Have scouts sold out in the recruiting game?

[mockcode911]

Just thought I would pick your brains on the subject of recruiting in today's world. Just my opinion but where have all the real scouts and recruiters gone?

Football programs are in such a hurry to land an internet based recruit that has more stars on a web page than the next guy that programs at all levels are scrambling year to year when the "talent" doesn't pan out. I look at the "grey shirts" and non-productive players and it makes me angry. It is not the athletes fault as they are kids playing the recruiting game and using the instant and wide spread technology available to them. Who is actually vetting the process....laying eyes on the talent in person...looking these athletes in the eye...questioning the "combine and showcase results" instead of relying on rivals and scout to plaster stars on a website.

I wonder if recruiters want job security in an unstable field and it causes them to "trust" others opinions and insights above questioning their own intincts and needs in a program?? Teams are built by placing strategic pieces to a puzzle in place and that takes truly knowing a player and how they produce on the field....NOT on paper. Hitting, reading plays, instinct, discipline and passion.....example: difference between combine fast and football fast. Year after year it gets worse as recruits, stars and program rankings are decided on political and marketing strategy.

Going to games and practices instead of watching youtube and "I'm perfect highlight films". Scouts used to go to war in the trenches to read and evaluate players.....we have a world gone mad that has been consumed by the facade of fast, instant, glammoring technology. I just wonder if we went back to the basics and used our own intelligent opinions and gut insticts based on experience... to hand select players if we could build a strong program and possible dynasty of the future.

I must have poured sour milk in my cheerios this morning....but seriously think the system is selling out. I am probably just hitting my head against a brink wall...

[MeanGreenTexan]

Just thought I would pick your brains on the subject of recruiting in today's world. Just my opinion but where have all the real scouts and recruiters gone?

Football programs are in such a hurry to land an internet based recruit that has more stars on a web page than the next guy that programs at all levels are scrambling year to year when the "talent" doesn't pan out. I look at the "grey shirts" and non-productive players and it makes me angry. It is not the athletes fault as they are kids playing the recruiting game and using the instant and wide spread technology available to them. Who is actually vetting the process....laying eyes on the talent in person...looking these athletes in the eye...questioning the "combine and showcase results" instead of relying on rivals and scout to plaster stars on a website.

I wonder if recruiters want job security in an unstable field and it causes them to "trust" others opinions and insights above questioning their own intincts and needs in a program?? Teams are built by placing strategic pieces to a puzzle in place and that takes truly knowing a player and how they produce on the field....NOT on paper. Hitting, reading plays, instinct, discipline and passion.....example: difference between combine fast and football fast. Year after year it gets worse as recruits, stars and program rankings are decided on political and marketing strategy.

Going to games and practices instead of watching youtube and "I'm perfect highlight films". Scouts used to go to war in the trenches to read and evaluate players.....we have a world gone mad that has been consumed by the facade of fast, instant, glammoring technology. I just wonder if we went back to the basics and used our own intelligent opinions and gut insticts based on experience... to hand select players if we could build a strong program and possible dynasty of the future.

I must have poured sour milk in my cheerios this morning....but seriously think the system is selling out. I am probably just hitting my head against a brink wall...

I don't think any coaches are out there scouring the internet for guys to blindly give offers. The internet often allows for players to get highlight films out there for coaches to see, but I highly doubt any recruit is offered without being physically looked at by the coaches, whether that be at a game, or at a team's summer camps, etc....

We've discussed, ad nauseum, the recruiting sites and their ratings. They're often right about the players they rate highly. And obviously, we've had some luck with guys that were not rated as high because the coaches saw something in them... Fortenberry & Fitzgerald instantly come to mind.

If you're not using the internet to help you, get ready to be left behind QUICKLY.

[H-towngreen]

I think the best way the we as fans can judge recruits is by who's offered the kid.

[GOMG2013]

From what I have seen, it is rare an offer goes out without physically seeing the athlete in person and going to the high school and looking at film. The big colleges are usually way ahead of the recruiting sites and are looking at kids when they are sophomores. The recruiting sites can provide updates as far as who has offered, visits, etc. The spring after the Junior season is when most of the activity happens.

Most of those recruiting sites will base the stars on who has offered or who hasinterest. A lot of the initial valuation comes from Junior game film and they project what a player's senior season will be like. In my opinion, They don't have the time to truly evaluate the Senior game film in time before signing day, where they had all Spring and summer to review the Junior film. If a player has a breakout Senior season, or a worse Senior season, the colleges may know, but the sites will be late.

[greenminer]

Departments still lay a budget for recruiting travel/expenses.

I have no idea what is going on or how things have changed. Is it really safe to say we are seeing more players not pan out than before? Is it unreasonable to think that because of increased visibility (twitter, TV and social media, etc), we are merely getting a more accurate glimpse of something that has been there all along?

[GrayEagle]

I think that the cost is prohibitive in seeing very many of these prospects live. In my day that was the only way to scout recruits unless you could get them to come to your place for a workout (usually at their expense). But, with all of the aids like HUDL et al it's much cheaper and easier to just grade film. You can run film in slow motion time and again to evaluate techniques where you cannot do that in a live evaluation.

[H-towngreen]

Here is a perfect example of how RIvals plays the game. Chad Davis, one time 3* DB at a 5.5 rating, just now turned to a 2* 5.2 rating.

Charles Walker one time 2* 5.4 rating, is now a 3* near 4* a7 5.7 rating

Don't worry it's not just us to who this is happening. I noticed a 3* rb who committed to UNLV drop to a 2*.

Rammi Hammad was a 3* and committed to UT today and is now a 4*.

[CurveItAround]

Makes the arguments over stars pretty meaningless. Unreal how the game is played. It almost makes you think that if we had an active Rivals site that was generating revenue for them, our recruits would receive better ratings. Hmmm....

[meangreener]

Here is a perfect example of how RIvals plays the game. Chad Davis, one time 3* DB at a 5.5 rating, just now turned to a 2* 5.2 rating.

Charles Walker one time 2* 5.4 rating, is now a 3* near 4* a7 5.7 rating

Don't worry it's not just us to who this is happening. I noticed a 3* rb who committed to UNLV drop to a 2*.

Rammi Hammad was a 3* and committed to UT today and is now a 4*.

Berglund was also a 3* that was downgraded to a 2*. Either way, this is the best recruiting class we've had in recent memory. There's about 5 3* that Rivals downgraded.

Edited January 24, 2013 by meangreener

[GrandGreen]

I disagree with the original poster, I don't think Scout, Rival are anyone out there rates or has rated players based on their evaluations. There might be a random few but the truth is that universities that spend thousands of dollars and have to reply on their choices are a much better source than some recruiting service employee.

Unless the player is someone in the rating services' nephew, it is all a matter of who is reported to be recruiting an athlete.

I have not looked in years, but there also seemed to be a strong bias in favorite of those Universities with very active Rival or Scout sites versus other universities.

As mentioned, the Chad Davis is a shining example, he went from being NT's only three star to one of the lowest ratings given out 5.2.

It is a funny paradox if you really look at it, in the rating services' view bad teams recruit bad players. It really doesn't matter who they recruit until they start winning because they are mostly going to be rated average at best. Likewise, the powers could randomly sign a class drawing from a hat and they would be considered an excellent group.

[shaft]

I don't think any coaches are out there scouring the internet for guys to blindly give offers.

What are you talking about. I saw Bob Stoops give that one kid in the cell phone commerical a scholarship.

[mockcode911]

Not talking about UNT but the system as a whole. Recruiters cut corners using the internet technology and as the race for stars...literally stars **** represent how good a recruiter is(equals job security). I think that the person recruiting is selling out by subconsciously using someone else's opinion because it is "out there on the web". When is the last time you heard about true differing opinions concerning a recruit? Who has stepped out to say that I am not on that train ride and like player x for our program. I am talking about truly questioning the published word and evaluating a player based on the experience of the recruiter.

Recruits in today's market are looking for that 1 rival or scout connection and 1 offer(many times based off that marketing connection and star count) and then a domino affect occurs. Communication is by emails and internet and offers come early. No it is not every recruit but it is becoming the rule instead of the exception in my opinion. I am just saying as scouts cut corners that the results are showing in quality, reliability and wins. The puzzles are not completed percisely but shoved into the game.

[VideoEagle]

I don't remember exactly where I saw the article, but several years back someone did a study on the star ratings of various recruits and compared that to who was recruiting them. It showed when kids are recruited by schools with larger fan bases, the number of stars with which they are rated increases. However, recruits to smaller schools did not see the star ratings of their recruits decline.

The sevices are in the business of making money. That comes from subscribers and advertising. And advertising goes up with more subscribers. And the fans like to read their school is recruiting better athletes. So if the services report better recruits for those schools then they make more money.

[H-towngreen]

Chad Davis now a 5.4 rating but still a 2*

[untjim1995]

My Aggie friends will tell you that Texas has benefitted from this the most, which is what makes their current situation a very tough spot for Mack Brown. Every year, Texas gets these kids that are usually highly ranked, but they get highly ranked by Texas media members who want to make a buck on that program's fans subscribing to their newsletters. So when Texas gets top 5 recruiting classes but gets prison-raped by Oklahoma and Kansas State every year, it shows that something doesn't add up with this. Either Mack Brown can't coach or the players just aren't as good as advertised. You can say that it is more on Mack for not developing those kids, but it also is on the recruiting guru that offices in Austin and sends out newsletters to Texas alums and t-shirt fans claiming that a 3* kid that decommitted from TCU to go to Texas is really now a 4*. Or worse, the kid that is offered a scholarship as a junior gets to be an automatic 5* (think Garrett Gilbert) but then can't play, making Mack out to be the real problem when it may not be his entirely.

I have learned to take this stuff with a grain of salt. Should a kid that goes to Texas be a better player than one that goes to Texas Tech or North Texas? Probably, just based off of pedigree, but that doesn't mean that the kid that goes to tech or UNT cannot be developed over time to be a better player. That's where coaching comes into play, which never gets factored in on recruiting. If for no other example, see Gary Patterson, who can turn a 2* running back into a 5* DLineman by the time he leaves TCU. That's why I give McCarney time here to get this done--he has proven to be able to do this over time at Iowa State, especially with linemen, which is where we need the most help and will need to develop raw talent.

[Antoinette Davis-Boykin]

Devante Davis is a true athlete! He competed for that position and outplayed EVERY one for it during UNT's camp. No you guys don't need him but you should want him. He is a playmaker, he is extremely fast and very athletic. He is a competitor and he will never let anyone out play or out work him. Devante IS the competition and he is very used to and very comfortable competing with SEC caliber talent. He didn't gel with the team as we would have hoped, it happens! I would have loved for him to stay in the program at UNT but at the end of the day it's his decision and I understand that he felt alone being 8hrs away from home and his friends. He didn't come home for any of the breaks or holidays and that was hard. Expect to hear great things......

[greenminer]

Devante Davis is a true athlete! He competed for that position and outplayed EVERY one for it during UNT's camp. No you guys don't need him but you should want him. He is a playmaker, he is extremely fast and very athletic. He is a competitor and he will never let anyone out play or out work him. Devante IS the competition and he is very used to and very comfortable competing with SEC caliber talent. He didn't gel with the team as we would have hoped, it happens! I would have loved for him to stay in the program at UNT but at the end of the day it's his decision and I understand that he felt alone being 8hrs away from home and his friends. He didn't come home for any of the breaks or holidays and that was hard. Expect to hear great things......

What thread am I in?

[GrandGreen]

Not talking about UNT but the system as a whole. Recruiters cut corners using the internet technology and as the race for stars...literally stars **** represent how good a recruiter is(equals job security). I think that the person recruiting is selling out by subconsciously using someone else's opinion because it is "out there on the web". When is the last time you heard about true differing opinions concerning a recruit? Who has stepped out to say that I am not on that train ride and like player x for our program. I am talking about truly questioning the published word and evaluating a player based on the experience of the recruiter.

Recruits in today's market are looking for that 1 rival or scout connection and 1 offer(many times based off that marketing connection and star count) and then a domino affect occurs. Communication is by emails and internet and offers come early. No it is not every recruit but it is becoming the rule instead of the exception in my opinion. I am just saying as scouts cut corners that the results are showing in quality, reliability and wins. The puzzles are not completed percisely but shoved into the game.

You have some valid points. A few years ago, there was multiple stories on a totally fabricated recruit that was getting a lot of interest just based on the rating services being duped.

However, I doubt any college recruiter is going to sign anyone based only on an Internet rating. Sure they like to look good in the rating system despite their almost universal dismissal of the importance of those services, but wins and loses trump the mythical recruiting race. They are going to sign players they think can help their program on the field.

[GrayEagle]

Reducing a player's rating based on who is recruiting him is an abomination. Rivals is at the top of my list for that practice. At one time they were fairly reliable in their evaluations but they keep getting worse and worse. Unless they turn their ship around there's no way that I would purchase their service.

I'm finding that the most reliable recruiting service now is 247. They used to change their evaluation of players but mostly up. When there is more interest in a player they did seem to go back and reevaluate. Now they seem to mostly leave their evaluation as posted and they've added a consensus evaluation where they have attempted to convert other rating systems to their numbers.

By their standards (80+ rating) we have four 3* players: Chad Davis, Jermanine Antoine, Cody Nelson and Fred Scott. Sergio Medina is their next highest at 78. John Schilleci had a 79+ consensus evaluation. Quenton Brown and Justin Manu both received 78s. I can't recall any 3* Jucos but I seldom look at those and not all are evaluated. All of the rest were 2* (75-80) except for Turner Smiley.

Sed Ellis received a 3* rating from Scout. Scout does a good job with who has been offered but overall I don't care for their system.

ESPN is probably the best but evaluates far less recruits.

Evaluations are meaningful but I'm sure that coaching staffs spend more time evaluating videos than they spend believing scouting reports.

[mockcode911]

I would tend to agree with you that ESPN does the best job overall but disagree about 24/7 being any different than Rivals...except they were new and spent more time evaluating and verifying facts...to some extent they hand selected the bigger names and helped them join their program. Technology is good for accessing film and I mean full game film. Looking at the calibur of player at the end of the game with the same critique is important, in my opinion. Another important thing that Highlight film does not show a recruiter is the ability for players to get the job done in the red zone. In my opinion, their are talented QB as example that can't mentally finish the job when it counts. When recruiters/scouts are at games they are able to read the whole picture and must depend on a sixth sense and ability to read a player. I am old school though and you would be surprised at the amount of recruits that DO NOT have an honest evaluation by D1 programs.

Technology is fast and spreads like wild fire and noone wants to miss their opportunity to get a verbal....all I am saying is at what expense? I look around, and that includes UNT and overrated players and personal favors or personal agendas that are present. Look at the players that came with lots of HYPE and inaccurate stats and ask yourself...how did they get here? Just because an athlete is a son of a coach or given stats on rivals or scout or 24/7 for that matter does NOT make him a true ball player that gets the job done. I have seen coaches sell out other quality players to get their kids into programs. Believe me it happens.

[GrandGreen]

Reducing a player's rating based on who is recruiting him is an abomination. Rivals is at the top of my list for that practice. At one time they were fairly reliable in their evaluations but they keep getting worse and worse. Unless they turn their ship around there's no way that I would purchase their service.

I'm finding that the most reliable recruiting service now is 247. They used to change their evaluation of players but mostly up. When there is more interest in a player they did seem to go back and reevaluate. Now they seem to mostly leave their evaluation as posted and they've added a consensus evaluation where they have attempted to convert other rating systems to their numbers.

By their standards (80+ rating) we have four 3* players: Chad Davis, Jermanine Antoine, Cody Nelson and Fred Scott. Sergio Medina is their next highest at 78. John Schilleci had a 79+ consensus evaluation. Quenton Brown and Justin Manu both received 78s. I can't recall any 3* Jucos but I seldom look at those and not all are evaluated. All of the rest were 2* (75-80) except for Turner Smiley.

Sed Ellis received a 3* rating from Scout. Scout does a good job with who has been offered but overall I don't care for their system.

ESPN is probably the best but evaluates far less recruits.

Evaluations are meaningful but I'm sure that coaching staffs spend more time evaluating videos than they spend believing scouting reports.

I like 247 because they actually rate all recruits in order. The big problem is that the best 250 in Texas are 3 stars or better, which means approximately 2/3 of all signees are 3 or better stars. If you look at that in context, NT having only 4 3's is more troubling than anything.