It’s a simple question, really. Between Rivals and Scout, which service does a better job of predicting the success of its five star recruits?
Here’s an analysis of that very question for the kids named to All-American teams in 2007.
A few observations:
- Scout is a lot more generous handing out five stars than is Rivals.
- Rivals was more accurate from a percentage standpoint in picking out 2007 AAs.
- Neither service does well identifying punters and placekickers as future stars.
- The fullback is a dying breed.
If you go to the linked spreadsheet, you’ll see that Georgia only had three players named to any AA list: Southerland, Velasco and Moreno. No top ten team had fewer. Hawaii had six. Tech had four. That’s a good indicator of what a lot of team depth and good coaching will do for a school.
6 responses to “Rating the raters”
“That’s a good indicator of what a lot of team depth and good coaching will do for a school.” AMEN brother, AMEN!!
Hey dawg fans, I only want to add that this list of
players is absurd or either just another hit to their
reputation in regards to evaluators. Think of it this
way, not only can Garner’s squad do a excellent job
as evaluators in the previous years, he now has
another top flight recruiter in John Lilly. Wow,
I just burst at the thought of our future with Richt,
jump on haters b/c its only the begining of a ride
in a lifetime. GO DAWGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woof, Woof, Woof, Woof!
I like that two of Tech’s A-As included a punter and a kicker.
Pingback: Rating the rater of the raters « Get The Picture
Pingback: Stars wars « Get The Picture