RankByOffers ranks the teams based off the other schools that extended scholarship offers to players the school signed. It's a different look at recruiting, one I have not seen before.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
This is how I assess the recuits we are recruiting. I don't watch the videos because basically they all look like they are doing the same and forget about the OL recruits.
I look at who else is offering them. I mean 5* recruits I got it.....I want them all. 4*s too. But mostly what their offer list is like. Though I'm glad when a lower star pans out great for us, don't get me wrong. But when I see a 3* or 4* with offers from other big name schools it gives me confidence in them. When I see them with only offers from ODU, Vandy and Wake I wonder what's up.
Again not trying to disparage any player that comes in and does a great job. I want them all to succeed here.
Yeah, that's reasonable. TSL and 247 have run articles on how we're getting different kinds of 3 star players and how there are "value" 3-stars and "get you fired" 3-stars. Basically, a good offer list generally equates to a solid player. Not saying there aren't diamonds in the rough, but if you're beating good schools for players consistently, you're probably gonna wind up with a good team.
only problem with going off of offer lists is that not all schools operate the same way. OSU/Alabama throw out a ton of offers, but most aren't committable unless you come and perform at camp. Guys like eric whitehead/darrius fullwood may show an OSU offer, but neither would have been allowed to commit.
That's definitely a factor, not to mention the fact that different guys could be solid in one system and absolute monsters in another (gimme a Hand here, I can't remember any specifics...). So, like all recruiting systems, it's quite flawed. Still, generally speaking, you're gonna have more success beating out programs like Alabama, FSU, MSU, Louisville, Clemson, etc. than you will if you get guys who were pursued by ECU, Temple, Wake, Marshall, etc.
Agreed. The more P5 offers you have the better and the earlier you get the offers is another indicator. You'll always have sleepers that blow up their senior years, but if you received the offers early in the process that generally means that school was willing to take you regardless of who else was out there.
Eh this doesnt work....I remember Andrew Ford being very guarded about which program offered him because he didn't want a school to offer him if another school already gave him a scholarship...and it gives kids less of an incentive to sign early with a program
I don't understand how Ford is able to control that. Unless he tells the school not to offer him because he's already made up his mind. But if we offer him a scholarship and then another school offers him a scholarship I don't see how he can control that. It would seem that he would only be limiting his options with that mindset.
True regarding Ford, but that's a pretty unique case. First of all, he's a QB and QB's are incentivized to keep their mouth shut. You don't want too many QB's. Second of all, Ford was in a really weird position as the clear "2nd choice" of a lot of programs. He needed to keep his head down and wait for that offer he wanted. If you are the 1st choice QB, you can tell everyone you have tons of offers because it will deter other QB recruits.
Most kids can't help themselves, they blab and blab about their offers. I'm a big proponent of the offer system as a ranking metric, after all, the best programs pay the most for evaluators so those evaluators are the best money can buy so their offers are worth more. It's like voodoo economics or something. The offer system does have a few quirks that you need to watch for:
1. System recruiting. GT doesn't care who else offers their QB's. They system recruit. VT does as well for some defensive positions. Whips, Light DE's, for instance.
2. Early commits/camp superstars. A lot of kids have done well at VT by coming out of nowhere at a summer camp, getting a VT offer to go with their JMU offer, and accepting it. Sometimes those kids blow up and get more offers after committing, but sometimes schools don't bother if they are in VT's pocket. So if a kid commits in May and doesn't have a big offer list, that's not necessarily a warning sign. And generally, if a kid impresses the entire VT staff in person, they are good....Brian McPherson's withstanding (camp superstar, circa 2001, "Best Hips Ever!")
3. The Kam Chancellors. This is two different types of recruits -- the senior season late bloomer (Chancellor) or the late qualifier. Less and less of the late qualifier these days because kids who are good enough but lack the academics usually get plenty of offers even though they will have to prep/juco. But I love the kids who have no offers in October, then pick up 10 offers by January. Those kids are often on a good trajectory. Kam Chancellor got offers, in part, because he looked awesome playing hoops in December.
4. VT recruiting DB's. I don't care what a DB's star ranking is, if we offered them, they are good. Or we'll make them good.
5. Smart kids. Certain positions can benefit from smart kids. Look for OL with service academy and Ivy offers (to go with B5 offers). Same with LB's and QB's.
I like this way of looking at recruiting. Hopefully the major services start relying on this more. It would be awesome if they did half stars.
There are such an abundance of three stars these days and it would be nice if there was a more simple way for us fans to distinguish recruits. Looking strictly at offers is a pretty good start.
The stars are that way by design. 3 stars is a good football player. Just not great or the best
Overall for 2015
little more relevent
Here is a general breakdown:
5* -- Every relevant team to the recruits geographical area has offered
4* -- At least 5 of the Big Boy Programs have offered
3* -- VT and at least five other B5 schools offered
2* -- Less than five B5 schools offered
1* -- Not a VT recruit, maybe a walk on
Big Boy Schools: aTm, LSU, Bama, Auburn, UF, UGA, Tennessee, USC, FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, PSU, OSU, Michigan, MSU, Wisky, Texas, OU, ND, UCLA, USC, Oregon
This is not to pick on you in particular, but why is aTm a big boy school now? Because they are in Texas? Because they've had some moderate success mixed with mediocrity in the past few years? If so, would you have also considered us in the category of Big Boy Programs at any point between 1999 and 2011? I've seen others call A&M a big boy school, but historically, I don't see it. Results are a mixed bag with them. Sure, they are on the up-swing lately, but they also haven't sustained success as they go up and down frequently.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. $$. $.
The entire premise of the Offers For Stars program is that the big $$$ schools pay their recruiters more, thus they are better at their jobs. If you look at that list, who has money who isn't on it? Arkansas maybe (they've got a ton of money). Kentucky. UNC. And who is on that list who doesn't have money? Miami, who lives on their tarnished tradition and loses credibility every year in recruiting. (Arguably, shouldn't be on this list under Golden)
A VT offer is worth a lot, about as much as many on this list. But that isn't due to money, it's due to having a staff intact for twenty years who know what they want. We've got guys like Foster, Gray, Wiles and arguably even Shane Beamer who are worth 2x what they make at VT at one of the Big Boy schools....but they are here because they want to be here. But that's not sustainable. If we lose one of those guys, we don't have the money to pay someone to fill their slot at market rate. We need to find a Zohn Burden under market who knows what he is looking for in a particular region. If you lose Bud Foster, you are promoting Gray or Wiles and paying them $350K, not luring Brent Venables for $1.7M. aTm can hire AMo away from us. Basically every team on this list can hire away our coaches (who aren't personally connected to VT)....except probably Miami. Maybe Wisconsin...but they've got the money, just not the cultural desire to pay their assistants Big Boy rates.
If money is your barometer for measuring them, I can't argue with you one bit. I just look at them and see 0 BCS bowls at all, last national title in 1939, last conference championship in 1998, and 7 end of season top 25 appearances in last 20 years. I guess I often associate "big boy" programs with your typical "blue-blood" programs, of which many are the same as they have sustained success, but A&M is not a blue-blood program by any means. Much like Oregon, it is a program that sits on $$$ and not a history of success.
Despite a mixed bag when it comes to record, A&M has almost always recruited well and they are an SEC school. As far as recruiting goes, I would argue that they're definitely a blue-blood type.
Nah, it's best to try to quantify this as much as possible. Getting into the tradition/accomplishment realm is a slippery slope. Next thing you know, you care what Army thinks. Or Georgia Tech.
If you got money, you got evaluators. And that's what matters.
Just ask SMU!
Eric Dickerson has said that he will never ever tell anyone what SMU gave him to get him to sign with them, and once I heard that it became the only piece of information I've ever wanted to know.
my guess, robotic legs, but SMU is not an engineering schools so they only lasted for about 6 years.
I agree about their lack of consistent success. Same applies to Texas though, and nobody questions that they're 'big boy' / elite program. A&M shares some key characteristics.
100,000 seat stadium
located in Texas
ridiculous facilities
Texas has far more recent success than A&M. Like, significantly more recent success.
define recent. Last three years the tables have dramatically turned.
Different services determine their ratings differently, but in general a 5* is considered one of the top 25-30 recruits in the country and a 4* is one of the top 250-300 recruits in the country. I personally like the descriptions that 247 uses for their rankings:
This article on SB Nation pulls together the definitions used by different ratings services. Some of the notable differences include that Scout has more prospects (50) rated as 5*s that other services typically do, Rivals supposedly takes into account the impact the recruit is likely to have at the school they're committed to, and ESPN and 247's numerical ratings scale differ from each other quite a bit with ESPN following a standard 10 point grading scale and apparently not having a set number of players at each star level.
Rationale is good, but the 32 5*'s every year to reflect the NFL draft is stupid. You can end up with 1/2 as many or twice as many 5*'s as you should.
That has to be an idea that the boss came up with. It can be the guys actually doing the work, because they would take pride in their ranking system. I'm sure it was April and the 247 CEO was all into the draft and came up with that stupid ass concept.
Not really, its similar to the system used by Rivals (started by and sold to Yahoo by guys now running 247) and Scout. Rivals 5*s are the top 25-30 players in the country and Scout 5*s are the top 50 players. From 247s description of the ranking process linked above:
So basically when they are doing their rankings, they pick who they think the top 32 players in the country are as their 5*s and then Rank them within the 110-98 range. If they're really impressed with a prospect they give them a ranking above 100, but most 5*s fit pretty tightly into the 98-100 group. Since they started doing their rankings in 2010 (as opposed to the composite rankings which go back further), there have only been 6 players ranked in the above 100, "Can't Miss" range, the highest being Jadeveon Clowney at 105, followed by Cyrus Kouandjio at 102; the other 4 had a 101 rating.. It's not clearly stated, but I'm assuming that if they decide to promote a prospect into the top 32, then one of the 5* prospects currently in the top 32 will be demoted to 4* status to make room, but still be at the top of the 4*s with a 97 rating.
Good news...Tim Settle comes in as the #11 recruit by this method.
Bad news...at least five VT "could have beens" in the top 30 (Deberry, Toliver, Sweat, Burrell, Cager).
So Of that list, VT got one, FSU got one, LSU got one, Miami got one, Oklahoma one, OSU one? So pretty much spread around. The fact that several were in state is coincidental these are national recruits. It's like saying they were all FSU could have beens geez what are they doing.
I like this alot.