Unsurprisingly, there are a couple of ISU trolls who continue to talk down Iowa’s recruiting classes, esp 23 and 24, and make comparisons based on stars and rivals “team rankings”.
I actually think that the “team rankings “are only half meaningful, because usually the size of the recruiting class ends up distorting the quality. Makes the rankings somewhat silly at times. Just because certain teams have very uneven recruiting classes makes them jump up and down the rankings from year to year and it’s just a mess, so much noise in that data.
I realize that star rankings usually take into account offers - number of and prestige of programs - But what strikes me this year is the surprising similarity between star rankings of iowa and isu, but as a couple of Hawkeye posters have pointed out, the difference between the level of offers that Iowa State’s recruits have gotten compared to ours is absolutely staggering. In terms of offers, iOS recruits are two or three levels above Iowa State‘s, except for their quarterback, whom Iowa actually took a pass on and got their top target.
Has anybody made an attempt to quantify the quality of offers and rank recruits that way, not merely star rankings?
I never take a 5.5 3* very seriously if he’s got a couple of very low D1 offers compared to some two stars, who might get a couple of higher offers but never have their ranking raised, or a 5.6 3star who got a dozen high or mid division one offers.
As a matter fact, I almost always try to ignore the star rating and just look at who else has offered. Anyone else the same?
seems like services like rivals want to trust their own expertise in evaluating recruits and assigning stars, and view offers secondarily from teams whose coaches obviously are much better at evaluating talent, Especially because they get to evaluate them face-to-face and work with them, rather than look at videos or maaaybe catch a game live (rarely). Rivals evaluations are a spectator sport, but coaches’ evaluations and offers are the real thing.
I actually think that the “team rankings “are only half meaningful, because usually the size of the recruiting class ends up distorting the quality. Makes the rankings somewhat silly at times. Just because certain teams have very uneven recruiting classes makes them jump up and down the rankings from year to year and it’s just a mess, so much noise in that data.
I realize that star rankings usually take into account offers - number of and prestige of programs - But what strikes me this year is the surprising similarity between star rankings of iowa and isu, but as a couple of Hawkeye posters have pointed out, the difference between the level of offers that Iowa State’s recruits have gotten compared to ours is absolutely staggering. In terms of offers, iOS recruits are two or three levels above Iowa State‘s, except for their quarterback, whom Iowa actually took a pass on and got their top target.
Has anybody made an attempt to quantify the quality of offers and rank recruits that way, not merely star rankings?
I never take a 5.5 3* very seriously if he’s got a couple of very low D1 offers compared to some two stars, who might get a couple of higher offers but never have their ranking raised, or a 5.6 3star who got a dozen high or mid division one offers.
As a matter fact, I almost always try to ignore the star rating and just look at who else has offered. Anyone else the same?
seems like services like rivals want to trust their own expertise in evaluating recruits and assigning stars, and view offers secondarily from teams whose coaches obviously are much better at evaluating talent, Especially because they get to evaluate them face-to-face and work with them, rather than look at videos or maaaybe catch a game live (rarely). Rivals evaluations are a spectator sport, but coaches’ evaluations and offers are the real thing.