- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,198
- Reaction Score
- 10,719
It's not even debatable that the teams - on average - with higher rated recruits - on average - do better. Just a statement of fact.
That is accurate, although I would suspect that correlation is much stronger with the top 10-20 programs than with those programs below that level.
The question in my mind is, how much of that is related to the recruiting sites piggy backing off of the top programs rather than their own independent and unbiased analysis? I am squarely in the corner of the former. If Saban offered me a scholly I'm pretty sure Rivals gives me 3-4 stars.
Off the radar recruits (and there are many) are not accurately rated or even followed. Kids who go to camps, clinics and make noise get much more attention (and stars) than kids who don't. The part of the country also plays a big role. Throw in the enormous physical development required of 16-17 year olds who play at this level and you have just another enormous variable the recruiting sites could not possibly factor.
In short, Nick Saban and Randy Edsall know how to assess talent and know what to target (what they can realistically get). Rivals isn't even remotely close to that ability in terms of assessment, but they damn sure know that Nick Saban will assess the best talent and land them.
Oh, yeah, they like subscribers too.....