Interesting Recruiting Tidbit

[smallcollegefbfan]

I found this interesting from the last couple years of recruiting. Here is a look at the Rivals rating of the last 3 Payton and Buchanan winners. What do you guys think?

2008
Payton- Armanti Edwards- listed by rivals but unrated
Buchanan- Greg Peach- not even listed by Rivals

2007
Payton- Jayson Foster- not even listed by Rivals
Buchanan- Kroy Biermann- not even listed by Rivals

2006
Payton- Ricky Santos- not even listed by Rivals
Buchanan- Kyle Shotwell- not even listed by Rivals

I would go back farther but Rivals only lists back to 2002 so most of the players from 2005 and 2004 who won would not be on there anyway.


A look back at past top recruiting classes

2003
1- Illinois State- never heard of the 3 listed
2- Villanova- only 2 were stars but I would say Matt Sherry's two-star rating was way off considering he was a draft pick, he should have been a 3 or 4 star.
3- UTC- neither of their 2 rated players have panned out that i know of
4- Western Carolina- top rated player was Shamar Allen and he is a backup from what i know. their top player listed was unrated Michael Hines.

2004
1- UTC- Only 2 of 6 rated players were standouts
2- Villanova- Only 2 of 6 players that were rated have been standouts
3- McNeese State- Only 1 of 3 were standouts
4- Illinois State- Only 2 of 7 were standouts
5- UMASS- 2 of 3 rated players were standouts
6- Fordham- none were standouts
7- Georgetown- none were standouts

2005
1- Richmond- only two of 5 with stars are standouts, never heard of others, a couple unrated players turned out to be good
2- Villanova- none were standouts except maybe kicker
3- UMASS- Sean Smalls was a 3-star, they hit on him
4- Georgetown- none were standouts
5- Illinois State- none are standouts
6- NW State- did their rated player even make it on campus?
7- UTC- none are any good
8- McNeese State- 4 of the 20 listed have turned out to be good for sure, this class is still all in school so maybe a McNeese fan could provide insight on some of these guys

2006- too early to tell on these so I will just list
1- Villanova
2- Illinois State
3- McNeese State
4- Northern Colorado
5- Eastern Washington
6- Sacramento State
7- NW State
8- Fordham
9- Indiana State
10- UC Davis
11- Dayton
12- Georgetown
13- UMASS
14- UTC
15- Colgate
16- Lafayette

From that group you could say it looks like Villanova, McNeese, Richmond and maybe UMASS or EWU have had many of their rated players pan out and have translated into success on the field. That is 5 teams out of as many as 20 different teams listed.

Based on this these past rankings then UTC, Georgetown, Illinois State, Villanova, McNeese State, NW State, and UMASS should all have been ranked in the top 10, or at least in the top 25.

Here are their final 2008 rankings

Richmond- won NC but only had one class rated and most of their top players were not rated.
Villanova- rated 6
McNeese State- rated 21
NW State- receiving votes
UMASS- receiving votes
UTC, Georgetown, Illinois State- not even listed as receiving votes

Where are perennial powers Montana, Cal Poly, Furman, App State, JMU, UNI, Wofford, etc. in the rankings? You would think with App State winning 3 NCs that they would have been in the top 5 each year and they weren't. Montana is not even listed and we all know how good their classes are year in and year out. The one thing not shown in those ratings is amount of transfers but many of the power teams don't take many transfers. Only Montana of that group I named is known for taking some and even then they don't take them like UMASS, NW State, Sam Houston State, etc. do.

From looking at this you could say that it is perhaps better to not be rated by Rivals when it comes to the FCS because most of the truly top players available go overlooked by the recruiting services.

[OL FU]

Based on recruiting class ratings, UTC should have won three NCs in a row instead of ASU.xrotatehx

[OL FU]

And PS, Wofford has made the playoffs 3 times including 2 years in a row.



Perrenial may be an overstatement:p xeyebrowx

[smallcollegefbfan]

Based on recruiting class ratings, UTC should have won three NCs in a row instead of ASU.xrotatehx

Exactly what I thought. UTC has had some stud classes on paper. I am sure many of them did not make it in school or went JC and got a FBS offer down the line or something. I can't imagine every player they had rated was just that overrated.

[McTailGator]

Maybe a McNeese fan could provide insight on some of these guys

Most of those 05 players were redshirted that year and probably began to see their first real action this past year.

But I lost ALL respect for both rivals and scout when a player that we were hoping to sign last year ended up signing at K-State.

He was a ONE Star player when we were recruiting him, but the day AFTER signing day he was given 2 more stars to become a 3 star player in both Scout and Rivals.

One of our Fans who is sort of our in house recruiting blogger send an e-mail to rivals and scout to ask how he got the 2 additional stars and their answer:

Once he signed with a BCS school we automatically figured he was a 3-star. xconfusedx

At that point, I realized it was all BS.

[smallcollegefbfan]

Most of those 05 players were redshirted that year and probably began to see their first real action this past year.

But I lost ALL respect for both rivals and scout when a player that we were hoping to sign last year ended up signing at K-State.

He was a ONE Star player when we were recruiting him, but the day AFTER signing day he was given 2 more stars to become a 3 star player in both Scout and Rivals.

One of our Fans who is sort of our in house recruiting blogger send an e-mail to rivals and scout to ask how he got the 2 additional stars and their answer:

Once he signed with a BCS school we automatically figured he was a 3-star. xconfusedx

At that point, I realized it was all BS.

Very interesting. Someone at Rivals said that they don't rate players after signing day and they focus only to the next year's evals.

[McTailGator]

Very interesting. Someone at Rivals said that they don't rate players after signing day and they focus only to the next year's evals.

Yea that is bull

Rivals and scout are commercial ventures and they pander to their coustomers that pay their membership fees.

Customer satisfaction...

Keeps the subscribers coming back for more.

[smallcollegefbfan]

Yea that is bull

Rivals and scout are commercial ventures and they pander to their coustomers that pay their membership fees.

Customer satisfaction...

Keeps the subscribers coming back for more.

You mean they pander to their customers at FBS programs. They still don't re-evaluate players from FCS schools who have websites such as EWU, ASU, Richmond, etc. I am not attacking them. They do a good job but it would be nice to see FCS players given a legit rating. While we all know that no FCS program should have a top 50, I do believe that some of the top programs deserve to have classes rated in the 60, 70s, or 80s instead of totally being overlooked.

[Reign of Terrier]

It kind of tells you how these ratings are BS. IMO no disrespect to Western but I think Wofford's recruiting class will be better--not because of ratings but because of the things they've done on the field. (Oh and we're stealing a lot of them from Furman:p )

[813Jag]

Most of those 05 players were redshirted that year and probably began to see their first real action this past year.

But I lost ALL respect for both rivals and scout when a player that we were hoping to sign last year ended up signing at K-State.

He was a ONE Star player when we were recruiting him, but the day AFTER signing day he was given 2 more stars to become a 3 star player in both Scout and Rivals.

One of our Fans who is sort of our in house recruiting blogger send an e-mail to rivals and scout to ask how he got the 2 additional stars and their answer:

Once he signed with a BCS school we automatically figured he was a 3-star. xconfusedx

At that point, I realized it was all BS.
You see that quite a bit with Rivals, kids moving up and down in the ratings.

[eaglewithabus]

I have seen guys on rivals that were three star players being recruited by big east schools or acc schools. These same players may have one or two fcs schools listed in their profile and two times when a three star player has ended up signing with an fcs school, their stars are dropped to 1 star....I think they base the ranks on who is recruiting them regardless of having seen them play a single down.

[OL FU]

It kind of tells you how these ratings are BS. IMO no disrespect to Western but I think Wofford's recruiting class will be better--not because of ratings but because of the things they've done on the field. (Oh and we're stealing a lot of them from Furman:p )

Demeaning behavior for a perrenial power:p

[smallcollegefbfan]

I have seen guys on rivals that were three star players being recruited by big east schools or acc schools. These same players may have one or two fcs schools listed in their profile and two times when a three star player has ended up signing with an fcs school, their stars are dropped to 1 star....I think they base the ranks on who is recruiting them regardless of having seen them play a single down.

I have always felt that they base stars more on who is recruiting them than how good a player is. It does not look good for a 4 or 5 star player to go to Tennessee State but it happens, as shown by DRC who is playing well in the NFL!

[Tribe4SF]

I have seen guys on rivals that were three star players being recruited by big east schools or acc schools. These same players may have one or two fcs schools listed in their profile and two times when a three star player has ended up signing with an fcs school, their stars are dropped to 1 star....I think they base the ranks on who is recruiting them regardless of having seen them play a single down.

Happened on Rivals last year when Nolan Kearney committed to W&M. His stars were gone the following week. CAA ROY Jonathan Grimes was not rated by Rivals either.

[Retro]

I was one who emailed Rivals about their recruiting rating methods and specifically about how a guy goes from no stars to 2 star after a team signs him..

I Believe it was a player Mcneese had gotten a commitment from until the last day and then he signed with Arkansas.. Right after that they had given him 2 stars, when he previously had none!

The guy emailed me back stating "Any player recruited by and FBS team automatically gets 2 stars"... Of course, i emailed them back stating that shows no credibility in their listings. I also stated that there are many players who clearly would rather play at a top notch FCS school over a lower tier FBS school and thus would be considered to be at least 2 star recruits under their system, yet if the player is leaning that way they seem to not have any stars whatsover.

Anyway, i didn't get a second return email... I have little respect for these sites because they don't have the objectivity to give credit where credit is due and rate players strictly on ability and not based on hype or team interest...

[Reign of Terrier]

I was one who emailed Rivals about their recruiting rating methods and specifically about how a guy goes from no stars to 2 star after a team signs him..

I Believe it was a player Mcneese had gotten a commitment from until the last day and then he signed with Arkansas.. Right after that they had given him 2 stars, when he previously had none!

The guy emailed me back stating "Any player recruited by and FBS team automatically gets 2 stars"... Of course, i emailed them back stating that shows no credibility in their listings. I also stated that there are many players who clearly would rather play at a top notch FCS school over a lower tier FBS school and thus would be considered to be at least 2 star recruits under their system, yet if the player is leaning that way they seem to not have any stars whatsover.

Anyway, i didn't get a second return email... I have little respect for these sites because they don't have the objectivity to give credit where credit is due and rate players strictly on ability and not based on hype or team interest...

That's why you don't look at a player by his ranking, look at what he's done, his team's done, his awards, and his film. the websites only look at film to evaluate.

[813Jag]

That's why you don't look at a player by his ranking, look at what he's done, his team's done, his awards, and his film. the websites only look at film to evaluate.
I agree, it also helps to see players (when you can), gives you a better idea of what to expect. Highlight films don't tell all the story either.

[mcveyrl]

I have always felt that they base stars more on who is recruiting them than how good a player is. It does not look good for a 4 or 5 star player to go to Tennessee State but it happens, as shown by DRC who is playing well in the NFL!


I was one who emailed Rivals about their recruiting rating methods and specifically about how a guy goes from no stars to 2 star after a team signs him..

I Believe it was a player Mcneese had gotten a commitment from until the last day and then he signed with Arkansas.. Right after that they had given him 2 stars, when he previously had none!

The guy emailed me back stating "Any player recruited by and FBS team automatically gets 2 stars"... Of course, i emailed them back stating that shows no credibility in their listings. I also stated that there are many players who clearly would rather play at a top notch FCS school over a lower tier FBS school and thus would be considered to be at least 2 star recruits under their system, yet if the player is leaning that way they seem to not have any stars whatsover.

Anyway, i didn't get a second return email... I have little respect for these sites because they don't have the objectivity to give credit where credit is due and rate players strictly on ability and not based on hype or team interest...

This is why Notre Dame always has one of the highest recruiting classes. That program alone is helping to destroy any credibility that these services still have left.

[Reign of Terrier]

This is why Notre Dame always has one of the highest recruiting classes. That program alone is helping to destroy any credibility that these services still have left.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[813Jag]

I don't put much stock in stars. That's why I like to watch games when I can.

[achrist70]

All I can say is that Illinois State should be dominating the Missouri Valley!

But I don't think to much of Rivals or any other Scouting source, even for FBS. Look at Iowa there so called best recruiting class ever turn out to be worse than many of there other classes.

[Ronbo]

Montana lands 6-10 Scout two stars a year from the Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and California regions. I use Scout.com because they have a Northwest writer/scout and Rivals doesn't. Usually about 50%-60% of them turn out to be starters and big contributers by the time they are seniors.

The main body of the team is built on Montana kids that totally fly under the radar because Montana isn't heavily recruited by FBS. We get light Pac 10 attention (Washington State and Oregon State) and light MWC attention (Wyoming and Colorado State). I am convinced that if the 3-5 best Montana kids we get every year played in the Bay Area of California we'd never get them. They would get FBS offers.

[ASUTed]

App signed two 3 star players last year. One worked out well in malcolm bennett and the other redshirted. It is the only 3 star players I have heard of app getting but the only reason they had the stars is they were both offered at one time or another by a bcs conference fbs team. It really has very little to do with the player just because their are so many. The guy that runs the app rivals site does a good job of letting us know who is going to be an immediate talent and who has the most potential but he will be the first one to tell you he has no control over where these kids are ranked.