One thing that irritates me on star ratings

[TitanTiger 22,249]

The discrepancies between Rivals and Scout seem to be disproportionately hurting us. For instance, we're ranked 14th on Scout right now. But look at these differences from Scout to Rivals:

Aycock, Benton, Blake, Paige and Travis are all 3-stars on Scout. Rivals has them as 4-stars

Gulley, Eguae, Sullen and Lanier are all 2-stars on Scout, Rivals has them as 3-stars

Reggie Taylor is a 2 star on Scout, Rivals has him as a 4-star.

That's a loss of 11 total stars in the ratings for Scout.

Rivals does some of the same thing though:

Fairley, Ford and Coleman are all 3-stars on Rivals, Scout has them as 4-stars

Both Demond Washington and Eltoro Freeman are 3-stars on Rivals, Scout has them as 5-stars.

That's a loss of 7 total stars on Rivals.

Even if all you did was meet in the middle on all of these we'd be Top 10 on Scout and Top 15 on Rivals. But as it is we're 14th on Scout and 18th on Rivals.

Contrast that with the amazingly little amount of downgrading that affected bammer on either site:

Ed Stinson and Kevin Norwood were 3-stars on Scout, 4-stars on Rivals

D.J. Fluker is a 4-star on Scout and a 5-star on Rivals

The other way, Quinton Dial is a 3-star on Rivals and a 4-star on Scout.

That helps them rank high on both sites (currently #3 on both).

I just don't get how there's that many discrepancies for some teams and not for others. I think it's just ridiculous that Scout had Benton as a 5-star in 2007 when he signed with LSU, but sitting out one year to get grades right makes him a 3-star. Or how Eltoro Freeman can be a 5-star on one and a 3-star on the others. That makes no sense. But it's aggravating, not because the players will play any different. Benton is a stud no matter what the idiots think. But there is the perception game that gets played and this crap didn't help us.

And what's crazy is, this is a really good class. But I think it's being undersold by arbitrary ratings goofiness that's not hurting others the same way.

[aubiescottie 1]

you got that straight. I noticed it too, just didn't have the time to lay it out like that. And you are right...it has nothing to do w/ how's it plays out on the field, but there is a perception there.

[PChamp119 96]

You pinned it - there is a conspiracy against Auburn.

What happened to "Recruiting rankings don't matter." This is all I heard prior to last year's NSD. Then afterwards there were some people stating they were upset, and not many would admit it even though it was true.

Two years in a row we get our a$$e$ handed to us and everyone wants to pay attention to recruiting rankings.

I understand your point is about the discrepancy, but I thought you didn't care about them? If you didn't care, why are you noticing?

And I thought recruiting stars didn't match to on-field results. That's all I heard last year after Bama's NSD. Then they whooped us 9 months later onto a 12-0 record. Maybe these organizations weren't crazy after all.

[Mikey 16,781]

"Then they whooped us 9 months later onto a 12-0 record. Maybe these organizations weren't crazy after all."

Oh, c'mon, PChump! Even you should know that UAT's signees had little or nothing to do with the 12-0 regular season. It was a combination of several normally strong opponents having a down year at the same time, plus some experienced Bammer players finally maturing. JJ was the only signee that had even marginal bearing on Bammer's '08 season, and if he hadn't been there some upper classman would have stepped up enough to play well.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

You pinned it - there is a conspiracy against Auburn.

Didn't say that. Just pointing out weird discrepancies that didn't happen to other teams, particularly our rival.

What happened to "Recruiting rankings don't matter." This is all I heard prior to last year's NSD. Then afterwards there were some people stating they were upset, and not many would admit it even though it was true.

Once again, reading comprehension would help you immensely. I said to conclude my post:

But it's aggravating, not because the players will play any different. Benton is a stud no matter what the idiots think. But there is the perception game that gets played and this crap didn't help us.

You could have saved the wasted keystrokes if you'd pay better attention.

Two years in a row we get our a$$e$ handed to us and everyone wants to pay attention to recruiting rankings.

There wasn't any excuse for the pasting we took last year. I'm inclined to give a staff that's only been together for 6-8 weeks a little more slack. I'm actually very, very happy about this class. We snagged two of the best WR recruits we've gotten in a long time in Blake and Benton (took this one right from under LSU's nose), upgraded the speed of our WRs. I'm excited. But I'm greedy and I want it all...including the "perception" wins. I think this goofiness deprived us of that.

I understand your point is about the discrepancy, but I thought you didn't care about them? If you didn't care, why are you noticing?

I don't recall specifically saying that. I do care more about how what our coaches think than the rankings, but I know that some of these guys were rated higher before and dropped for no good reason and that bothers me. My problem is not with who our coaches got. I think they rocked it, especially given the short time together. I just think they're being shortchanged.

And I thought recruiting stars didn't match to on-field results. That's all I heard last year after Bama's NSD. Then they whooped us 9 months later onto a 12-0 record. Maybe these organizations weren't crazy after all.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. How about you put that smartalec gun back in its holster until you can aim at at someone that deserves it?

[LegalEagle 22]

If they copied each others ratings, there would be no need for but one service. Don't let stars get into your eyes - until they are stars on the college football field.

Oh how disappointing to sign 2-star Pybus at the last minute last year! He did great, and I'm sure you can find examples of other 5-star kids that haven't contributed.

[TidePride50 3]

JJ was the only signee that had even marginal bearing on Bammer's '08 season, and if he hadn't been there some upper classman would have stepped up enough to play well.

You don't think Ingram and Cody helped get us to that 12-0 record?

[autigeremt 7,542]

JJ was the only signee that had even marginal bearing on Bammer's '08 season, and if he hadn't been there some upper classman would have stepped up enough to play well.

You don't think Ingram and Cody helped get us to that 12-0 record?

Cody, YES!

Ingram.....not really. Coffee was the man behind Ingram. Coffee was the workhorse that set up Ingram. Now, Ingram is a very good player, but without that experienced OL, he would have been average at best.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

To get back to something PC's been harping on, I don't recall ever saying rankings/ratings don't matter. They obviously do or we'd see more teams with 50th ranked recruiting classes winning national titles.

What I may have said is something to the effect that rankings/ratings are not ALL that matters. And I do believe that to be true. Coaching evaluations matter (I wouldn't want them making decisions based on what Scout or Rivals thinks primarily). Coaching them up matters. Strength and conditioning matters. Handling egos matters. Getting good character kids matters. Gameday coaching matters. All this stuff goes into the mix.

So yeah, I want us to get highly rated players but it's not the only thing I hang my hat on.

I just did this thread because it seemed like a really high number of kids that were rated differently. There's always 2 or 3 guys you talk about, but this seemed excessive.

[IndyTiger 3]

JJ was the only signee that had even marginal bearing on Bammer's '08 season, and if he hadn't been there some upper classman would have stepped up enough to play well.

You don't think Ingram and Cody helped get us to that 12-0 record?

Cody, YES!

Ingram.....not really. Coffee was the man behind Ingram. Coffee was the workhorse that set up Ingram. Now, Ingram is a very good player, but without that experienced OL, he would have been average at best.

Plus Cody was JUCO so it wasn't like he was a true freshman coming in

[IndyTiger 3]

I really don't understand ESPNs ranking system. It looks like we aren't even in the top 25.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

Anyone know why Rivals dropped Coleman from a 4* to a 3* today?

[WinCrimson 61]

"Then they whooped us 9 months later onto a 12-0 record. Maybe these organizations weren't crazy after all."

Oh, c'mon, PChump! Even you should know that UAT's signees had little or nothing to do with the 12-0 regular season. It was a combination of several normally strong opponents having a down year at the same time, plus some experienced Bammer players finally maturing. JJ was the only signee that had even marginal bearing on Bammer's '08 season, and if he hadn't been there some upper classman would have stepped up enough to play well.

In addition to Cody and Ingram, true frosh Donta Hightower started at LB. Courtney Upshaw also saw a lot of action.

[RunInRed 19,630]

Demond Washington is the one I shake my head on. Some one explain to me how Scout has him as a 5-star? I've always thought Rivals does a better job with their rankings but I'm probably a bit biased...

I have a pretty simple formula myself... I look at recruit's offer list. When you are beating out the likes of UAB, Northern Illinois and Southern Miss for a recruit, he's probably not a 5-Star.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Demond Washington is the one I shake my head on. Some one explain to me how Scout has him as a 5-star? I've always thought Rivals does a better job with their rankings but I'm probably a bit biased...

I have a pretty simple formula myself... I look at recruit's offer list. When you are beating out the likes of UAB, Northern Illinois and Southern Miss for a recruit, he's probably not a 5-Star.

I don't know, but he started getting a lot of attention at the end. He went from getting offers from UAB and the like to having offers from Alabama, Tennessee, Ole Miss and Auburn overnight (and don't let the Rivals guys tell you Bama didn't offer him either. They did.)

[RunInRed 19,630]

I did not realize bama or Tennessee ever offered but I'll take your word for it.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

They withdrew them and moved on within the last week or so when Washington indicated that it was Ole Miss or Auburn period. But he had offers from both and it was listed on both Scout and Rivals at the time.

[WarTiger 4,120]

Anyone know why Rivals dropped Coleman from a 4* to a 3* today?

that's exactly what titan is talking about. Rivals has a history of doing this to auburn signees. Now, here come the uaters to tell us they don't do this, but we've seen this year after year and its always the same story. He dropped because he signed with us. Much like other players that sign with uat go up in a star. It's what they do. We'll be just fine regardless of where those uat yahoos at rivals want to rank us.

ESPN is an even bigger mystery to me. We aren't even in their top 25. Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. We signed a pretty damn good class today and are clearly at least in the top 20...

[SouthLink02 8]

I actually don't mind the rankings being different because at least there is a different set of eyes looking at players and making their own decisions.

UGA usually has a close difference between Scout/Rivals but I think 2006 saw UGA in the Top 5-6 in Rivals but like Top 15 in Scout. Was a big difference. It happens I guess

Don't think any service is bias against a team BUT I have seen interviews with Ex-Rivals writers who said a team offering a kid JUST MAY get the kid to bump in star. I also have reservations about Rivals/Scout because it always seems that they pump up the kids NOT COMMITTED while those that are committed drop...ala AJ Green last year

After I graduated from UGA, I interviewed with Rivals at their home working office in Brentwood and met all of their writers/staff. Very nice people. Saw their film room and how they operated. Didn't take it though because how little the pay was.

[AUdrew1 3]

rivals has become the finescum of recruiting. Did not a Uat graduated start rivals? i know i read somewhere today that rivals "revamped" their ranking system 2 days before national signing day to include the top 22 players instead of the long standing top 20 per class. Hence the Uat bolt to number 1 on rivals. But this does not concern us guys. Take what rivals says with a grain of salt, they are just part of the Bamzo media.

[AU Cav 0]

rivals has become the finescum of recruiting. Did not a Uat graduated start rivals? i know i read somewhere today that rivals "revamped" their ranking system 2 days before national signing day to include the top 22 players instead of the long standing top 20 per class. Hence the Uat bolt to number 1 on rivals. But this does not concern us guys. Take what rivals says with a grain of salt, they are just part of the Bamzo media.

I heard an interview with one of the Rivals guys after last NSD and when he was asked how they rated classes he said they look at the top 21-23 recruits of each class and based their rankings off of those. It is to keep people who sign 30 from always beating out schools that sign 20.

What he wouldn't say was how they determine if a school has 23 or more signees, which number in 21-23 they use. I guess they need to leave room to fudge the numbers of 'certain' schools.

[AUdrew1 3]

I guess they need to leave room to fudge the numbers of 'certain' schools.

Bingo!!!

[ECEstudentUA 9]

The discrepancies between Rivals and Scout seem to be disproportionately hurting us. For instance, we're ranked 14th on Scout right now. But look at these differences from Scout to Rivals:

Aycock, Benton, Blake, Paige and Travis are all 3-stars on Scout. Rivals has them as 4-stars

Gulley, Eguae, Sullen and Lanier are all 2-stars on Scout, Rivals has them as 3-stars

Reggie Taylor is a 2 star on Scout, Rivals has him as a 4-star.

That's a loss of 11 total stars in the ratings for Scout.

Rivals does some of the same thing though:

Fairley, Ford and Coleman are all 3-stars on Rivals, Scout has them as 4-stars

Both Demond Washington and Eltoro Freeman are 3-stars on Rivals, Scout has them as 5-stars.

That's a loss of 7 total stars on Rivals.

Even if all you did was meet in the middle on all of these we'd be Top 10 on Scout and Top 15 on Rivals. But as it is we're 14th on Scout and 18th on Rivals.

Contrast that with the amazingly little amount of downgrading that affected bammer on either site:

Ed Stinson and Kevin Norwood were 3-stars on Scout, 4-stars on Rivals

D.J. Fluker is a 4-star on Scout and a 5-star on Rivals

The other way, Quinton Dial is a 3-star on Rivals and a 4-star on Scout.

That helps them rank high on both sites (currently #3 on both).

I just don't get how there's that many discrepancies for some teams and not for others. I think it's just ridiculous that Scout had Benton as a 5-star in 2007 when he signed with LSU, but sitting out one year to get grades right makes him a 3-star. Or how Eltoro Freeman can be a 5-star on one and a 3-star on the others. That makes no sense. But it's aggravating, not because the players will play any different. Benton is a stud no matter what the idiots think. But there is the perception game that gets played and this crap didn't help us.

And what's crazy is, this is a really good class. But I think it's being undersold by arbitrary ratings goofiness that's not hurting others the same way.

Its just a stupid website. So what if they have different ideas on the players. We all know that stars are just that.....stars.......doesnt really matter if you ask me. It just rates the possibilty of a player being good at the next level. I know you know that, its just tiring to me to see this question brought up ever single year.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Its just a stupid website. So what if they have different ideas on the players. We all know that stars are just that.....stars.......doesnt really matter if you ask me. It just rates the possibilty of a player being good at the next level. I know you know that, its just tiring to me to see this question brought up ever single year.

Because as I said, it's a perception thing. I know it doesn't affect how the player actually performs, but every sportscast last night trumpets this crap and it feeds an overall view of how desirable a program is in the next year's recruits' minds. If you consistently see certain schools getting the benefit of the doubt with regard to their guys, but other school competing with them having people rated all over the map, it hurts their "prestige" if you will. And it bothers me.

[BARNER 3]

Recruiting for me is a simple way to to extend the football season before we go into a multi-month lull in relevent information. Even Spring ball is misleading (it was spring ball success that lead to our pre-season OVER ranking in '08).

UGA and LSU have great recruiting every year. And every year we're as good on the field. I am looking forward to seeing how CGC translates for us.