He was an OLB from Kansas that we recruited late. Ended up picking TCU, and now he is headed to Fort Scott CC. May be a guy we look at again in a year or two.
Dylan Jordan JUCO bound
- Thread starter Suhrreal
- Start date
This one never gets old with me.
He was definitely a 4 star talent but I believe grades kept Rivals from giving him that bump...expecting him to go Juco route. If he gets the grades right and wants to join next year or two...definitely snatch him up. Great speed and size for OLB and that’s straight out of high school.
So, are you saying that grades are part of the star ratings? So when we see a player who is a 2 star he really might be a 4 star if he gets better grades? Hmmm....
Yes. He doesn’t do a D1 team any good at Fort Scott. So 2 star or 5 star does them no good. Plus he’ll get re- rated as. Juco anyway.
IIRC kid has a ton of athleticism but his recruitment was late-blooming due to grades in the first place. Must have had his grades up first semester then let them slip again second.
I recall his film striking me as a potentially super high ceiling but potentially super low floor kid. He'll get a chance to show whether he's got it at Fort Scott.
Agree. But if I recall correctly, players who are identified but not evaluated are given a 2 star until they are graded. In this case, Jordan was a 2 star because he wasn’t evaluated again because no one thought he was going to qualify. Then it appeared, late in the process, he was going to qualify, a few teams joined the pursuit, but in the end he didn’t have the grades.
In addition, I've heard our local guys with the rating services state that, like it or not, a kid's offer list does affect the star rating. So when the big boys don't waste time on a kid because of risk, well that's going to pretty much seal a kids fate as a 3 star or less.
I mean of course we always hear this but on the same time, Zavier Betts? Rivals has him rated really high but many on this board thinks he’s juco bond. So please explain.
Last edited:
A while back I posted links to the various recruiting services and their methodologies. Only one even looked at the offers. They explained that offers are NOT a good way to measure because offers are self reported. For instance, it has been widely discussed on here that we have offered dozens of scholarships but not all are committable so does that make them an offer or not? After reading those articles I do not think overall, the offer list is used or is even valid.
That's pretty much what those guys were saying (and I can't remember specifically who said it). In theory, offer lists are not factored in, but they think that ultimately the powers that be let it influence them.
Look at Logan Smothers as an example. He does not have an impressive offer list but he just received a higher rating. One theory could be he does have more offers but has chosen to not disclose those. So why did he move up in the rankings then?
A couple of things. First, just because the methodology doesn't say they factor in offers doesn't mean that offers aren't factored into the methodology. In fact by saying that the number of offers and who offered affects the rating, would actually hurt the "reputation" of the evaluation team. It would be like saying here is a consensus of the top players based, in part, on who offered them.
Second, in using Smothers, it appears that you are saying that the only way to move up is based on offers. I am not sure anyone has stated that as an opinion. In correlation with my first point, if the Rivals evaluation team sees Smothers at a camp and he shows out, they can evaluate him differently than they did based on his game tape. Additionally, I do believe that who offers and how many offers they have is a factor, and with a guy like Smothers who has been commited to Nebraska for over a year, I don't know that offers factor in as much. Teams could have backed off, already had their QB committed, or like you said, since Smothers has been committed for more than a year, he doesn't disclose additional offers.
It isn't always black and white, this or that.
Doesn't that throw a huge monkey wrench into the "Blue Chip Ratio" comparisons?
If you watched Smothers' tape when we got him you could see he was potentially underrated. But sometimes you need time to prove it was the truth and not just a hot streak or a kid making hay against a few outmatched opponents.
I put on his film all set to be furious that we took some kid nobody else was after and the staff had gone off the deep end thinking they were the kings of turning sow's ear QB into silk purses but he looked like a killer on film. It left me wondering how he didn't have more offers and whether we'd be able to hang onto him.
Backstory behind this. I guess this teacher more or less told him that if he didn't get his crap together that he would end up at a Juco because of his grades and/or work ethic. Then he ripped her on Twitter after she congratulated him for committing to TCU...........................and then he ends up at a Juco. Guess his Tweet didn't age well.
Doesn't seem like the type of dude I'd like to see at NU. Hope we don't offer him out of Juco
It still doesn't make complete sense. I suppose it could be based on offers, but what I read said only one person (can't recall the name) said they took that into consideration and at that, it was minimal. That was due to the fact that offers are self reported and generally not accurate. I suppose one could take the top 100-250 and look at them and get a good idea through offers but after that it gets iffy. Then how does one weigh an "offer?" So does an offer from Alabama that is not committable the same as another that is? How does anyone know for sure? So if a player tells Rivals or the others that "yea, I have offers from Bama, Oregon, USC, Nebraska and a few others, what does that really mean? I also saw the comment about the QB from Cali we offered first and how everyone followed. Does anyone think that really happens? My guess is this kid had been on their radar for a while already. But who knows.
As far as Smothers, I just know he was bumped to a 4* but why, I am clueless. I guess it is one of those "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" things. He hasn't played a game since last fall so maybe camp and more film review. I don't know, perhaps someone else can chime in on that. Again, as I said eariler, if he didn't report offers, then who would know who offered and when? So what if he reported offers from a bunch of different places he actually did not receive, maybe did receive a letter or something - would that make a difference? Seems to me to be lots of variables in all of these equations.
On a separate note, I get a kick out of people evaluating HS film. I have watched tons of HS film and it is really hard to know what you are looking at. As a small HS staff we watched film and would see a kid who looked like a beast only to play him and find out he wasn't all that good. I have some property across the street from Kansas Wesleyan, they were one game away from the NC last year so they are pretty good. I watched pieces of a few practices and part of their spring game and I was thinking the entire time if someone watched this on film they would think many of these guys were super stars. There are always guys working out on the practice field and they look like AA's in flesh by themselves. They were quick, fast, could run like the wind, big and agile but definitely not D1 or that's where they would be, but on film they could look that way. Just saying that it takes a pretty good eye to see the small details and assign the ratings.
I don’t see Betts being Juco bound. Yes, there are a FEW that thought he had some grade issues. That’s just a few that think they remember hearing something. Frost allowing him to commit early shows his grades are either on par or close to the marks needed. If he was that low on grades where just wasn’t going to make it...Frost won’t have allowed him to commit until way later at best. So I full expect him to be on campus next summer. Have to remember, we have limited spots this year.
Yes...are you that new on here??? I thought I remember seeing you around for awhile but maybe I’m wrong. We have all seen this with several players that could have or should have been rated higher but due to grades issues and looking to be Juco bound...Rivals didn’t waist time evaluating them. And just gave them that generic 5.5 3 star or even 2 star rating.
EDITED...actually, our most recent guy was Maurice Washington. If you remember, he was rated a 3 star but was clearly a top 100 player that could have easily hit a 5 star level. Rivals didn’t get him above 3 because they assumed he’d never make it to D1....while ESPN and 24/7 had him a high 4 star and in the top 100. One clear example for you on grades keeping a player at a lower rating. Same goes for Jordan here.
Last edited:
Well, I am a long ways from "new on here" which really doesn't have anything to do with this. Here is a link to the rating services and how they arrive at their rankings. https://www.al.com/sports/2015/02/how_are_recruiting_rankings_de.html
I didn't see anything about grades being a factor. The raters would need to know a lot of information about each player to factor in grades especially as a junior when there would be no way they would know for sure. I worked in schools and had kids play college sports and grades/course work/test scores are extremely variable and subject to change.
The example of Washington actually disproves your point. He was a 3* by Rivals but ESPN and 247 had him 4*. How do you know Rivals only rated him 3* and not a 4* because of grades? The assumption is was "clearly a top 100 player" is opinion but apparently not theirs. So ESPN and 247 didn't factor grades? Surely you aren't saying he really was a 5* player?
I am still looking for the evidence, not the general opinion of feeling. I can see the kid who is a lock on not graduating, there are some of them, but a whole lot more who are iffy right up to the end and some end up in the Juco ranks after the summer. That is determined well after their rankings are made though.
Brotha...your just being bull headed. There has been a number of players that literally shows Rivals backs off on truly rating them when grades are an obvious issue. Sure, it won’t show it in their rating scales...why would they show or say that lol??? But again, there has been a number of players that were not going to make it grade wise and they assumed wouldn’t make it D1 so they didn’t waist their time and gave them a generic rating. Maurice Washington was our most recent one.
Last edited:
Agree. One thing that no one is talking about is NCaA Eligibilty clearinghouse. Players register here and schools have access to grades and test scores. If a a player jumps off the page as a stud and his best offer is the local MAC or SoCon school, you can rest assured that some of the big boys are holding off because the player has marginal grades or hasn’t put his grades/ test scores on the eligibility clearinghouse.
Is that proof? No but I know for certain that schools can verify grades and test scores if they are on the clearinghouse.
Because the blue chip ratio is based on the number of 4 and 5 star players a team has. If stars are awarded based on if certain teams offer, as you say, then obviously those certain teams will have more 4 and 5 star players, considering that their offers are integral to the recruit's star rating.
I never said the entire rating was based on an offer list.
There is a difference between a dude like Dylan Jordan not getting rated at all because his offer list doesn’t match his talent level and a dude like Smothers who was rated initially and had multiple offers and committed to Nebraska early, Only to have his rating improved based on additional evaluation or camp performance, even though his reported offer list didn’t increase.
I didn't say it was the only consideration either. I'm saying that if certain schools' offers are part of the evaluation of a recruit and considered in awarding stars, then it introduces bias into the blue chip ratio, and the team recruiting rankings for that matter.
It doesn’t even have to be certain individual teams. But if a player has 28 offers all from the top 25 programs in the country and another player has 15 offers and only 3 P5 offers from Vandy, Duke and Virginia that is a huge difference.
Show me a player that was originally rated a 4 or 5 star that only has offers from only Alabama and Iowa or Only Clemson and Indiana.
Most of the dudes that are 4 and 5 star players report multiple big time offers. This isn’t as hard as you are making it out to be.
Yes, I know about the clearing house hor colleges but that was not the question. It was with the rating services. I know there will be kids that have zero chance of getting the scores to play major college ball, there are always some of them and if the raters back off because of that and give an obiglatory 3* then that is one thing. But these ratings come out when a kid is a junior and early senior and there is no way to know where all of these kids are at. I can't see all three major rating services looking at a kids scores and downgrading them as a junior not knowing if they will get the scores or not.
I understand coaches backing off, we see it all the time. My question concerned a kid being rates lower because of grades. If they are downgraded because of grades, how/when is it done. It is convenient to say Joe Blow was really a 5* but because of grades we stole him as a 3* because we were the only school.who thought he would get the scores.
Surely you see how what I am describing answers your question. If a player is in the clearinghouse and is uber talented but doesn’t report offers from big time schools AND is an unevaluated 2 star or a low rated 3 star you can see how the rating services are downgrading him due to him not having the grades. Again, it isn’t as hard as you are making it.
It is t a “down grading” as much as it is no grading or no evaluating. They have a base score and it doesn’t change based on their perceived ability. The offers they have don’t match the level of athleticism. An offer from Ohio from the “best athlete” in Ohio but no offer from Ohio St. Player is a low 3 or high 2. Why??
Last edited:
I guess that would make sense. I think his home town is Pittsburgh KS. Fort Scott is just a stones throw to the north of there after you pass through Frontenac of course.
No, I see your point but it still does not address all of my points. The original comment was that players were downgraded because of grades or never graded because of grades. I understand the kid who everyone in the free world knows will not meet Clearinghouse guidelines. But the best player in Ohio may be an OK student, nothing great but passing as a sophomore and get rated coming into his junior year not knowing how his grades will pan out. In that case the rating services are going to evaluate the player based on their normal process and grades are not a factor. The rating service is taking a huge risk if they (not the offer list) don't rate a player because THEY think something is going on with grades. I believe, unless it is a slam dunk case, they leave that up to the coaches to decide as some will take a chance and there is always a certain amount of unknown. Again, the original basis was the lack of ratings BECAUSE of poor grades. I found this article which I found interesting. It is from a scout who outlines the process of what coaches generally are looking for. Note where grades are. Coaches will need to determine if they are a factor, not the rating service in my opinion.
In your example of the best athlete in Ohio, there is some very obvious problem there - grades or character or both but what was his rating? Was he not rated because of it? If he was not rated then he likely would not be considered the best athlete in the state. Word would get out quickly as to what is holding him back from schools and then, of course, the raters would back off, but that is after the fact. There are lots of kids the evaluators simply cannot make that call on. OK, I am done. I still maintain that the ratings are NOT based on grades or the potential of a player to qualify in most cases.
I remember when I was a principal in SW KS and a kid, his name totally escapes me, but I believe he was from Texas and was an all world RB. I kept hearing about him and I think he ended up at Garden or Butler He had extremely high ratings but it was obvious the major programs stayed away from him. As I recall, he did OK in JC and never made it to D1 for obvious reasons. His name will come to me sometime tonight.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ollege-football-recruits-are-evaluated#slide1
I know I'm going to sound like get off my lawn guy but here goes anyway...this kid is the perfect example of the issues touched on in the softball coach thread...kid felt like he was disrespected by the teach because she had the audacity to try and hold him accountable and his feelings got hurt in the process.
There’s a surprise, the coach defending another coach. I have no insight into what is going on in the softball program at Nebraska, but the coach at Michigan it is well known for not being the most player friendly. If Michigan started losing softball games like Nebraska has the last couple of years, she will be in the same position as a Revelle.