is all these rankings are) the potential of a player and try to eliminate some of the "misses".
sounds about right to me. We've just had a lot of auburn fans belly aching and whining lately.
VT has had a DB drafted into the NFL for 14 years In a row, and 18 total in that period. So if the #33 ranked player in the country, holland fisher, a safety committed to VT, goes to a bowl, and the 247 updates and articles say daily, and in summary that Holland fisher was the top safety at the bowl, ahead of two 5 star safeties, why would he fall back to #36?
Jeez, so I guess Michigan State LB commits should get auto-4 star bumps now .
I always thought recruiting rankings were supposed to be raw college potential ratings. Now I'm finding out that they're just pro-prospect ratings made 4-5 years before a kid can play in the NFL and they're further influenced by where a kid's committed? I guess that makes sense; you have a better chance of going to the NFL if you're at Bama than at USF or something. Still, it's quite the change from what I thought these were supposed to be.
Good to know though; guys can have low college production and still make the NFL. Guess that's why you can have teams full of 3-stars play (and beat) NFL talent in BCS bowl games (looking at you Louisville) and why CFB isn't just played on paper based on recruiting rankings.
This post was edited by MalibuMan 15 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports