On3 last ranking, showing no love to Texas.

[David Latiolais]

On3 last recruiting rankings showed no respect for the 2024 Texas players. They dropped like a lead wt. 3 five stars dropped a bunch, and Texas went from the 3rd to 6 ranked class. What does rankings mean??? Some guys who were 2 or 3 at their position all year are now 6 or 7? 

[qaertyisthatdude]

Means nothing now.  What's more important is developing these guys into future NFL draft picks and winning lots of games.  This roster is loaded at almost every position group on offense, defense, and special teams.

[Bobby Burton]

My thoughts are that they probably got some right and some wrong, just like every rankings process.

To your point though, I think they've under-ranked several Longhorns.

The two that I'd categorize as egregious are:

- Ryan Wingo at No. 92 in the country is just off IMO. Get back to me in two years and let's look at the guys ahead of him, including the no. 1 ranked receiver. They fell in love with Cordale Russell last year, too, and he's just not that level of a guy. He's never had natural hands. Wingo does. And he's long and fluid and fast (10.5 100 meter).

- Daniel Cruz not in the top 300. He'll be drafted IMO.

I'd rank others higher, like Christian Clark, Wardell Mack, Xavier Filsaime and Colin Simmons. 

I guess Texas and Sark will just have to develop these guys and prove them wrong.

[Bobby Burton]

BTW - Texas passed on seven higher rated in-state running backs last year to take Tre Wisner. Today, I'd take Wisner over all seven.

- Kedrick Reesecano, New Caney, Ole Miss

- Cameron Cook, Round Rock Stony Point, TCU

- Peter Jenkins, Klein Forest, Houston

- Kalib Hicks, Denton Ryan, Oklahoma

- A'Marion Peterson Wichita Falls Hirschi, USC

- Quinten Joyner, Manor, USC

- Jambres Dunbar, Anna, Boise State

The only in-state RB Texas did not pass on comparatively is Rueben Owens.

This year, Texas passed on every in-state RB (except Caden Durham) to take Jerrick Gibson and Christian Clark. Texas did not prioritize the No. 2 ranked back overall, Taylor Tatum for example.

In all, there are seven native Texas running backs ranked higher than Clark and six higher than Gibson.

I guess we'll see who's right.

No one bats 1.000, including Tashard Choice. But I'd give him the benefit of the doubt given what he's done thus far.

[Hashtag]

Oh Charles....

[Bobby Burton]

No one in this industry knows how hard and divisive national rankings can be than me.

I did it for the first 15 years of my career.

So I give Charles and others who do it a lot of grace. However, I'm noticing some trends, some of which I took up with Charles previously.

I don't agree with all of it, but again, doing his job is difficult and you'll never please everyone.

BTW -  Hashtag, I really like your avatar!

[Hix Green made the Catch]

14 hours ago, Hashtag said:

Oh Charles....

 

2 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

No one in this industry knows how hard and divisive national rankings can be than me.

I did it for the first 15 years of my career.

So I give Charles and others who do it a lot of grace. However, I'm noticing some trends, some of which I took up with Charles previously.

I don't agree with all of it, but again, doing his job is difficult and you'll never please everyone.

BTW -  Hashtag, I really like your avatar!

 

Quick question--who is "Charles"--and for whom does he work??

[Park Gothic]

2 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

No one in this industry knows how hard and divisive national rankings can be than me.

I did it for the first 15 years of my career.

So I give Charles and others who do it a lot of grace. However, I'm noticing some trends, some of which I took up with Charles previously.

I don't agree with all of it, but again, doing his job is difficult and you'll never please everyone.

BTW -  Hashtag, I really like your avatar!

The rumor is that On3 guys drop Texas recruits because Texas players have underperformed in the draft. Which seems too stupid to be true. Why look at lagging indicators from old staffs to predict future performance? Surely they can't be that dim. 

But the rumor still persists on reddit and other sites. 

[Bobby Burton]

45 minutes ago, Hix Green made the Catch said:

 

 

Quick question--who is "Charles"--and for whom does he work??

Charles Power for On3. He is a good guy and works hard at his job. Overall, I think he has done a good job historically. But no one is perfect.

[Bobby Burton]

2 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

The rumor is that On3 guys drop Texas recruits because Texas players have underperformed in the draft. Which seems too stupid to be true. Why look at lagging indicators from old staffs to predict future performance? Surely they can't be that dim. 

But the rumor still persists on reddit and other sites. 

I think there was some of that happening a couple of years ago. I don't think it's the case anymore.

I think Charles doesn't really value the opinion of coaches very much or enough, especially coaches who recruit from a position of authority/power. Or if he does, he certainly doesn't do it much in the state of Texas as he does elsewhere.

[David Latiolais]

20 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

BTW - Texas passed on seven higher rated in-state running backs last year to take Tre Wisner. Today, I'd take Wisner over all seven.

- Kedrick Reesecano, New Caney, Ole Miss

- Cameron Cook, Round Rock Stony Point, TCU

- Peter Jenkins, Klein Forest, Houston

- Kalib Hicks, Denton Ryan, Oklahoma

- A'Marion Peterson Wichita Falls Hirschi, USC

- Quinten Joyner, Manor, USC

- Jambres Dunbar, Anna, Boise State

The only in-state RB Texas did not pass on comparatively is Rueben Owens.

This year, Texas passed on every in-state RB (except Caden Durham) to take Jerrick Gibson and Christian Clark. Texas did not prioritize the No. 2 ranked back overall, Taylor Tatum for example.

In all, there are seven native Texas running backs ranked higher than Clark and six higher than Gibson.

I guess we'll see who's right.

No one bats 1.000, including Tashard Choice. But I'd give him the benefit of the doubt given what he's done thus far.

I really like Trey Weisner, I just don't know if there's a place for him with the two new running backs coming in , and Jadan Blue killing it.

[codaxx]

3 hours ago, David Latiolais said:

I really like Trey Weisner, I just don't know if there's a place for him with the two new running backs coming in , and Jadan Blue killing it.

I am still waiting to see more out of Blue and Baxter.  Both had good moments and some poor ones (both fumbled vs Washington and Blue dropped a TD pass). Blue’s speed will make him a factor in the offense, but I still don’t think either are complete RB at the moment. We will see how much they improve next season, but I don’t think the door is closed at RB 

[Neil Leininger]

The rankings will always be a joke until they stop trying to rank towards the NFL and focus on the college game.

[40AcresDust]

I actually just watched a mathematical break down of how inaccurate HS rankings are as it relates to NFL draft picks and eventual NFL all-pros. I found it to be fascinating because it proves it is VERY difficult to tell what a 17-18 year old kid is going to be in 3-4 years, and it's almost impossible to predict what they will be in 6-8 years. However, it's also hard to ignore the fact that the blue chip ratio is high in championship level teams. I say all that to say the star ratings and rankings seem to be more of a talking point overall and highly opinion based. 

BB is there any true way to validate these rankings as they are happening? Is there a way to approach these rankings in HS from a college perspective more than an NFL draft/prospect perspective?

49 minutes ago, Neil Leininger said:

The rankings will always be a joke until they stop trying to rank towards the NFL and focus on the college game.

 

[Bobby Burton]

1 hour ago, 40AcresDust said:

I actually just watched a mathematical break down of how inaccurate HS rankings are as it relates to NFL draft picks and eventual NFL all-pros. I found it to be fascinating because it proves it is VERY difficult to tell what a 17-18 year old kid is going to be in 3-4 years, and it's almost impossible to predict what they will be in 6-8 years. However, it's also hard to ignore the fact that the blue chip ratio is high in championship level teams. I say all that to say the star ratings and rankings seem to be more of a talking point overall and highly opinion based. 

BB is there any true way to validate these rankings as they are happening? Is there a way to approach these rankings in HS from a college perspective more than an NFL draft/prospect perspective?

 

I think a real statistician needs to get involved, not a guy like me. I’ve done simple averages based on number of five stars and four stars that are drafted versus the rest of the high school football universe. There is a correlation there.

But I don think that makes the rankings “right”. I bet you could just follow the top 10 teams and get half the rankings right.

[40AcresDust]

9 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said:

I think a real statistician needs to get involved, not a guy like me. I’ve done simple averages based on number of five stars and four stars that are drafted versus the rest of the high school football universe. There is a correlation there.

But I don think that makes the rankings “right”. I bet you could just follow the top 10 teams and get half the rankings right.

Makes sense. Just wanted your input you clearly have more experience in the recruiting world than most of us. I just think of all the 4 & 5 ⭐ kids that end up being "great college player" material. As if that is some kind of knock or slight to a players collegiate career. I think we should be grading every 4 & 5 ⭐ to see them become a great college player to me that should be the point of these rankings services. The NFL draft boards are for the NFL potential, and that potential will sort itself out. It's just an odd thing we do with 4 & 5 ⭐ guys that we grade the potential NFL more than the college potential when they are in HS. I am thinking of 247 who says their 5 ⭐ are what they project to be NFL first rounders. They aren't projecting them as all-conferemce or all-american players. 

[Bobby Burton]

9 hours ago, 40AcresDust said:

Makes sense. Just wanted your input you clearly have more experience in the recruiting world than most of us. I just think of all the 4 & 5 ⭐ kids that end up being "great college player" material. As if that is some kind of knock or slight to a players collegiate career. I think we should be grading every 4 & 5 ⭐ to see them become a great college player to me that should be the point of these rankings services. The NFL draft boards are for the NFL potential, and that potential will sort itself out. It's just an odd thing we do with 4 & 5 ⭐ guys that we grade the potential NFL more than the college potential when they are in HS. I am thinking of 247 who says their 5 ⭐ are what they project to be NFL first rounders. They aren't projecting them as all-conferemce or all-american players. 

I think some recruits are over-rated coming in to college, and just as many are under-rated. I've seen it time and time again. If you look at the bottom five of every Texas recruiting class, you will find players just as successful as a group in the middle five of that same recruiting class.

[codaxx]

8 hours ago, 40AcresDust said:

Makes sense. Just wanted your input you clearly have more experience in the recruiting world than most of us. I just think of all the 4 & 5 ⭐ kids that end up being "great college player" material. As if that is some kind of knock or slight to a players collegiate career. I think we should be grading every 4 & 5 ⭐ to see them become a great college player to me that should be the point of these rankings services. The NFL draft boards are for the NFL potential, and that potential will sort itself out. It's just an odd thing we do with 4 & 5 ⭐ guys that we grade the potential NFL more than the college potential when they are in HS. I am thinking of 247 who says their 5 ⭐ are what they project to be NFL first rounders. They aren't projecting them as all-conferemce or all-american players. 

I think the issue is people look at rankings wrong. I think of of them as horse racing odds.. 5 stars have something 55-60% chance to get drafted. 4 stars are in the 25% range. Each additional star almost doubles the odds the of a player reaching the NFL. There are over 1 million kids playing High school football ever year. There will always be kids that develop late or simply get over-looked. 3-5 stars rank only about 800-850 kids. I am going to guess here, but I will bet there are over 100,000 seniors playing football every year. It is just logical to assume in the 99,000+ kids that are below a 3 star there will be NFL players. Its unreasonable to think that the stars are gong to be 100% accurate. The NFL draft is far from 100% and that has the benefit of 4 additional years of development. The rankings are very good in the aggregate, but can be wildly off at the individual level. 

[40AcresDust]

3 hours ago, codaxx said:

I think the issue is people look at rankings wrong. I think of of them as horse racing odds.. 5 stars have something 55-60% chance to get drafted. 4 stars are in the 25% range. Each additional star almost doubles the odds the of a player reaching the NFL. There are over 1 million kids playing High school football ever year. There will always be kids that develop late or simply get over-looked. 3-5 stars rank only about 800-850 kids. I am going to guess here, but I will bet there are over 100,000 seniors playing football every year. It is just logical to assume in the 99,000+ kids that are below a 3 star there will be NFL players. Its unreasonable to think that the stars are gong to be 100% accurate. The NFL draft is far from 100% and that has the benefit of 4 additional years of development. The rankings are very good in the aggregate, but can be wildly off at the individual level. 

Thanks for that. That is a great point!

[VaHorn]

I miss the very early days of these rankings (whatever the iteration was before what is now called Rivals, pre-247). Back then it seemed that much more credence was given to which schools were recruiting players. As time progressed, the sites hired their own talent evaluators. Not that that was a bad thing but which schools target players isn’t irrelevant.

l always felt the wheels came off for Mack Brown when he started to pay more attention to the recruiting rankings rather than his staff’s own evaluations. Ditto for Jimbo Fisher. But if you want to have a top ranked class through the lens of the recruiting services, then those rankings are important.

[Bobby Burton]

26 minutes ago, VaHorn said:

I miss the very early days of these rankings (whatever the iteration was before what is now called Rivals, pre-247). Back then it seemed that much more credence was given to which schools were recruiting players. As time progressed, the sites hired their own talent evaluators. Not that that was a bad thing but which schools target players isn’t irrelevant.

l always felt the wheels came off for Mack Brown when he started to pay more attention to the recruiting rankings rather than his staff’s own evaluations. Ditto for Jimbo Fisher. But if you want to have a top ranked class through the lens of the recruiting services, then those rankings are important.

I’ll speak to this.

You’re right. Who recruited a player did matter back then. There was no HUDL or universal access to film. But if coaches I knew thought a player was very good BEFORE that player was going to a certain school, then that absolutely mattered to me. Remember, this was at a time when most of the commitments happened in December and January of a prospects senior year. Not 7-8 months before signing day, but just a week or two before signing day.

For example, Dick Tomey or one of his staff at Arizona, would tell me the best players in Hawaii every year after spring evaluation. It didn’t make a hill of beans if those players were going to Arizona or not because they’d barely even begun recruiting them. Arizona didn’t care about recruiting rankings and the staff knew all the other teams knew the same players they did.

But then recruiting became a bigger game with more exposure. And more teams started recruiting everywhere instead of just locally. And so coaches would start to become more cagy with their info and worse they would start promoting only the players they thought they were going to sign. Notre Dame was like that and I called them on it when I could. Tom Lemming fed that Notre Dame beast.

Then came the Nike camps in the mid 90s. I went to every Nike camp. But too many players didn’t show up, or areas of the country were left uncovered.

So first came the increased exposure and meaningfulness of recruiting media, then came the proliferation of the camps with legit height, weight and 40, and then came HUDL.

As Gerry has said before, HUDL effectively killed Va Tech. All those players in southern Virginia, in Newport News, etc., they would get them all, or at least only be fighting a few schools over some of them. When their film got to HUDL then the Ohio States of the world started moving in more easily.

Those things have changed the dynamic of rankings as much as anything IMO.