Recruiting/Rating Services

[greenit]

All of the rating services have various methodologies they follow on how they assign a ranking to a recruit. They will look at measurable attributes such as height, weight, speed, strength, HS production, college recruiting interest, and other variables and compare against historical numbers.

Regardless of the attributes that they use to rank a player, one thing that seems fairly consistent across the services is the breakdown of the numbers.

There has been a bit of discussion regarding the rating services and ranking of recruits.

Based on looking at historical information, the services attempt to rank approximately 3,000 HS/JUCO players (some years more, some years less).

As you look at historical rankings from the services, you will see that they follow a similar distribution:

1% - 5 stars (30-50 players)

10% - 4 stars (300-350 players)

40% - 3 stars (1,000-1,500 players)

50% - 2 stars (remaining ranked players)

You won't see anything less than 2 stars, you will see players that have been evaluated, but not ranked, lumped in with players that have not be evaluated and see them listed as NR, or not ranked.

The numbers won't always be precise, and some services may have a slightly different distribution (i.e. maybe 50% in 3 star category and less in 2 star category, and you will also see that they typically squeeze a few more players in the 5 star/4 star categories, no doubt in an effort to draw more eyeballs. Money talks and fans that buy subscriptions want to see 5 star/4 stars signed by their schools so over the years, the numbers have increased in the highest categories.

In terms of why to rank 3,000 players, keep in mind that there are 128 Division 1 football programs and each is able to sign up to 25 players per year (128 * 25 = 3,200). Each team will not be able to sign 25 each year due to 85 maximum scholarship limit. Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of players that receive offers that are not ranked, or are not ranked at the time. This is one of the reasons that the services hold off on doing the full rankings up front and often will go back and rank/re-rank a recruit after receiving offers.

Since all services do not necessarily rank the same players, you will occasionally see a player ranked by one service and not ranked at all by another service.

There are 65 P5 teams. Each year they sign roughly 1,500 players.

Edited December 24, 2014 by greenit

[Harry]

Nice breakdown. Don't think I've ever seen someone put a number to this before. Appreciate you for putting this together.

What I would love to see is how many subscribers the top teams have as opposed to the rest, what type of revenue they generate for the subscription services and how they compare between public and private schools etc.

What your post highlights is the fact that the chance of error goes up considerably on 3 star and two star which represent the vast majority of those who sign.

I also would like to know how much early interest and offers from a big school impacts the process. For instance, a guy who comes on strong in his senior season probably never has the chance to be a 4-star. To me that is a flaw. There should be a pathway to identify a late bloomer. I also think there a good players on bad high school teams that get left out as well.

[IslandEagle]

In line with what you say, Harry, Phil Steele shows where the various two-deep players for each team were rated when they left high school. It is amazing how many players at every level were essentially 2 and 3 star recruits. This is not to say that an Alabama doesn't have their share of past 4 and 5 stars on their roster, but you can find 2 and 3 stars who crawled up through the ranks to reach the two deep, even there. Many probably were late bloomers who got last minute scholarships when they lost a prime prospect in a recruiting battle. Nevertheless, if a college coach were really skilled at identifying those types of players, they could certainly thrive at our level.

Nice breakdown. Don't think I've ever seen someone put a number to this before. Appreciate you for putting this together.

What I would love to see is how many subscribers the top teams have as opposed to the rest, what type of revenue they generate for the subscription services and how they compare between public and private schools etc.

What your post highlights is the fact that the chance of error goes up considerably on 3 star and two star which represent the vast majority of those who sign.

I also would like to know how much early interest and offers from a big school impacts the process. For instance, a guy who comes on strong in his senior season probably never has the chance to be a 4-star. To me that is a flaw. There should be a pathway to identify a late bloomer. I also think there a good players on bad high school teams that get left out as well.