Recruiting rankings

[Alan Smithee_rivals156293]

Apologies if already discussed but what are your opinions on the merits of recruiting rankings?

How important is it to have recruits who were highly ranked by some of the services/websites? Anyone have an opinion on this they're willing to share?

 

[gocatsgocats]

This video has some good Northwestern players. There are mostly 4*s but some 3*s too and a rare 5* or two.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Apologies if already discussed but what are your opinions on the merits of recruiting rankings?

How important is it to have recruits who were highly ranked by some of the services/websites? Anyone have an opinion on this they're willing to share?

Guys rated 4 and 5 stars are typically heavily scouted and have a high probability of being impact players. These kids are typically more physically mature than many lower rated players, which end reduces the need to project during a time when physical changes come rapidly.

Guys rated 3 stars are typically less scouted, but some very good players will come from these ranks. On average, they have a lower probability of being impact players.

Having classes composed of 3 star kids is not the kiss of mediocrity, but don't expect a playoff slot if you cannot reel in big fish at skill positions.

Some more thoughts.

$.02.

 

[CatsDad]

Guys rated 4 and 5 stars are typically heavily scouted and have a high probability of being impact players. These kids are typically more physically mature than many lower rated players, which end reduces the need to project during a time when physical changes come rapidly.

Guys rated 3 stars are typically less scouted, but some very good players will come from these ranks. On average, they have a lower probability of being impact players.

Having classes composed of 3 star kids is not the kiss of mediocrity, but don't expect a playoff slot if you cannot reel in big fish at skill positions.

Some more thoughts.

$.02.

MSU has for years recruited nothing but 2 and 3 star players and have done a great job of winning. Now that MSU has been constantly good, their recruits get ranked higher. If you don't think that recruits who commit to high profile teams with high fans support get bumped in rankings, you don't understand the recruiting services. Watch what happens when a 2 or 3 star recruit commits to OSU. Then watch when they commit to Northwestern. The OSU commit all of a sudden becomes a 4 star while the Northwestern commit stays or drops. Rivals also promotes recruits who go to their combine. If you don't go chances are a low ranking. Jango started on the most talented team in the history of High School football. He started over 4 star recruits and he is a 3 star. So did the Coaches make a mistake or did the recruiting services? If you look at our class rankings by the services have we recruited a top 25 team? The answer is that we haven't been close to that. Then how were we a top 25 team if we never recruited a top 25 class? Film is how they judge a player. But who is the film against. Surely it is harder to play a team full of D1 recruits than a team with no D1 recruits. Be easier to have good film against crap competition. Then you go by camps. My son as a Sophomore went to the Best of the Midwest. He ran a 4.5 which was the fastest 40, he ran a 4.1 shuttle. By far the fastest times of ANY linebacker at the event. Rivals never wrote anything about it. They were interested in Nick Connor because he was OSU bound. 247 and Scout wrote on Jango and made him part of the All Best of the Midwest Team. Jango was the best cover guy and had fastest times. Nick Connor got MVP, because hyping a Sophomore is not going to keep the OSU fans as interested as hyping one of their recruits on Ohio State Boards. I have watched big recruits do absolutely terrible only to read what a great game or camp they had.
Film is very subjective. Gocats has never been thrilled with Jango film. I sat down with Coach Hank when he did an in house and asked him to be brutally honest about his film. We put it up on the big screen and went play by play. He though his film was very good. Fitz by the comments he made thought so too. The film isn't about making plays, it is about how you move and how quick and physical you are. Most the services ranking players have no clue. If they did they would be finding players for teams instead of writing for a service.
http://247sports.com/Article/BOTMW-All-Combine-Team-177906
If Nick was MVP, why aren't his times listed like Jango's. Because they were slower. How is he bumping up to a 4 star when a Sophomore just beat him at everything at the event. Jango then went to MSU camp and beat him at everything again. Nick got his 4th star, Jango stayed a 3

 

[CatsDad]

By the way the recruiting services have Anthony Walker ranked a 3 star linebacker coming out of high school. If he committed to OSU he would be a 4.Clearly they had no clue what they were doing The thing that kills me is many of the fans on this board watch underrated players every year, like Vitale and Walker, kick butt on the field. But still cry about not getting higher ranked kids.

 

[GlideCat]

MSU has for years recruited nothing but 2 and 3 star players and have done a great job of winning. Now that MSU has been constantly good, their recruits get ranked higher. If you don't think that recruits who commit to high profile teams with high fans support get bumped in rankings, you don't understand the recruiting services. Watch what happens when a 2 or 3 star recruit commits to OSU. Then watch when they commit to Northwestern. The OSU commit all of a sudden becomes a 4 star while the Northwestern commit stays or drops. Rivals also promotes recruits who go to their combine. If you don't go chances are a low ranking. Jango started on the most talented team in the history of High School football. He started over 4 star recruits and he is a 3 star. So did the Coaches make a mistake or did the recruiting services? If you look at our class rankings by the services have we recruited a top 25 team? The answer is that we haven't been close to that. Then how were we a top 25 team if we never recruited a top 25 class? Film is how they judge a player. But who is the film against. Surely it is harder to play a team full of D1 recruits than a team with no D1 recruits. Be easier to have good film against crap competition. Then you go by camps. My son as a Sophomore went to the Best of the Midwest. He ran a 4.5 which was the fastest 40, he ran a 4.1 shuttle. By far the fastest times of ANY linebacker at the event. Rivals never wrote anything about it. They were interested in Nick Connor because he was OSU bound. 247 and Scout wrote on Jango and made him part of the All Best of the Midwest Team. Jango was the best cover guy and had fastest times. Nick Connor got MVP, because hyping a Sophomore is not going to keep the OSU fans as interested as hyping one of their recruits on Ohio State Boards. I have watched big recruits do absolutely terrible only to read what a great game or camp they had.
Film is very subjective. Gocats has never been thrilled with Jango film. I sat down with Coach Hank when he did an in house and asked him to be brutally honest about his film. We put it up on the big screen and went play by play. He though his film was very good. Fitz by the comments he made thought so too. The film isn't about making plays, it is about how you move and how quick and physical you are. Most the services ranking players have no clue. If they did they would be finding players for teams instead of writing for a service.
http://247sports.com/Article/BOTMW-All-Combine-Team-177906
If Nick was MVP, why aren't his times listed like Jango's. Because they were slower. How is he bumping up to a 4 star when a Sophomore just beat him at everything at the event. Jango then went to MSU camp and beat him at everything again. Nick got his 4th star, Jango stayed a 3

Now THAT is an interesting post. Thanks for the details.

 

[Fanaticat98]

By the way the recruiting services have Anthony Walker ranked a 3 star linebacker coming out of high school. If he committed to OSU he would be a 4.Clearly they had no clue what they were doing The thing that kills me is many of the fans on this board watch underrated players every year, like Vitale and Walker, kick butt on the field. But still cry about not getting higher ranked kids.

Good points. However, I think we want consensus higher rated kids because there is a higher yield rate on them. Meaning, if you get five 4 star kids then probably 3-4 of them will truly play like a 4 star. If you get five 2-3 star kids then probably only 1-2 of them will play like a 4 star. Having more 4 star kids generally means more team depth. It doesn't discount the contributions of the outstanding 2 star kids on the team at all.

 

[CatsDad]

Good points. However, I think we want consensus higher rated kids because there is a higher yield rate on them. Meaning, if you get five 4 star kids then probably 3-4 of them will truly play like a 4 star. If you get five 2-3 star kids then probably only 1-2 of them will play like a 4 star. Having more 4 star kids generally means more team depth. It doesn't discount the contributions of the outstanding 2 star kids on the team at all.

Not necessarily. MSU mainly recruited 3 star prospects, and they were very good when they did. Now they can recruit anyone and do. If you look at linebackers Jango was ranked higher then when he committed to Northwestern. Many of the ones that he was ranked higher passed him if they committed to a large fan based team. Also 4 star recruits may be ready to play earlier than 3, the star may need development or time in the gym.

 

[Hungry Jack]

If you don't think that recruits who commit to high profile teams with high fans support get bumped in rankings, you don't understand the recruiting services...
Film is very subjective. Gocats has never been thrilled with Jango film. I sat down with Coach Hank when he did an in house and asked him to be brutally honest about his film. We put it up on the big screen and went play by play. He though his film was very good. Fitz by the comments he made thought so too. The film isn't about making plays, it is about how you move and how quick and physical you are. Most the services ranking players have no clue. If they did they would be finding players for teams instead of writing for a service....
If Nick was MVP, why aren't his times listed like Jango's. Because they were slower. How is he bumping up to a 4 star when a Sophomore just beat him at everything at the event. Jango then went to MSU camp and beat him at everything again. Nick got his 4th star, Jango stayed a 3

I am not sure where in my post I argue that players recruited by high profile teams are NOT given preferential treatment. I guess it is some kind of error of omission, rather than commission. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my post.

I won't defend the practice, but in a way it makes sense. Top tier offers are another set of data points for ratings services to consume and apply. If evaluators from the most competitive programs like a player, it is a reasonable assumption that player stands a higher probability of success.

If you actually read my linked quote about recruiting rankings, you will see my specific comments about the "mystery" of player evaluations. I offer a detailed example of our own 2* star recruit Travis Whillock and how I think the ratings process failed him much like you argue that the same process failed Jango. His ability is plainly evident on film, however sudjective it may be. He also has a sound offer list. Somehow, he remained stuck on two stars. I think he was basically overlooked and forgotten. Thankfully, not by the Cats.

I think one aspect is that players get slotted early, and then might get stuck there. Two and three star kids might not get second looks, which means that big senior jumps in performance get overlooked. Vogel is a good example.

Another issue is physical readiness. Kids rated four and five stars are almost always physically ready. Kids rated three stars require projection. You yourself have said on these forums that Jango needs a redshirt to get physically ready.

You come across as somewhat embittered by the whole process. I get it. Completely. You want the best for your son. Jango exhibits many qualities that suggest he merits a higher ranking. Just remember that the people who post here are not the enemy. We support the program, even when we are critical of it.

 

[Gladeskat]

Someone who has gone through recruiting and all the hype and BS associated with it will likely come away with a very different perspective on the process than the average fan.

 

[CatsDad]

Someone who has gone through recruiting and all the hype and BS associated with it will likely come away with a very different perspective on the process than the average fan.

You have to go through it to truly appreciate it.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

I am not sure where in my post I argue that players recruited by high profile teams are NOT given preferential treatment. I guess it is some kind of error of omission, rather than commission. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my post.

I won't defend the practice, but in a way it makes sense. Top tier offers are another set of data points for ratings services to consume and apply. If evaluators from the most competitive programs like a player, it is a reasonable assumption that player stands a higher probability of success.

If you actually read my linked quote about recruiting rankings, you will see my specific comments about the "mystery" of player evaluations. I offer a detailed example of our own 2* star recruit Travis Whillock and how I think the ratings process failed him much like you argue that the same process failed Jango. His ability is plainly evident on film, however sudjective it may be. He also has a sound offer list. Somehow, he remained stuck on two stars. I think he was basically overlooked and forgotten. Thankfully, not by the Cats.

I think one aspect is that players get slotted early, and then might get stuck there. Two and three star kids might not get second looks, which means that big senior jumps in performance get overlooked. Vogel is a good example.

Another issue is physical readiness. Kids rated four and five stars are almost always physically ready. Kids rated three stars require projection. You yourself have said on these forums that Jango needs a redshirt to get physically ready.

You come across as somewhat embittered by the whole process. I get it. Completely. You want the best for your son. Jango exhibits many qualities that suggest he merits a higher ranking. Just remember that the people who post here are not the enemy. We support the program, even when we are critical of it.

Luckily, he HAS gotten the best for his son. An NU education and a great opportunity to play B1G football.

 

[CatsDad]

I am not sure where in my post I argue that players recruited by high profile teams are NOT given preferential treatment. I guess it is some kind of error of omission, rather than commission. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my post.

I won't defend the practice, but in a way it makes sense. Top tier offers are another set of data points for ratings services to consume and apply. If evaluators from the most competitive programs like a player, it is a reasonable assumption that player stands a higher probability of success.

If you actually read my linked quote about recruiting rankings, you will see my specific comments about the "mystery" of player evaluations. I offer a detailed example of our own 2* star recruit Travis Whillock and how I think the ratings process failed him much like you argue that the same process failed Jango. His ability is plainly evident on film, however sudjective it may be. He also has a sound offer list. Somehow, he remained stuck on two stars. I think he was basically overlooked and forgotten. Thankfully, not by the Cats.

I think one aspect is that players get slotted early, and then might get stuck there. Two and three star kids might not get second looks, which means that big senior jumps in performance get overlooked. Vogel is a good example.

Another issue is physical readiness. Kids rated four and five stars are almost always physically ready. Kids rated three stars require projection. You yourself have said on these forums that Jango needs a redshirt to get physically ready.

You come across as somewhat embittered by the whole process. I get it. Completely. You want the best for your son. Jango exhibits many qualities that suggest he merits a higher ranking. Just remember that the people who post here are not the enemy. We support the program, even when we are critical of it.

Who put words in your mouth. I just gave my opinion on recruiting. Maybe when you or your son went through the process, it was a different experience for you. I probably shouldn't of put your comment on with my opinion, because my post was just what I took out of the process and what many others coming through the process felt Plus a few people who work for these companies told me. I am new to this online stuff. Hopefully you all give me a learning curve

 

[elgatoloco_rivals308553]

Who put words in your mouth. I just gave my opinion on recruiting. Maybe when you or your son went through the process, it was a different experience for you. I probably shouldn't of put your comment on with my opinion, because my post was just what I took out of the process and what many others coming through the process felt Plus a few people who work for these companies told me. I am new to this online stuff. Hopefully you all give me a learning curve

Dad, you've done very well by your son. I can only hope to offer mine the same opportunities to succeed in his given sport of soccer. The biases you describe are true in many sports and always motivated by money and politics. But a friend of mine with a long history in coaching often says the cream always rises to the top. Now's the time to enjoy the ride.

 

[della]

This video has some good Northwestern players. There are mostly 4*s but some 3*s too and a rare 5* or two.

Why would you post that?

Y'all had a great season. You spanked Stanford and won 10 games. If perfection is the minimum standard, prepare to be perfectly miserable.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

This video has some good Northwestern players. There are mostly 4*s but some 3*s too and a rare 5* or two.

I agree. The problem is that most of the 5 stars and 4 stars kicked our *** that day. We got 'pantzed".

I've never gone through recruiting but I have evidenced it on the field. Individually, sometimes a 3 star is really a 5 star, but everything is weighed out over the process of 85 scholarships and the higher the star means the more mature and kick *** a team is. Recruiting rankings matter. Look at the top 5 classes this year and we shouldn't be surprised to see that those are the programs playing in the playoffs every year.

 

[GlideCat]

Why would you post that?

Y'all had a great season. You spanked Stanford and won 10 games. If perfection is the minimum standard, prepare to be perfectly miserable.

Della: Look at the bio of the poster. The name was created 1/31/16 to mirror the name of an established poster on the board. It was a fake name and a troll post - likely but not certainly by a UT poster. They will pop up throughout the off-season. That is why everyone ignored it.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

For NU fans to live in denial and say that there is no objective evidence in recruiting rankings, is disappointing. Simply looking over the past 3 national championships and seeing OSU, Alabama, Clemson, etc, they had 3 of the top 5 recruiting classes in many of the last 4 years. We really shouldn't be surprised who is in the National Championship games as they are usually determined in the recruiting battles. Even take Tennessee. NU ran into a far superior team that smashed us to a pulp. We ought not be surprised that Tennessee had some superior recruiting. Look, the game is rigged against us. As long as we keep getting the high 2 stars and 3 stars then we will still be at least strong enough for the occasional yearly upset which is always fun. But we can say with almost certainty if we win all the stink games on our schedule and then end up on primetime against a stud program, that there is a reason why we almost always look embarrassing. It's not that our kids don't try but they just didn't live and breathe football in high school and usually lack the development of other players. The great equalizer is the 5th year. And I think that makes us competitive enough to hope. IMO, we simply cant compete in a power running game without severe offensive consequences in the passing game. We don't have enough talent to be two dimensional since a power running game is more taxing than a spread offense that dinks and dunks and pinches yards. Sorry.

In the meantime, Fitz loads up most of the talent on defense, and that almost always beats stinky teams. It's a good strategy to win against lesser teams, but I'm afraid this strategy has served up some of the more embarrassing losses in recent memory against the programs ahead of us. Again, we are good enough for the yearly upset, especially if we can bring in west coast teams and start at 11am.

 

[della]

Della: Look at the bio of the poster. The name was created 1/31/16 to mirror the name of an established poster on the board. It was a fake name and a troll post - likely but not certainly by a UT poster. They will pop up throughout the off-season. That is why everyone ignored it.

Ohhh, I see..

Everyone, but me..

I was going to offer an advanced "SECish" class in being a fan. I couldn't believe that a NU fan would post that crap.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Why would you post that?

Y'all had a great season. You spanked Stanford and won 10 games. If perfection is the minimum standard, prepare to be perfectly miserable.

That is the Memba troll. Boys Town let out early, I guess.

 

[beetlemania74]

Nice discussion, but I think the original post was meant as a joke. The OP has been around for a long time and has no doubt seen many, many discussions here about recruiting services and star ratings. At least I see the joke, that the same people make the same arguments for and against the value of star ratings year after year.

 

[FloridAlum]

Nice discussion, but I think the original post was meant as a joke. The OP has been around for a long time and has no doubt seen many, many discussions here about recruiting services and star ratings. At least I see the joke, that the same people make the same arguments for and against the value of star ratings year after year.

Of course it was a joke, and I'm sure Smithee got a kick out of all the responses.

 

[Hungry Jack]

To hell with you Smithee. I hope you get hemmarhoids.

 

[60657Cat]

You have to go through it to truly appreciate it.

I've always felt recruiting is a dirty business and I felt like I needed a shower after my involvement in it. Your son played at a pretty high profile athletic institution. Forget the NU part of it CatsDad, how did you feel about the entire process?

 

[EvanstonCat]

Not necessarily. MSU mainly recruited 3 star prospects, and they were very good when they did. Now they can recruit anyone and do. If you look at linebackers Jango was ranked higher then when he committed to Northwestern. Many of the ones that he was ranked higher passed him if they committed to a large fan based team. Also 4 star recruits may be ready to play earlier than 3, the star may need development or time in the gym.

CatsDad, you make some fair points. And no one in their right mind is going to argue against a singular case. But, then the statistics over larger populations are difficult to argue against. Over large populations, the chances of 5 stars being successful is higher than 4 stars, which are in turn higher than 3 stars, and then 2 stars. MSU was in the playoff this year. Great. I doubt they get there (top 5) every year like Bama or even dOSU without upping their talent levels. And MSU still got their asses handed to them by a team full of 4 and 5 stars. It doesn't mean 3 star or even 2 star players can't be great. We know that better than any. But, teams loaded with 2 and 3 star recruits haven't given us the type of success that we would want, and we got our asses handed to us by Tennessee who had higher rated talent overall, and I don't think that was a fluke.

I think everyone will agree the ratings and even rankings are far from perfect. But, they aren't a random walk or completely meaningless conspiracy that you seem to present them as either. I personally value much more the number and quality of offers a kid gets versus star ratings because there are a ton of very knowledgeable people who also depend on being good at what they do to earn their livelihood, including from high quality and more successful programs on the field that evaluate kids just like our staff. And if you have kids that dOSU and Bama feel are worthy of an offer, and they end up at NU, I see it as a good sign versus getting a bunch of kids that no quality power fives think worthy of an offer and would be playing for a MAC team or Illinois if they weren't playing for NU (there was a period before Fitz when we kids with that profile were the norm). Again, doesn't mean you can't succeed with players predominantly from the 3 star ranks (we know that better than anyone else) but you can't beat the odds consistently and in a sustainable way to achieve perennially competitiveness - and by that I mean for conference titles and dareIsay national championships, not six win seasons and bowls as some here would set the bar. We know that too, because look at our track record and what our 3 star classes have been able to achieve. Not quite where we want to be, methinks.

 

[BretEpic]

Not necessarily. MSU mainly recruited 3 star prospects, and they were very good when they did. Now they can recruit anyone and do. If you look at linebackers Jango was ranked higher then when he committed to Northwestern. Many of the ones that he was ranked higher passed him if they committed to a large fan based team. Also 4 star recruits may be ready to play earlier than 3, the star may need development or time in the gym.

Tuf Borland committed to OSU and fell to a three star from a four. He's one if the best linebackers out of IL in the last few years, and a far better football player at this juncture than Clifton Garrett or Nyles Morgan were when they left much more highly touted players.

That said, I agree with you still in many regards.

 

[klemman]

As Ecat mentions, Star ratings aren't an exact science, but many of the attributes that make the prospects a 4-5 are the same ones coaches are wanting. That's why there are some 4 star guys with offers mainly from mid-level P5 and non-P5 programs, and 3 Stars with a who's who of offers, however, for the most part the higher rated guys are getting the best offers from a football perspective.

As Far as how many Stars a prospect may actually have don't mean much to the coaches. So it doesn't matter to Fitzgerald if a 4 star who commits to NU becomes a 3, anymore than it matters to Meyer if a 3 Star commits to OSU and becomes a 4.

The Star thing is for the fans. I think Denardo said it best a couple of years ago on BTN when he said, "Star and class rankings are important for the programs that are in the mix for the highest rated prospects and classes. For everyone else it's about finding the guys who best fit your program and fill needs."

 

[Anon1742341819]

Team rankings are much more accurate than individual rankings. If you have a a group loaded with 4*s, a few 5*s and a sprinkling of 2*s, i guarantee you that team has a much higher % of winning than a team that averages 3.23*s per player. On the other hand, any given 3* could rise over a 5* and be an NFL player.
Have to agree that there are a number of underrated kids for a number of reasons including, injuries, age, lack of exposure, you name it. Seeing the recruiting process closer, you are now seeing the blue blood programs focusing on pipelines more than players. I find that to be very interesting and can lead to a lot more programs like NU getting some elite kids because they come from nothing programs.

 

[DaCat]

One thing that seems to get overlooked in this whole recruiting process is the different physical growth vectors of kids. Some kids are nearly fully mature by 15 or 16, whereas others don't physically mature until later. The recruiting process starts when a kid is a sophomore or junior, where they are evaluated in games, camps, etc. This process favors the man-among-boys kind of kids. In general, I would guess that the 5-stars are physically more mature and stand out at an early age -- but these kids are not guaranteed to succeed at the college level. There are so many factors to evaluating the future success of kids, including physical growth and the type of team/environment of play, and that is why the star system is inexact at best, a joke that could be abused at worst.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

One thing that seems to get overlooked in this whole recruiting process is the different physical growth vectors of kids. Some kids are nearly fully mature by 15 or 16, whereas others don't physically mature until later. The recruiting process starts when a kid is a sophomore or junior, where they are evaluated in games, camps, etc. This process favors the man-among-boys kind of kids. In general, I would guess that the 5-stars are physically more mature and stand out at an early age -- but these kids are not guaranteed to succeed at the college level. There are so many factors to evaluating the future success of kids, including physical growth and the type of team/environment of play, and that is why the star system is inexact at best, a joke that could be abused at worst.

I think the other thing that gets overlooked is the relationship that is built. What motivates the kid? How competitive is he? What goals does he have? How bad does he want to get better? I will take a kid with an edge any day of the week over a slightly more talented player that is complement. A lot of these higher ranked guys get bumped up because of potential. Look like Tarzan, play like Jane.

 

[Deeringfish]

To hell with you Smithee. I hope you get hemmarhoids.

Joke is on Smithee. It turned into a good discussion.

 

[docrugby1]

Recruiting in BB and FB is much different than in the "non-revenue" sports. Cost is less of a factor in the major sports and a potential recruit and their family have greater range of choices since money is a lesser consideration. Academics, campus life,and athletic success become more important components of the decision.

My son would have been considered a high 5* recruit in lacrosse. He was "offered" by every D1 program but finally decided between Princeton, Duke and UVA. The NCAA only allows 12.6 scholarships for a 40 man lacrosse team so this amounts to about a 1/3 scholarship

I grew up in Princeton and wanted to go to Duke so I had my preferences. My son much to his credit decided to go to UVA. He had a college fund of $200,000 and he decided to go to in state UVA .He would have received no financial aid at Princeton, 1/3 of $60,000 at Duke or 1/3 of $15,000 at UVA. My wife and I paid the remaining costs at UVA and my son used his college fund to ultimately buy a house in Wilmette. If he had chosen Princeton or Duke ,his college fund would have been gone

UVA also won 2 National Championships while he was there and he was the National player of the year in 2006. Had he gone to Duke ,he would have been embroiled in the Duke Lacrosse " Rape" Scandal.

Every student athlete and their families have to make decisions, Usually the correct decision is made whether it be for academics, athletics or money. Northwestern fans want to emphasize academics but kids may want something else

 

[DaCat]

It seems your son has a lot more wisdom than the average kid at this age. Hard to turn down Duke or Princeton. Maybe he would've been the leader that the Duke team needed to avoid the scandal and win championships.