Quote:What’s in the stars?
Ranking recruiting classes hardly a science
RYAN DIVISH; ryan.divish@thenewstribune.com
Published: January 27th, 2008 01:00 AM

If you view the college football world through the optimistic purple-and-gold tint of University of Washington glasses, a bright future looms in the distance.

Yes, a 4-9 record in 2007 was disappointing, ending as it did with a stomach-punch loss to Washington State in the Apple Cup and a head-scratching meltdown at Hawaii.

But there is hope.

It’s the promise of a new and more talent-laden future.

The optimism stems from college football’s second season — the all-important recruiting season. In this season, the Huskies are considered one of the best.

According to most recruiting Web sites and analysts, UW’s slew of oral commitments for 2008 gives it one of the better recruiting classes in the country.

And while coach Tyrone Willingham and his squad would much rather be ranked for on-the-field accomplishments, a victory in recruiting is a victory.

Still, the question lingers: Does having a top-rated recruiting class promise future success? Or are the rankings just another set of opinion-based lists in an Internet world with no end of such lists?

THE RANKINGS

This is where it gets confusing. According to Scout.com’s SuperPrep site, the Huskies’ class of 27 oral commitments ranks eighth in the country, ahead of such powers as Texas and Southern California. Meanwhile, ESPN-affiliated Scouts Inc., not to be confused with Scout.com, has the Huskies rated just out of the top 25. Over at Rivals.com, yet another recruiting site, Washington ranks 23rd.

It raises two questions: How can that be? And which is right?

The first answer is that the rankings are based on opinion. And that kind of answers the second question.

Scout.com uses a complex computer program to generate its rankings. The equation takes into account several factors, including the star rating given to each player by its recruiting analysts, including national analyst and SuperPrep magazine founder Allen Wallace.

“I really don’t even know all that goes into the formula,” Wallace said.

Rivals uses a formula that relies heavily on the number of five- and four-star players a team lands.

But here’s where it gets interesting. According to Scout.com, Lakes High’s Kavario Middleton, the state’s top recruit and the jewel of UW’s incoming class, is a five-star player. But Rivals rates him as a four-star player.

What gives?

“You get 10 or 15 guys from Scout.com talking about players, and you’ll get maybe a handful to completely agree on one player,” Wallace said. “Most people are smart enough to realize that people have their own opinions and they are going to be different.”

And not all five- or four-star recruits are created equal. Need an example?

Jake Locker and J.R. Hasty were considered four-star recruits by Scout.com and Rivals.com.

Do football purists put much stock in the opinions of recruiting analysts?

“It comes down to the person doing the rankings,” Greg Barton said. “When you look at all these sites out there, there are some credible people, but there’s a lot of people that never played the game, never coached the game and are just pulling this information out of the sky.”

That frustration also is felt by high school coaches.

“It’s just one person’s opinion,” Lakes coach Dave Miller said. “I think the whole thing is more for the fans who want to have something to talk about in the offseason.”

Even college coaches put little stock in them, though a top-rated class sounds good to fans and boosters.

“I remember years where I recruited my butt off and we didn’t get high rankings and other years where I thought we got our butt kicked in recruiting and were ranked high,” said former Huskies recruiting coordinator and assistant coach Dick Baird. “So who knows?”

THE UNCERTAINTY

Washington’s class of 27 includes 14 players from out of state. Middleton is the most heralded. But that’s the extent of the knowledge. Even ostensibly objective measurements such as heights, weights, 40-yard dash times and strength are not certain.

“It’s never definite till you get him there and check for yourself,” Baird said. “A kids says he’s 6-5 and really he’s on 6-31/2. You don’t know how fast they run till you see with your own watch.”

But it’s more than that.

Despite all the superlatives, football recruits are still at their core first-year college students and wildly unpredictable. Factor in performing under the high stress of Division I athletics and it becomes even less predictable.

“Ninety percent of college freshmen want to leave in the first week,” Barton said. “It’s their first time away from home. They hate the food, they hate their roommate, they miss their family. Why would a football player be any different?”

He wouldn’t.

“A lot of this is a crapshoot, let’s face it,” Wallace said. “In every aspect of life, you don’t have the ability to pick who’s going to be good and who isn’t.”

Wallace said homesickness, academics, issues with coaches, injuries and off-field troubles all can derail a recruit’s potential. That’s not even taking into account the football issues.

“Just because a 17- or 18-year-old kid demonstrates a certain ability at a certain point, to try and predict exactly what he’s going to be like at 21 or 22 years old is impossible,” Wallace said.

It’s why few, if any, recruiting classes see every member make it to the field or through four years of school.

“Attrition,” Baird called it. “If you have a class of 25, you’ll lose one-fifth of the class to attrition for any number of reasons.”

Sometimes it’s more than one-fifth, sometimes less.

“That’s why recruiting rankings in the end mean nothing and are hard to justify in hindsight because of all those factors,” Wallace said.

Case in point: Ballard’s Keauntea Bankhead, a prized four-star recruit from the Class of 2004, never put on a Huskies jersey because of academic deficiencies.

Touted receiver Craig Chambers, a four-star receiver in 2003, left Washington for Montana after winding up in Willingham’s doghouse.

“I can make predictions like anybody else; it doesn’t mean they’re going to right,” Wallace said. “We don’t have crystal balls. All we can do is a lot of homework and try to bring together a consensus opinion on a kid.”

So even with all the scouting, the research, the conversations, it can still be nothing more than a gamble.

“It’s a crapshoot, it really is,” Baird said.

THE RESULTS

So will this highly ranked class translate to success for the Huskies?

The answer remains to be seen.

“You look at in terms of size and athleticism, it looks promising,” Barton said. “It comes down to whether they can play football.”

Indeed, the 2001 class featuring Lakes receiver Reggie Williams was rated fourth by SuperPrep. But over the next four years, Washington’s records were 7-6, 6-6, 1-10 and 2-9.

So perhaps the success rests in the hands of Willingham and his staff.

“The vast majority of recruits are similar in ability and talent,” Wallace said. “It’s how the coaches the develop them.”

And it all needs to be taken with a football-sized grain of salt.

“It’s wonderful for the program,” Baird said. “But it’s meaningless.”

Meaningless?

“I’ve seen programs who get the so-called No. 1 recruiting class one year, and five years later they’re all looking for new jobs,” Baird said.

Ryan Divish: 253-597-8483