On Stars

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So Oregon State has identified Utah as the premiere talent evaluator? Why not BYU? Does this mean Utah is even more undervalued by the stars system than BYU is? Why be selective about it? If Oregon State acknowledges Utah is better evaluator than the star system and their own coaching staff, why not offer all 23 recruits?

Oregon State acknowledges that Utah does a good job of evaluating the top Utah HS football talent and lets them do their evaluating for them. Then once the offer is extended, Oregon State gives them a look and decides whether or not to pursue them.

It's hardly rocket science and it's actually a pretty efficient way of going after recruits. Due to the added panache of their BCS membership over Utah, they feel they can cede the groundwork needed for recruiting (being the first to offer, building early relationships, etc.) and step in later and still get the commit over Utah.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Oregon State acknowledges that Utah does a good job of evaluating the top Utah HS football talent and lets them do their evaluating for them. Then once the offer is extended, Oregon State gives them a look and decides whether or not to pursue them.

It's hardly rocket science and it's actually a pretty efficient way of going after recruits. Due to the added panache of their BCS membership over Utah, they feel they can cede the groundwork needed for recruiting (being the first to offer, building early relationships, etc.) and step in later and still get the commit over Utah.

Doesn't this kind of support my premise, that there really is no such thing as building a recruiting strategy on finding diamonds in the rough. Because every staff is looking for them (either directly or by cherry picking others). There's no such thing as BYU being undervalued, because so is Utah and so is CSU and so is Boise State and Fresno State--all focusing in on those second tier guys the USC's are ignoring. And now apparently even the BCS schools like Oregon State's recruiting classes are undervalued because they're using the Utah's of the world to find these understarred players to cherry pick.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Doesn't this kind of support my premise, that there really is no such thing as building a recruiting strategy on finding diamonds in the rough. Because every staff is looking for them (either directly or by cherry picking others). There's no such thing as BYU being undervalued, because so is Utah and so is CSU and so is Boise State and Fresno State--all focusing in on those second tier guys the USC's are ignoring. And now apparently even the BCS schools like Oregon State's recruiting classes are undervalued because they're using the Utah's of the world to find these understarred players to cherry pick.

2008 Scout.com rankings:

BYU - 58th
Oregon State - 61st
Utah - 64th

http://byu.scout.com/a.z?s=338&p=9&c=14&yr=2008

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

2008 Scout.com rankings:

BYU - 58th
Oregon State - 61st
Utah - 64th

http://byu.scout.com/a.z?s=338&p=9&c=14&yr=2008

Past years' rankings:

2007: 42
2006: 46
2005: 53
2004: 55
2003: 59
2002: 46

Bottom line for Jay: if the star rankings mean as much as he says, there's no way BYU should have finished in the top 15 the last 2 years, based on the talent level recruited.

[jay santos]

Here's my ratings for your efforts.

1. SoCal
2. Indy
3. Cougjunkie
4. Yardtime
5. Spaz

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Here's my ratings for your efforts.

1. SoCal
2. Indy
3. Cougjunkie
4. Yardtime
5. Spaz

I'm glad you put SoCal first because frankly, you aren't worth my time and effort to go the extra mile anymore. My responses are usually just an effort to keep you from claiming I'm ducking you.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm glad you put SoCal first because frankly, you aren't worth my time and effort to go the extra mile anymore. My responses are usually just an effort to keep you from claiming I'm ducking you.

love you too, indy.

[SoCalCoug]

And here's Scout's explanation of how their recruiting rankings are calculated:

ABOUT OUR TEAM RANKINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout.com team football recruiting rankings are based on the Talent, Need and Balance of players committed to that school. We consider only players who have made a Verbal or Soft Verbal commitment to that school. We include high school, prep school and junior college players in our analysis.

Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college football.

ABOUT OUR PLAYER EVALUATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout.com's player evaluations are made by our team of Recruiting Experts, who attend off-season combines and camps on college campuses, go to hundreds of games, and review miles of game film. Starting in June each year, the Scout.com recruiting staff makes monthly updates to our consensus player rankings.

ABOUT OUR EXPERTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout.com's Recruiting Experts work in every region of the country and cover every Division I-A football team and conference. Led by Jamie Newberg and Allen Wallace, our team collectively possesses over 100 years of experience covering college football recruiting. Our staff is universally recognized as the most trusted source of timely recruiting news and in-depth player evaluations.

**************

In other words, Jay, the rankings seem to have subjective factors built into them.

[jay santos]

Bottom line

1. I think the stars are not perfect but much more credible than BYU fans want to admit.
2. I generally think it's ludicrous when a BYU fan says "I trust Bronco more than the stars".
3. I think we're leaving more talent on the table than we should. I believe our coaching staff has become a touch arrogant with the "you recruit us we don't recruit you" talk. We need to fight harder for the top LDS that want to play the game and be wined and dined and coddled. Everybody else does it, it's part of the game. Once they're in the system, then you tear them down and make them work for it--not before.
4. I can concede a little that BYU's avg recruit is undervalued compared to the avg USC recruit but not as much as the avg BYU fan thinks. And it also means the avg Utah, Boise State, and Oregon State recruit is equally undervalued.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Bottom line

1. I think the stars are not perfect but much more credible than BYU fans want to admit.
2. I generally think it's ludicrous when a BYU fan says "I trust Bronco more than the stars".
3. I think we're leaving more talent on the table than we should. I believe our coaching staff has become a touch arrogant with the "you recruit us we don't recruit you" talk. We need to fight harder for the top LDS that want to play the game and be wined and dined and coddled. Everybody else does it, it's part of the game. Once they're in the system, then you tear them down and make them work for it--not before.
4. I can concede a little that BYU's avg recruit is undervalued compared to the avg USC recruit but not as much as the avg BYU fan thinks. And it also means the avg Utah, Boise State, and Oregon State recruit is equally undervalued.

When the loss of Kaveinga costs BYU a dozen spots in the Scout.com rankings, it should highlight how thin a margin there is between #40 and #60; especially when this is just one recruit out of the 20 to 25 signed by most teams.