Every week, PowerMizzou.com publisher Gabe DeArmond answers questions from Tiger fans in the mailbag. This format allows for a more expansive answer than a message board post. Keep your eye out each week to submit your question for the mailbag or send them to powermizzou@gmail.com. On to this week's inquiries.
Sevro au Barca asks: Football seems to be after less 4 and 5 star kids than ever. Is there a shift in strategy to focus lesser ranked kids (for lack of a better term) they have a better chance of getting than to shoot for better players they may not get?
GD: Over the last four years, here are the offer totals by Mizzou to four- and five-star players according to our database:
2017: 129
2018: 108
2019: 118
2020: 95
And we're only in June. So if Mizzou offers another fifteen four- or five-star players between now and February, that's right in line with the last three years. It's possible there's less interest from four- and five-star guys than in recent years (but I don't know that by any means). I don't think your premise is accurate.
Bear_P_I asks: Based on your experience dealing with the typical (mid-level) football recruit, how do you think the following things rank in their decision making process?Location, wins & losses, facilities, relationship with coaches, academics, parent’s feelings, uniforms, or other.It's OK, if you want to just do a "Top 3".
GD: Every kid makes his decision for a different reason. But if I had to say what's typical, here's how I'd rank things:
1) Location/prestige: Location is important for most kids. I'd bet most of the three-star type kids end up going somewhere pretty local. What can change that is the glitz that comes with an offer. Offers from Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, those types of programs are going to be able to overcome location. Most programs still tend to recruit mostly in certain areas. Only a handful of them are truly national programs where they can go just about anywhere and get a kid. Of course, most of those programs also don't end up taking a whole lot of "mid-level" recruits.
2) Relationship with coaches/players: This is very important. You're not going to spend four years with people you don't like.
3) Ability to get on the field early. Kids don't want to sit. The "mid-level" guys look at the depth chart (or at least they should). If a team just signed four guys at your position last year and three of them redshirted, I don't think you're making a smart move going there.
4) Ability to get to the NFL. I think this is overrated. If you're good enough, you get there. But I think it matters to kids and I know coaches sell it. Kids might actually put this higher on the list. They should put it lower.
cbwallace asks: Two questions:1. What quantitative metrics are used as input for a Rivals player evaluation (football)?2. If you were to post a job position description for a Rivals football analyst, what knowledge, skills, and prior experience would be required of the successful applicant?
GD: I can't tell you exactly what metrics they use. They watch film, they watch the kids in person, they talk to people. I'm sure height, weight, 40 time, all that factor in. But I don't think there's a quantitative formula for it. Here is the explanation of our rankings.
2) I'd want someone who shows a knowledge of the game and what it takes to be a successful player. I don't think they have to BE a former player. If they were, fine. If not, fine. I hate the "you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played." I never played a down of organized football in my life, but I know a lot more about the game than a lot of people who did play know.
I'd also warn that rankings are never going to be right all the time and they're mostly for entertainment.
