re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th

quote:

---

See LSU, Alabama, UGA, Clemson and every other big program did not recruit Robert Nkemdiche because Rivals ranked him #1, more like the opposite.

---

Well, duh! Our staff does not value the services; they believe in their own ability to evaluate talent and are mindful of our program's unique needs in every class. My belief is the same as theirs.

quote:

---

Look at the 5 star players and see who is recruiting them. While you are blasting the services, you are also blasting the coaches.

---

My post does not blast the services, it reports the actual record they have accumulated over many years in support of the report by whodidthat of the most recent draft. Characterizing it as a "blasting" reflects your assessment of that record. True, the opinion is expressed that that record is pathetic, but being wrong 7 out of 8 times does not make me inclined to defend the services and it makes me wonder why anyone would.

quote:

---

If Rivals was wrong from ranking Russell Shepard a 5 star, then wasn't LSU's coaching staff also wronng in recruiting him? If rivals was wrong about 5* Burton Scott in 2008, then so was Nick Saban for signing.

---

To begin with no one knows what RS's senior season will yield in terms of his draft order. Your premature declaration of the service's failure is interesting though. CLM's objective regarding recruiting is entirely different from the services. CLM is not predicting the 1st round of the draft, his objective is to acquire the talent/players needed to win championships. He does not need 25 1st rounders to achieve his goal. RS helped our team win the SEC Championship last year. CLM was right to recruit him both for that on-field accomplishment and for the off-field contributions he has made to the team -- like recruiting other quality players. If we win the BCS next year, CLM would have been wildly right -- whether RS is drafted in the 1st round or not. Your conflating two entirely different standards of success/"being right" (as you put it) ignores the reality of their entirely different circumstances. Your question suggests to me that we perceive 2 different realities. Naturally, my bias tells me my reality is fact-based and yours is just a choice. It is the same difference we saw when you chose to believe in the existence of a concocted pool (the 250 prospects)and ignore the real pool from which the 1st round is always drafted (the ~3,000 players). Both are choices that define your perceived reality.

As for Saban, it is my pleasure to point out his "wrongness" in any way applicable. A search through my posts will uncover several, however, the criticisms are legitimate and do not require me to sustain a mental construct of a non-existent reality. Saban's objectives are also completely different from those of the services.

quote:

---

Sorry cheif, no one that is defending the rankings is "worshiping" them,

---

It's a figure of speech, Chief, implying faith in their accuracy. But you have defended nothing! The fact remains that 7 of 8 5*'s will not have 1st round-worthy careers. 4 of 32. Or are you saying that perennial performance requires no defense? That record justifies confidence in their evaluations? That is the crux of this discussion. If you want to defend that record, be my guest, but you have not done so yet. The historical record demonstrates the services' 5* evaluations produce precious few 1st round draft picks. 4 of 32.

quote:

---

we just understand how to view them.

---

You haven't made this case either -- for yourself, anyway -- especially if you disagree with my original conclusion:

quote:

---

They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).

---

Granting them reliability in this context is an act of faith, a choice unjustified by their past performances.