Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
It's okay; you can read it again if you need to.
South Carolina defensive line coach Brad Lawing, on the "star system" promulgated by Scout and Rivals:
I can take a three-star and make him a four-star, and I can take a four-star and make him a three- or two-star with the contacts I have," Lawing said. "That’s how ridiculous recruiting on the Internet is."
That's quite a claim, one that, if verified, would do considerable damage to the reputations and bottom lines of the star-purveyors. Assistant coaches waving their hands and saying "these aren't the droids you’re looking for" would rock an industry to its core. Verify away, Mr. Lawing:
"I took Chris Culliver (South Carolina safety) from a three- to a five-star in three weeks. All you’ve got to do is talk to the right people."
Okay, let's check it: Culliver was a four-star safety to Scout and about a four-star guy to ESPN (qualifier because ESPN doesn't use a star system, instead ranking on a 100-point scale), but he was a five-star to Rivals. This must be where Lawing worked his magic.
Culliver earned that fifth star somewhere between January 15th (subscription link) and January 19th. Before that he was ... uh, a highly-recruited member of Rivals' top 100 with offers from virtually everyone in the south, including Alabama and Florida. Hmmm. Er. Well, maybe the rating boost was wholly unexplained? Not so much. Culliver attended an All-Star game and was subsequently named the best overall player in attendance (subscription link).
That three-star stuff doesn't even come close, either. Culliver had been a four star since at least June (subscription link), when the sites re-ranked after Culliver murdered a combine, stuffed it into a plastic bag, and put it in his freezer.
Again, we can either believe that Lawing's magic site-wooing skills were the cause of the re-rank, or we can attribute it to a 4.37 40. I'm going with the 40.
Claim: decidedly unverified. Falsifiable, in fact. What's behind this, then? The usual:
"There are a lot of staffs getting fired for unrealistic expectations," Lawing said.
Blame the media on one hand for increasing the pressure to win; fail to mention that the attention and interest generated are paying for your double-decker pool. There are a lot of staffs who aren't being paid to go 7-5, including South Carolina's, and some guys ranking recruits don't have anything to do with it.
Heck, even Lawing doesn't believe his own premise: recruiting sites create unrealistic expectations, so I called them up and got my safety recruit a fifth star. Er?
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
4 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
Whatever.. Stars are meaningless for the most part. I look at a guy like Anthony Morelli, who was a five star according to rivals, and compltely stunk up the joint.
Whatever.. Stars are meaningless for the most part. I look at a guy like Anthony Morelli, who was a five star according to rivals, and compltely stunk up the joint.Now look at a kid in Ricki Stanzi, a three star prospect for Iowa. He’s arguably on a better path than Morelli ever was.
Whatever.. Stars are meaningless for the most part. I look at a guy like Anthony Morelli, who was a five star according to rivals, and compltely stunk up the joint.Now look at a kid in Ricki Stanzi, a three star prospect for Iowa. He’s arguably on a better path than Morelli ever was.You can find more of these and I’m sure you can find out more five stars that have suceeded and 2-3 stars that didn’t. Point is, who really knows. It’s the same thing from College to the Pros. It’s the opinion of a few people or one person. They have no clue how they’ll translate to the next level and if they’ll take off or not.
by npcPronk29 on May 26, 2009 5:12 PM EDT reply actions
His point is that most of the sites offering star rankings raise a players rating as he gains more offers. The ranking is reactionary to a school like USC offering a player. Former UCLA and Minnesota Recruiting Coordinator Randy Taylor on rankings:
When we offered a guy his star ranking would go up. In fact, recruiting
coordinators around the country are schmoozing the local guys to get their class
ranked higher to make them look better at their signing day booster party that
night. Many head coaches are doing this too.
by brdavids on May 26, 2009 6:28 PM EDT reply actions
His point has merit. I know of instances where a player will decommit to a BCS school and when he commits to a non-BCS school his star rating drops. Or a kid that has a low star rating gets a higher rating when he commits to a BCS power. Rivals and Scout are a joke when it comes to rankings and everybody knows that they are. ND will consistently get a good class because they sell a lot of magazines whereas a team like Rutgers or Boise could have the same class but get a lower aggregate star rating because they don’t sell as many magazines.
by NevadaBlue on May 26, 2009 9:23 PM EDT reply actions
There have been plenty of studies that suggest that stars, while not flawless, have pretty good predictive meaning. It’s a long way from this…
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Hug-your-friendly-neighborhood-recruiting-rankin?urn=ncaaf,137146
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Recruiting-stars-in-the-draft-We-knew-this-was-?urn=ncaaf,158543
…to a "joke." I will give you that Rivals and Scout tend to bump up players at the tail end of big schools’ classes in a way they don’t for Rutgers, but… is that such a dumb thing to do? I mean, of course players see a bump in their rankings when they flag down big offers; the improved performance that warrants the offers probably warrants a bump, too.
by BrianCook.tsn on May 27, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed