Stupidity is not an uncommon occurrence in ANY field - why should football coaching be different?

But, the answer to your question is no - they're not all stupid. They are human. It's a function of limited time & resources preventing all of the 'less-than-four-stars' players from being properly evaluated by the sites OR the bcs coaches.

The simple fact is that a two-star recruit out of Wyoming, who's been identified by only a handful of 'local' colleges, is NOT going to get the same attention a player with similar measurables is going to get in California....and, in the end, could be just as good or better than the Cal player.

USC is not stupid for not recruiting the kid. Far from it - to devote resources to him that are better used elsewhere is a smart move.

I think Bronco is beating the bushes in places that other big schools don't as much (starting with Timpview).

I think the big schools often don't bother doing that much talent evaluation. They let the recruiting services do it for them and then they go after them. Certainly, they will evaluate players once the recruiting services have identified them, but IMO they've outsourced a fair amount of the initial screening.

Bronco and other lesser schools are often forced into more intensive initial screening to identify players that haven't shown up on the national radar, but still possess enough ability to succeed; because Bronco knows damn well he can't butter his bread going head-to-head with top BCS schools on a regular basis.

Not all kids get evaluated equally. It's as simple as that. Why make this so complicated?

Kids that go to the summer camps, get recruited by big name schools, etc get more exposure and more looks and more thorough evaluations. There are simply too many HS athletes to evaluate all of them in a fair and equivalent manner.

Again, I don't think it has to do with being 'better evaluators', but with focusing resources in different places.

In order to make a fair evaluation of talent, the coaching staff would have to devote the same amount of time towards each recruit. Obviously, this isn't possible, especially for recruits from Utah that they don't ever hear about.


Thus, you can have a kid playing in Utah who, had he played a mile from USC campus, would have had an extra star or two.

OK, so let's throw out this model.

90% of 5 star recruits will be good college players.
70% of 4 star recruits.
50% of 3 star recruits.
30% of 2 star recruits.

Is this fair? Can we agree on that?

So my question is how is Bronco so good at talent evaluation that he gets a higher potion of 2 star recruits to become good college players compared to say Boise State or Utah or Oregon? Likewise for the 3 and 4 stars we get.

At some point you have to believe we're better than every else at talent evaluation OR you have to admit stars are important and our recruiting class isn't that hot.

So is USC stupid then? Instead of letting the star system do their evaluation (which you guys believe is a bad system), why not let BYU coaches do their evaluation. They seem to easily take what we believe is ours. Why not offer a schollie to everyone we offer?

Not based on this article: http://cfn.scout.com/2/726341.html


In fact, 13 of the 30 five star athletes were given less than three stars based on their actual career production.

I think some coaches certainly are better talent evaluators than others. I don't think that argument necessarily applies to the discussion on whether or not stars matter.

I think what most of us are saying is that, for the TOP-LEVEL BCS schools, stars do matter. For the rest of the country, the inaccuracy inherent to the talent evaluation leads to nearly meaningless data.


It's all academic, regardless. The most sure-fire recruit can fail, and the unlikeliest walk-on can turn out great. The eventual impact of a recruiting class can ONLY be measured after each of them has played through their eligibility. You can choose to either be satisfied/excited with the recruits you got, or you can choose to be dissatisfied.

I can't agree on that unless you can show me some data to back it up. Also, you ought to limit it to players that receive scholarships to play as there may be a plethora of 2 star recruits that never get any serious looks from Div 1-A schools.

As I said before, of course stars are meaningful. However, they are not the be all end all because all HS players are not and can not be evaluated equally. It's just not possible from a logistical perspective.

Why bother? If they want to take two Linebackers, and they have two top-tier athletes already pegged, why spend the resources on the Utah kid? Besides which, their recruiting pool is significantly different than ours is. They wouldn't be well-served by doing this.

Thus, if they like who they're targeting, they wouldn't spend the resources on someone they just found out BYU is excited about...