Which Recruiting Guru's are losing credibility

They call it Rivals 100, and The Insiders, and then there are several breakdowns into individual recruiting sites. Some schools like Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and others are on the phone with them constantly and who only knows who is helping whom. Are the coaches getting names from the guru's or are the guru's simply finding out who each school is recruiting so they can "update" their lists. You'd be surprised.

Look at most guru recruiting lists, and then see how many times those lists are updated after the season is over. I also cannot overemphasize the importance in a player's junior year that is critical to being among the rated. What is so amazing, is that even after an athlete has put down his high school cleats for the last time, depending on who might start recruiting him, he seems to become a better prospect, at least on paper known as a recruiting list.

A prime example here would be the running back from San Antonio Taft, Robert Merrill. Robert came out of nowhere from a junior season where he was injured and unable to finish the season. None of the gurus, evidently noticed the healthy 8.95 yards per carry he averaged before his injury, and noted it for 2001. This past fall, Robert picked up where he left off, rushed for nearly 1800 yards and led his team to the state championship game. You ask the gurus, and they simply state they just don't have the time or facilities to keep up with everyone. My point exactly. Robert wound up signing with TCU.

Another curious factor is the "ratings slip." Most of these recruiting services rate the players with stars. Wanting to be totally fair, let's use the ratings of this site as an example. Now, if they discover a college like the University of Texas is recruiting a player, the service decides that if the player is being recruited by them, then he must be special, and thus endow him with stars. Now, on the other hand, if they find out Texas is not recruiting him, then he, evidently, becomes suspect. Let's take, for example, Paul Mosely. Now, here is a kid from Austin Anderson, right in the backyard of the premier state college. Mosley domintated teams in Central Texas in 2001, rushing for 2,338 yards on 259 carries with 30 touchdowns, and by the way, he only fumbled once. That is 9 yards-a-pop. There is little doubt that had Texas decided to recruit this kid, he would have had the maximum number of stars, five afforded to the top talent in the state, but he only got four. However, if you look closely, he is the top-rated running back in the state, being the very first listed from the state of Texas. A prime example to illustrate what I am talking about is how so few of these ever sign with a SFA, Sam Houston, McNeese, SMU, Rice, or other schools not deemed as talent-rich like these other schools. Are we to believe that none of these schools ever get the top players from the lists the first time around?

On Bobby Burton's recruiting show, about a week before signing day, he spoke of Mosley and said that he was an extremely large running back who could even be moved to linebacker at the next level. Now, I don't know about you, but if I get a guy averaging 9 yards a pop, I want him running over linebackers, not being one.

Which brings me to my point, and it is in the form of a simple question addressed to all recruiting gurus. Now, before I ask, let me also state that there are some of the so-called "recruiting gurus" who actually see film on everyone they rate, and do an extensive evaluation on them. For them, well, they will all have the same answer for the question. What do you, Mr. Recruiting Guru, use to rate the players on your recruiting lists and what percentages are based on personal evaluations, comments from division one coaches, or other means? Break it down for us so we can decide whether or not you are providing a service, or are simply being entertaining to the majority of your fan base.

Bears Illustrated Top Stories