Who says romance is dead?

It’s all about the focus.  And the subscription fee.

5 Comments

Filed under Recruiting

5 responses to “Who says romance is dead?

  1. Macallanlover

    Man, there are some crazy, obsessed recruitniks on those sites. It is where grown men worry more about the class ranking of HS kids who haven’t played more than the actual games. The Fields situation this season is an example. Ignore what you actually see on the field and hang onto what the hype said before he arrived. We all know the correlation of getting the best athletes, collectively, but the difference between being #5 or #8 can be a mid four star and a high 3 star both still in HS and could be at a position which isn’t even a strong need. That is projecting them 3 years out and assuming how they develop from age 18 to 21. Very subjective, and your opinion can change dramatically in the space of a few months. Gibbs, a 5 star, versus Jordan Davis, a 3 star, is just one quick example. There are hundreds like this. J

    ust get me good athletes, with great attitudes, in positions of need. Yes, it is comforting to sign a top class, but more because you can afford to have a lower batting average and still succeed. Living and dying on the decisions (temporary at that) of HS athletes is a strange thing, but a lot of emotion gets expended on it. Glad Kirby ois good at it.

    Like

  2. That’s kinda creepy tbh.

    Like

  3. Bat City Dawg

    To summarize, recruiting is important at the Macro Level: Are we generally bringing in the best athletes? But the micro level is purely for the creeps. Tough to care about arguing over the #4 running back and the #6 running back.

    Like

    • Russ

      Yep. I believe Marshall was the 5* and Gurley was the 4*. Same with Michel (5) and Chubb (4). Not a lot of difference between them (ignoring injuries in KM’s part).

      Like