AuburnTiger10 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Anybody else think there are way too many five stars this year? A bunch of these new five stars don't deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWWD34 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Either way, the final Rivals100 for the class of 2011 will bring with it plenty of excitement, controversy and reaction from fan bases. sounds an awful lot like they're trying to sell subscriptions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadechristopher 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Get this. I think Malcolm Mitchell is getting bumped to the number 1 rated corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnSpider 2 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 If you pay for a subcription to their AU site your a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange and Blue 17211345162833 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. AMEN!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBuilderman 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I agree Weegle - stars do not change the ability of the player. I for one am extactic to have a lot of 3 & 4 star players that have the talent of 4 & 5 stars. Much better than the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujess07 4 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I'll take the crystal ball every single year in exchange for the "Recruiting Championship". We're recruiting the right guys for our team's need. They're talented, and CGC sees them becoming great Auburn men. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walker77 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 As per the historical Rivals/UAT connection (ie., # of subscribers)... All this manipulation of stars to enhance UAT's ranking every year has always brought false expectations to the UAT fan base... Consistently high bogus star ratings on their recruits, have led to a not-so-stellar overall performance on the field... over at least the last decade if not longer... NOTE TO UAT: prepare to be disappointed again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnTiger10 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Get this. I think Malcolm Mitchell is getting bumped to the number 1 rated corner. Looks like you are right. Even though he played WR in the all american game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenaj1345162886 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. No one is debating if taking away/giving stars gives players talent. We KNOW that isn't the case. This thread is discussing the change of stars for ONLY recruiting class ranking reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad5628AU 35 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It's because he was projected as a LB and the reason he switched his commitment to AU was because AU will give him a shot at RB. Rivals said they would drop him because he is a lower rated RB than LB Can you explain Wilder? I'm with the conspiracy theorists on this one. Rivals has a problem with Auburn. I dont see why were still complaining about the stars. It obviously hasn't meant anything if we are winning national championships with 3*. If they drop him, they drop him, but it only makes our coaches look better after they coach up a 3* DL and he is projected now as the #1 overall pick. Win-Win for both if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wareagle13 88 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Did johnathon rose drop out of the rivals 100? Couldn't find his name or really any mention of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msg6367 1 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Hey....Guess What? We are the 2010 National Champions!!!!!!!!! For all the recruiting experts, I think we had only one top 5 class in the last four years and that was 2010. Stars mean absolutely nothing in truly evaluating a player. I don't necessarily buy the conspiracy theory but the whole system is a biased decision made by a select few individuals. How can someone judge that a lineman like GRob drops from a 6.0 to a 5.8? Kiehl is ranked all the way back at 89 on Rivals but is a 5* on Scout. I wouldn't trade any of our players for a player committed elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenaj1345162886 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 ONCE AGAIN, we are in NO WAY SAYING THAT STARS DEFINE A PLAYER. We are simply discussing on THIS THREAD why/reasons for stars changing specifically to RIVALS. I am very happy we won the 2010 National Championship, but now I'm looking forward to this recruiting class and would actually like relevant input on this topic and not on how stars don't make players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. No one is debating if taking away/giving stars gives players talent. We KNOW that isn't the case. This thread is discussing the change of stars for ONLY recruiting class ranking reasons. Yes, I KNOW that, I just don't care about stars. Our recruiting is stellar, what Rivals does doesn't really make a crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenaj1345162886 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. No one is debating if taking away/giving stars gives players talent. We KNOW that isn't the case. This thread is discussing the change of stars for ONLY recruiting class ranking reasons. Yes, I KNOW that, I just don't care about stars. Our recruiting is stellar, what Rivals does doesn't really make a crap. Then don't post on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msg6367 1 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 ONCE AGAIN, we are in NO WAY SAYING THAT STARS DEFINE A PLAYER. We are simply discussing on THIS THREAD why/reasons for stars changing specifically to RIVALS. I am very happy we won the 2010 National Championship, but now I'm looking forward to this recruiting class and would actually like relevant input on this topic and not on how stars don't make players. I don't think I like your attitude... I think I'll find a thread where I can lecture everyone on how stars mean absolutely nothing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenaj1345162886 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 ONCE AGAIN, we are in NO WAY SAYING THAT STARS DEFINE A PLAYER. We are simply discussing on THIS THREAD why/reasons for stars changing specifically to RIVALS. I am very happy we won the 2010 National Championship, but now I'm looking forward to this recruiting class and would actually like relevant input on this topic and not on how stars don't make players. I don't think I like your attitude... I think I'll find a thread where I can lecture everyone on how stars mean absolutely nothing.... haha START A TOPIC! Sorry I'm in this income tax II class and wanting to kill myself...hour and a half lecture. AH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouching Tiger 76 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I did not realize it until just now, but Scout has Kiehl rated as a 5 star. If there ever was a 5 star QB this year, it would be Kiehl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouching Tiger 76 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 My feeling is that before Kiehl Frazier finishes at Auburn, he will become one of our greatest players ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. No one is debating if taking away/giving stars gives players talent. We KNOW that isn't the case. This thread is discussing the change of stars for ONLY recruiting class ranking reasons. Yes, I KNOW that, I just don't care about stars. Our recruiting is stellar, what Rivals does doesn't really make a crap. Then don't post on this topic. It seems one can't post in a thread unless ONE person's guidelines aren't followed. Lighten up. We just posted an opinion, we didn't say you were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP 23 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 There is a lot on Calloway in this article. http://auburn.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1177922 Including this from Mike Farrell: "Then it goes back to running back, so we go back and look at the film and we have someone who has seen him play both live. At this point we decided that his best position in college is still linebacker, that's where he projects the best and that even if we flipped him to running back he would fall well short of five-star status. This isn't a James Wilder Jr. situation here where he has an NFL body, long arms or off-the-charts physical skills. Brent is a very good player which is why he's still ranked in the top 40 in the nation, but he's just not in the five-star league in our opinion and Alabama, Auburn, Florida, USC, Ohio State or wherever he was going wouldn't change that." i dont buy it. because he's been one for the whole year and all of a sudden they say he's not that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenaj1345162886 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking a star away doesn't take their talent away. These recruits are still the same talented player as a four star as they were as a five star. Recruiting sites are all about subscriptions. If Scout has a player ranked as a five and Rivals has them ranked as a four, which is correct? My opinion, neither. No one is debating if taking away/giving stars gives players talent. We KNOW that isn't the case. This thread is discussing the change of stars for ONLY recruiting class ranking reasons. Yes, I KNOW that, I just don't care about stars. Our recruiting is stellar, what Rivals does doesn't really make a crap. Then don't post on this topic. It seems one can't post in a thread unless ONE person's guidelines aren't followed. Lighten up. We just posted an opinion, we didn't say you were wrong. haha 5 people have posted the same thing when it isn't relevant to this topic. Everyone knows stars don't make players. I swear people just post to get their count up. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenaj1345162886 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 There is a lot on Calloway in this article. http://auburn.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1177922 Including this from Mike Farrell: "Then it goes back to running back, so we go back and look at the film and we have someone who has seen him play both live. At this point we decided that his best position in college is still linebacker, that's where he projects the best and that even if we flipped him to running back he would fall well short of five-star status. This isn't a James Wilder Jr. situation here where he has an NFL body, long arms or off-the-charts physical skills. Brent is a very good player which is why he's still ranked in the top 40 in the nation, but he's just not in the five-star league in our opinion and Alabama, Auburn, Florida, USC, Ohio State or wherever he was going wouldn't change that." i dont buy it. because he's been one for the whole year and all of a sudden they say he's not that good. Me neither, you aren't ranked 12th in the nation all year long and then suddenly because he MIGHT play RB means that he's still not as talented? I understand it's a change of position, but what says he won't try LB either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.