I can't sleep tonight.
I've been toying with my spreadsheet with recent recruiting classes and tried to objectively re-rate each recruit signed since 2010. I want to stick to the Scout system of 1*-5*. The idea is to see how many lived up to projected potential, evaluate recruiting success or lack thereof, and ultimately to bash on Sarkisian because that's just fun. Here is the draft rating "system" I came up with:
1*: never made it or flamed out before doing anything
2*: stayed but just a bad player unable to get on the field, or stayed a while and played poorly, then left.
3*: stayed and played but not a good player, played some at a functional level then left, or still here and undetermined
4*: stayed/staying, solid or good player or important contributor whether they should be or not (Mickens for example)
5*: All Conference caliber
There are some weaknesses in my system. It's hard to account for someone like Josh Shirley, who actually gave a couple of decent years but got the boot with eligibility still on the table. He gets 3* on my scale. It's hard to fairly rate young guys, like the bulk of the 2013 class, but that mostly results in the average being dragged toward the middle (3*) since nobody that young is likely to be All Conference at this stage and few are even going to be important contributors yet. I also have a problem with a guy like Mickens, who I believe to be just barely above terrible, being only one point below a great player like Shelton or Kikaha simply because he's been targeted a lot for strange reasons (Sark and his bubble screen obsession and Smith because he has very limited options).
So...the point of this post is to solicit input/suggestions. How would you do it?
I've been toying with my spreadsheet with recent recruiting classes and tried to objectively re-rate each recruit signed since 2010. I want to stick to the Scout system of 1*-5*. The idea is to see how many lived up to projected potential, evaluate recruiting success or lack thereof, and ultimately to bash on Sarkisian because that's just fun. Here is the draft rating "system" I came up with:
1*: never made it or flamed out before doing anything
2*: stayed but just a bad player unable to get on the field, or stayed a while and played poorly, then left.
3*: stayed and played but not a good player, played some at a functional level then left, or still here and undetermined
4*: stayed/staying, solid or good player or important contributor whether they should be or not (Mickens for example)
5*: All Conference caliber
There are some weaknesses in my system. It's hard to account for someone like Josh Shirley, who actually gave a couple of decent years but got the boot with eligibility still on the table. He gets 3* on my scale. It's hard to fairly rate young guys, like the bulk of the 2013 class, but that mostly results in the average being dragged toward the middle (3*) since nobody that young is likely to be All Conference at this stage and few are even going to be important contributors yet. I also have a problem with a guy like Mickens, who I believe to be just barely above terrible, being only one point below a great player like Shelton or Kikaha simply because he's been targeted a lot for strange reasons (Sark and his bubble screen obsession and Smith because he has very limited options).
So...the point of this post is to solicit input/suggestions. How would you do it?
