Do they and if so when do the recruiting services reevaluate their star ratings? I noticed that Malik Psalms is now high 3 stars with ESPN and Rivals. I think this a change from his original ranking. Several recruits have "high" designations for a single rating company. Do they review during and after the season or just let it go once a kid commits?

i do not know for sure but ... but yes i think they recaluate the numbers yes i noticed it just bout everyone got a bump ross is now a 4 star

6bear6;842341604 said:

---

Do they and if so when do the recruiting services reevaluate their star ratings? I noticed that Malik Psalms is now high 3 stars with ESPN and Rivals. I think this a change from his original ranking. Several recruits have "high" designations for a single rating company. Do they review during and after the season or just let it go once a kid commits?

---

multiple times throughout the recruiting cycle. initial top list, post-camp adjustments (likely what you're seeing now), then post-senior season final adjustments, etc.

247sports seems to do adjustments the most frequent

6bear6;842341604 said:

---

Do they and if so when do the recruiting services reevaluate their star ratings? I noticed that Malik Psalms is now high 3 stars with ESPN and Rivals. I think this a change from his original ranking. Several recruits have "high" designations for a single rating company. Do they review during and after the season or just let it go once a kid commits?

---

Ratings changes for individual reviewers has been shown to correlate with their internal disposition after a night of lots of beer and hard-boiled eggs.

Also kind of wondered if today's three star is a four star of 10-15 years ago? In that last period, everyone now seems to have 300+ lb. linemen, LBs averaging 240/6'3", running backs who are also track stars, among other changes. Kids are better fed and are the progeny of a generation or two of athletes from various sports. The point is of course there is nothing wrong with three stars that can't be exceeded by today's four star athlete. It's relative to the period. On the other hand, we're not losing anything by getting highly qualified three stars who can also make it at Cal.

SonOfCalVa;842341634 said:

---

Ratings changes for individual reviewers has been shown to correlate with their internal disposition after a night of lots of beer and hard-boiled eggs.

---

It also seems that if you get recruited by certain "elite" teams ($C, Alabama, etc.), you almost automatically get another star.

C6Bear;842341678 said:

---

It also seems that if you get recruited by certain "elite" teams ($C, Alabama, etc.), you almost automatically get another star.

---

Hey, the reviewers gotta earn their under-the-table salaries. We should judge the "stars" of Cal recruits by what they'd be if they'd committed to a football factory.

C6Bear;842341678 said:

---

It also seems that if you get recruited by certain "elite" teams ($C, Alabama, etc.), you almost automatically get another star.

---

that's an interesting notion that has been perpetuated for as long as recruiting service have been around. while there's some truth that certain site homers have pushed for bumps for certain players, for the most part, rating services would be hurting their own business playing favorites to certain programs over others.

there are certainly regional biases--more emphasis in the South, for example--,but post-commitment bumps for certain powerhouse programs? not a thing.

easy way to confirm: go to 247sports, go look up a prospect you think got a bump for those reasons, and look at the timeplot of their rankings over the recruiting cycle. Bama's got 3-5 guys <4*'s every season. they don't get the "bump" you're talking about.

i think a lot of our guys will get bumps because theyre not really well known but their committment to us gives them some exposure and people end up paying closer attention. i dont agree with the because someone commits somewhere they get a bump, but i do think that a commitment to a pac-12 program does give the players exposure and thats usually followed with a more thorough evaluation

gobears725;842341700 said:

---

i think a lot of our guys will get bumps because theyre not really well known but their committment to us gives them some exposure and people end up paying closer attention.

---

good point.

that may very well be the case for guys like Lonny Powell. his commitment to us may have made some take a closer look, from unrated --> 3*'s on Rivals.

beeasyed;842341690 said:

---

that's an interesting notion that has been perpetuated for as long as recruiting service have been around. while there's some truth that certain site homers have pushed for bumps for certain players, for the most part, rating services would be hurting their own business playing favorites to certain programs over others.

there are certainly regional biases--more emphasis in the South, for example--,but post-commitment bumps for certain powerhouse programs? not a thing.

easy way to confirm: go to 247sports, go look up a prospect you think got a bump for those reasons, and look at the timeplot of their rankings over the recruiting cycle. Bama's got 3-5 guys <4*'s every season. they don't get the "bump" you're talking about.

---

There has been a huge and somewhat heated discussion about this on the basketball board lately. Some argue that if a school with a top program offers or receives a verbal from a "diamond in the rough", that that brings attention to the player and that some of the services may add stars to that player, figuring that he must be good.

If this is true, I would think it would be even more true in football, where there are more diamonds in the rough (if for no other reason than there are 4-5 times the number of HS players to keep track of).

beeasyed;842341690 said:

---

that's an interesting notion that has been perpetuated for as long as recruiting service have been around. while there's some truth that certain site homers have pushed for bumps for certain players, for the most part, rating services would be hurting their own business playing favorites to certain programs over others.

there are certainly regional biases--more emphasis in the South, for example--,but post-commitment bumps for certain powerhouse programs? not a thing.

easy way to confirm: go to 247sports, go look up a prospect you think got a bump for those reasons, and look at the timeplot of their rankings over the recruiting cycle. Bama's got 3-5 guys <4*'s every season. they don't get the "bump" you're talking about.

---

It's been documented in the past that players changing commitments often also saw their star ratings increase as a result of their movement to an "elite" team. It's happened with some Cal recruits in the past who have ultimately signed elsewhere after originally verbaling at Cal. How do you go from a 3 to a 4 overnight just by changing your commitment?

C6Bear;842341814 said:

---

It's been documented in the past that players changing commitments often also saw their star ratings increase as a result of their movement to an "elite" team. It's happened with some Cal recruits in the past who have ultimately signed elsewhere after originally verbaling at Cal. How do you go from a 3 to a 4 overnight just by changing your commitment?

---

you don't.

most likely what you were seeing was post-senior season rankings adjustments coinciding with commitment changes. additionally, like Big C and gb725 pointed out, committing to a high-profile program [read: bigger customer base] forces sites to more closely evaluate the prospect. that's partially why guys like Lonny Powell and Malik Psalms got bumped up recently after their commitments to Cal. Langley's recruitment skyrocketed after getting that 1st offer from Cal, and his overall ranking actually dipped after his commitment to $C. the timing of his commitment and the dip is coincidental, not a sign of ill intent. i'm sure you can find many similar examples.

but to say that Lonny Powell would've been more highly rated to 4* BECAUSE he committed to an "elite team" doesn't hold much water.

Malik Psalms just got bumped--yet again--to 4* status on Rivals, due to his commitment to a big time football factory school...

beeasyed;842344650 said:

---

Malik Psalms just got bumped--yet again--to 4* status on Rivals, due to his commitment to a big time football factory school...

---

So they know where he's flipping? :p

socaliganbear;842344652 said:

---

So they know where he's flipping? :p

---

shhh the Crystal Ball hasn't changed its predictions for the 10th time yet...

beeasyed;842344650 said:

---

Malik Psalms just got bumped--yet again--to 4* status on Rivals, due to his commitment to a big time football factory school...

---

None of the ratees have played a single down of their last season ... ratings are very suspect.
Austin Aaron is just under a Rivals 4* rating ... will our class suddenly be "better" if he goes up a notch.

What counts, for us, is their academic ratings then their football ratings. Mediocre, uninspired students go elsewhere.
It would be interesting to see the results if academics were rated and reported and also as part of the overall ratings 'algorithms' on a separate list.

beeasyed;842341821 said:

---

you don't.

most likely what you were seeing was post-senior season rankings adjustments coinciding with commitment changes. additionally, like Big C and gb725 pointed out, committing to a high-profile program [read: bigger customer base] forces sites to more closely evaluate the prospect. that's partially why guys like Lonny Powell and Malik Psalms got bumped up recently after their commitments to Cal. Langley's recruitment skyrocketed after getting that 1st offer from Cal, and his overall ranking actually dipped after his commitment to $C. the timing of his commitment and the dip is coincidental, not a sign of ill intent. i'm sure you can find many similar examples.

but to say that Lonny Powell would've been more highly rated to 4* BECAUSE he committed to an "elite team" doesn't hold much water.

---

So what you are saying is that these recruiting services aren't very good at their jobs on the initial review and only become interested if a power 5 conference team recruits them. Literally, there have been bumps overnight with commitment changes. You can't tell me that these services acted that fast.

EVERY player doesn't automatically get a bump, but it sure helps if an elite team from a power conference recruits you.

C6Bear;842344660 said:

---

So what you are saying is that these recruiting services aren't very good at their jobs on the initial review and only become interested if a power 5 conference team recruits them. Literally, there have been bumps overnight with commitment changes. You can't tell me that these services acted that fast.

EVERY player doesn't automatically get a bump, but it sure helps if an elite team from a power conference recruits you.

---

No, you're saying that. What i implied is that they can't possibly scout every prospect in the U.S., and that certain guys are only re-evaluated--or evaluated for the 1st time--after they receive a high-profile offer, or make a commitment. ex. Lonny Powell, Malik Psalms.

I never disagreed with the point that being recruited by an elite team helps your ranking. I disagree on the point that upward ratings bumps happen solely because of a commitment to an elite team.

SonOfCalVa;842344658 said:

---

None of the ratees have played a single down of their last season ... ratings are very suspect.
Austin Aaron is just under a Rivals 4* rating ... will our class suddenly be "better" if he goes up a notch.

What counts, for us, is their academic ratings then their football ratings. Mediocre, uninspired students go elsewhere.
It would be interesting to see the results if academics were rated and reported and also as part of the overall ratings 'algorithms' on a separate list.

---

you love posing these "either/or" situations, don't you?
there are many athletically talented AND academically-inclined players out there every year, especially out West.

for some reason, you imply that people on here are clamoring for trading off scholastic aptitude for athletic ability when that isn't the case. we rightfully recruit for both. and when we don't, it usually ends up on the spectrum of "smart kid, 'underrated' ability", not on the other side of the scale.

rankings are to an extent subjective, but perceptions matter. when Cal closed strong with recruiting classes, prospects took notice. you can use the "To$h recruited bad fits" example all you want, but talented kids are drawn to other talented kids. if you land a guy like Christian Kirk, other kids in the 2016 class will want to know more about Cal and why a top100 guy chose to go there.

beeasyed;842344666 said:

---

you love posing these "either/or" situations, don't you?
there are many athletically talented AND academically-inclined players out there every year, especially out West.

for some reason, you imply that people on here are clamoring for trading off scholastic aptitude for athletic ability when that isn't the case. we rightfully recruit for both. and when we don't, it usually ends up on the spectrum of "smart kid, 'underrated' ability", not on the other side of the scale.

rankings are to an extent subjective, but perceptions matter. when Cal closed strong with recruiting classes, prospects took notice. you can use the "To$h recruited bad fits" example all you want, but talented kids are drawn to other talented kids. if you land a guy like Christian Kirk, other kids in the 2016 class will want to know more about Cal and why a top100 guy chose to go there.

---

Your assumptions about my "implications" are amusing. 'Nuf said.

SonOfCalVa;842344667 said:

---

Your assumptions about my "implications" are amusing. 'Nuf said.

---

assumptions? hardly. you've consistently told people to stop following Cal, and instead follow "football factories" when they raise issues about Cal not recruiting at the level its prominence easily affords. and when people question the recruiting abilities of the staff, you almost always say that Cal only recruits smart athletes and "dumbazz's" can go elsewhere.

but to stay on topic....class rankings unfortunately do matter some.

beeasyed;842344669 said:

---

c....class rankings unfortunately do matter some.

---

to some.

:gobears:

SonOfCalVa;842344673 said:

---

to some.

---

to some [recruits], but nice distraction!

SonOfCalVa;842344667 said:

---

Your assumptions about my "implications" are amusing. 'Nuf said.

---

Here here!

it took psalms another what 2-3 months to get a bump and if he goes to camps then it gives the recruiting services more opportunity to evaluate the player, especially since in camps, the competition is usually other top prospects, so it gives the services a chance to give a better evaluation.

then id say that its subjective too, if someone like usc recruits someone, it probably does effect the evaluators rating some because they probably think that usc knows what theyre doing since theyve recruited so many high level recruits in the past.

my last point would be to take ratings with a grain of salt. for example on rivals, not to bag on the guy too much, but Adam Gorney is heavily involved in the west coast ratings. hardly a guy that id say always looks at things entirely objectively and also hardly a guy that id say is an expert on football talent. he probably knows more than the average college football fan, but probably not anything close to a coach. so take it for what it is

gobears725;842345115 said:

---

it took psalms another what 2-3 months to get a bump and if he goes to camps then it gives the recruiting services more opportunity to evaluate the player, especially since in camps, the competition is usually other top prospects, so it gives the services a chance to give a better evaluation.

then id say that its subjective too, if someone like usc recruits someone, it probably does effect the evaluators rating some because they probably think that usc knows what theyre doing since theyve recruited so many high level recruits in the past.

my last point would be to take ratings with a grain of salt. for example on rivals, not to bag on the guy too much, but Adam Gorney is heavily involved in the west coast ratings. hardly a guy that id say always looks at things entirely objectively and also hardly a guy that id say is an expert on football talent. he probably knows more than the average college football fan, but probably not anything close to a coach. so take it for what it is

---

A definite and underappreciated skill for college football coaches is uncovering and recognizing "diamonds in the rough". There are many, many future stars/solid players who are not identified as such until their senior year of HS or beyond. It takes thorough work, good contacts and shrewd talent evaluation. I'm hoping that Dykes and staff are good at this. We'll begin to know soon enough.

beeasyed;842344669 said:

---

assumptions? hardly. you've consistently told people to stop following Cal, and instead follow "football factories" when they raise issues about Cal not recruiting at the level its prominence easily affords. and when people question the recruiting abilities of the staff, you almost always say that Cal only recruits smart athletes and "dumbazz's" can go elsewhere.

but to stay on topic....class rankings unfortunately do matter some.

---

This

SonOfCalVa;842344658 said:

---

None of the ratees have played a single down of their last season ... ratings are very suspect.
Austin Aaron is just under a Rivals 4* rating ... will our class suddenly be "better" if he goes up a notch.

What counts, for us, is their academic ratings then their football ratings. Mediocre, uninspired students go elsewhere.

Unfortunately, qualified, and highly rated players do as well