Impact of On3, 247, Rivals etc

[Bootleg11]

Do you think that these recruiting websites impact or have sway when it comes to kids picking a certain school? I'm thinking more on that national scale than the beat writer for a specific school.

Do you think that these recruiting websites are good for the high school players?

Do you think these recruiting websites are good for the game of college football?

 

[nja13]

To your last question....

I think the advent and popular spread of the recruiting websites have helped the rich get richer and stay rich.
These days it's easier to know who the best players are around the country and where they are going, which IMO, leads to more of the top players teaming up at the same schools, and mades a top rated guy hesitant to join a class without other top rated guys (say, like, Nebraska's 2024 class.)

It seems to me there was a lot more parity in the '90s, '80s and before, when any number of teams could put together a good season and make a run at a Natty. Now, it seems like everyone knows the four playoff teams before the season, and it's usually pretty accurate.

And also, those perennial top teams get the benefit of the doubt from the media and ratings no matter how many games they lose, and I think that's a direct result of recruiting rankings. People look at those teams as more talented -- based on high school recruiting rankings -- and think they deserve a shot over teams with similar or even better records.

IMO, they've been an overall net negative for the game.

 

[Ripping Lips]

I feel that the national recruiting sites/ranking are overrated and goes to the kids' heads and they feel compelled to commit to a premier football school. I'm unsure and guessing there are stats somewhere that has the flop percentage of the top ranked recruits which are done by 243, Rivals, and now ON3. Additionally, I'm not sure if coaches actually use these recruiting sites or just have relationships with the HS coaches and just recruit the cream of the crop.

As far as if they are good for college football, it gives fans a reason to come together and gripe about everything. It's ironic how we praise our coaches for getting a commit from a 4* kid. Then when the 4* becomes a flop, we blame he kid or the coaches. However, if a 2* kid becomes a football star, we never hold or blame the national recruiting sites for not ranking him higher. Maybe recruiting sites should rerank each class 4 years later to see if they produced or not just to give fans a reason to bitch more. But what do I know...

 

[Baron Winnebago]

I think they've largely outlived their usefulness. Pre-social media, they were the aggregation of an enormous amount of information that helped recruits get visibility from schools they might not have gotten otherwise, but now with Twitter, players can get visibility and promote themselves while starting to communicate with coaches all in one platform.

They're probably a net neutral for football because they don't matter.

Great fodder for the internet to meltdown or jerk themselves off about doe

 

[Bootleg11]

I think the advent and popular spread of the recruiting websites have helped the rich get richer and stay rich.

I wanted to type this but couldn't find the correct way to put it. Well done.

 

[Bootleg11]

To your last question....

I think the advent and popular spread of the recruiting websites have helped the rich get richer and stay rich.
These days it's easier to know who the best players are around the country and where they are going, which IMO, leads to more of the top players teaming up at the same schools, and mades a top rated guy hesitant to join a class without other top rated guys (say, like, Nebraska's 2024 class.)

It seems to me there was a lot more parity in the '90s, '80s and before, when any number of teams could put together a good season and make a run at a Natty. Now, it seems like everyone knows the four playoff teams before the season, and it's usually pretty accurate.

And also, those perennial top teams get the benefit of the doubt from the media and ratings no matter how many games they lose, and I think that's a direct result of recruiting rankings. People look at those teams as more talented -- based on high school recruiting rankings -- and think they deserve a shot over teams with similar or even better records.

IMO, they've been an overall net negative for the game.

I think this is exactly where I land.

On top of that, the guys from 247, Rivals and On3 all knew that these schools were cheating before it was legal and instead of doing any actual reporting they just pumped up those programs in how great they are at recruiting.

They do a draft every week in June on the Cover 3 podcast. QBs, WR, "OU Drill", DB, and coaches draft. All of them take all these coaches from the schools that have been using their infrastructure from their cheating days and calling them great coaches/recruiters. Are they great coaches/recruiters? They literally play on an uneven playing field.

 

[Ghost of Devaney]

Lol this thread brought back a memory from almost 20 years ago. Adrian Fiala was a close friend of my father and we were discussing recruiting services.

Adrian laughed and shared how ridiculous it was to trust the opinion of an overweight nerd to evaluate talent. 😂😂😂😂 RIP Dancing Bear ( my father’s knickname for Adrian)

 

[slattimer]

Lol this thread brought back a memory from almost 20 years ago. Adrian Fiala was a close friend of my father and we were discussing recruiting services.

Adrian laughed and shared how ridiculous it was to trust the opinion of an overweight nerd to evaluate talent. 😂😂😂😂 RIP Dancing Bear ( my father’s knickname for Adrian)

This and trust PFF grades….same analogy

 

[Pepe Silvia]

This and trust PFF grades….same analogy

about a month ago I saw that PFF was hiring so I sent in an application for shits and giggles. for football experience I listed "watch football and post on football message boards."

I was accepted to start the training program, which lasts 6-10 weeks and is unpaid. if you make it through that you earn $50/game. I'm assuming the people taking that job are literally living in their mom's basement

 

[slattimer]

about a month ago I saw that PFF was hiring so I sent in an application for shits and giggles. for football experience I listed "watch football and post on football message boards."

I was accepted to start the training program, which lasts 6-10 weeks and is unpaid. if you make it through that you earn $50/game. I'm assuming the people taking that job are literally living in their mom's basement

I did it once for shits and giggles too. It’s a joke. They send you games to basically list positions of players on the field and who they are, and you get broadcast film. Which is dog shit. And the way they have you label them makes no Fuckikg sense whatsoever. I had all 22s of the games they listed and I had “player errors”. Lol. No I didn’t you dumbfucks, I can literally see every number, every play. And that’s part of the reason their product they put out is subjective junk.

 

[nja13]

about a month ago I saw that PFF was hiring so I sent in an application for shits and giggles. for football experience I listed "watch football and post on football message boards."

I was accepted to start the training program, which lasts 6-10 weeks and is unpaid. if you make it through that you earn $50/game. I'm assuming the people taking that job are literally living in their mom's basement

Thats kind of interesting. How many games a week did they expect you to do? As many as you want?

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Thats kind of interesting. How many games a week did they expect you to do? As many as you want?

They were really vague on that. They only said it's a minimum 6 hour comment each Saturday during the season. Based on their numbers the top earning person last year would have done about 150 games for the season

 

[HuskerDocCo]

I think the advent and popular spread of the recruiting websites have helped the rich get richer and stay rich.

OHH HELL YA! We are living on our private yatchs in Greece postin ninja