Rivals 2009 top 100 prospects [Archive]

LH Panther Mom

09-22-2008, 07:27 AM

I just came across this blog of Travis Stewart's on DCTF and thought it was pretty interesting. Go Blue.....this is kinda for you. ;)

7/9/08 BLOG
Want to put your day in perspective? Think critically about the work you do. Remove your profession from society -- will the world keep on turning?

Brain surgeons, this thought experiment is clearly not for you.

This office had a pleasant reality check yesterday when Rivals.com released its new Top 100 player rankings for the state of Texas, something nerds such as ourselves can't help but read and analyze and squabble about. But as we were reaching the mid-twenties and still dissecting players like lab frogs, the reality of the situation slowly sunk in.

What do these even mean, anyways?

What's the difference between a No. 18-ranked player and a No. 23? When a kid from the middle of nowhere leapfrogs another kid from the middle of nowhere in the standings -- without even playing a snap -- what exactly does that signify? Has he been eating his Wheaties? Should a player be honored to move from No. 81 all the way to, say, 45? In reality, what's the difference? He's not any better on July 8th than he was on July 7th.

As much as we snobby sports journalists like to disparage the wide world of pseudo sciences, is that not essentially what we're practicing? We've been asked to measure the immeasurable, and so we tackle that impossible task with meaningless formulas and oft-inflated 40 times in the name of Knowledge and Analysis. Boo on us.

Things like a Top 100 list can be very helpful when used in the right context, obviously. It's a great tool to use as a broad lens to analyze the state; if a player is mentioned in one, he's probably very good, but if he's not, it certainly doesn't mean he's bad. Does that make sense? In other words, being ranked No. 33 is impressive and worthy of great praise -- if you're in the conversation for Top 100, you're doing quite well -- but NOT seeing your name isn't necessarily an indictment. You could be No. 5,432 or No. 101. You just don't know.

The point here is that we can't get too hot and bothered with these silly things, especially as fans of college institutions. If a guy committed to Institution of A gets suddenly moved below a guy headed to XYZ College, that really doesn't mean much of anything at all. A week ago, he was better, yet now he's not? Curious. Besides, once you get out of the Top 25 or so, players that accept BCS-school scholarships start appearing out of nowhere -- I won't name any names, but some of the people on the new Top 100 are only there because a recruiting analyst got panicky when he realized he had never heard of a kid that some big-name school had offered. Where I'm from, we call that a knee-jerk reaction.

Good players don't have to go to good schools, you know. It's not destiny. Nor do good schools have to offer good players. As it turns out, a lot of times they don't, which is exactly why we're finding so many flameouts in our LB High series -- kids that aren't "Top 100 quality" get a BCS offer for whatever reason, their recruiting hype grows exponentially and then, as should only be expected, their true talent doesn't live up to the monstrous expectations placed upon it. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Still, it is what it is. We live in an age that celebrates comparison and expert analysis, so, as consumers, we can both recognize the hypocrisy of lists like these yet still eagerly await their arrival. It's how we form off-season bragging rights, how we shape our hopes and dreams for the future and how we treat our well-documented addiction to, in all honesty, the most trivial of pursuits.

It's ok. I didn't want to be a brain surgeon anyways.

link - about 1/4 down (http://www.texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=1705)