Do they factor in whether a recruit is an early enrollee at all?

Obviously it shouldn't make a 3 star a 5 star (or even 4), but having that extra semester is definitely valuable.

If a guy is a 3 star who will only like get significant playing time his jr and sr year does an extra five months matter?

If that were the case, jucos would be rated higher due to experience. They evaluate based on talent and expected impact on the varsity squad; 3s are the average guys expected to contribute a certain, average amount; 4s are the impact guys who can make All-American; 5s are the guys expected to compete for a spot in the College Football Hall of Fame and/or make the first round of the NFL draft and/or compete for Heisman trophies (the best of the best).

That 5 star players flame out so often is an indictment on the failure of recruiting services to properly evaluate a kid's desire, drive, and ability to grow from where he is (many of them rate based on their high school prowess, not realizing or taking into account they may have hit their ceiling). With respect to early enrollees, however, it just means they get a couple extra months in training.

Mtn_Guide said:

---

If a guy is a 3 star who will only like get significant playing time his jr and sr year does an extra five months matter?

---

It's not going to mean the difference between making a kid go from a role player to a first day draft pick/All American, but there is absolutely value there. So many kids play their best football during their senior year that I absolutely believe another 5 months of being under elite coaches with proper training and nutrition matters.

Plus, it's not all about peak potential as a senior. Kids who come in early can make a contribution earlier in their career even if it's just in the form a few plays a game and depth for a team. Maybe it means a kid will be ready to be a solid back up/rotational player one year sooner as a RS Freshman or RS Sophmore.

• No, your comparison to JUCO doesn't make sense. JUCO players have less time to make an impact on campus in 2-3 years. You don't know much about the quality of their past experience at JUCO any more than quality of HS experience. There is a massive difference between 6 months experience/time at a Power 5 university like a&m with elite coaching, physical training, and nutrition compared to a junior college. Plus you're evaluating recruits after they have already received the experience in the JUCO case vs future experience.
• "They evaluate based on talent and expected impact on the varsity squad"...And my point is that the additional 5 months of experience that do not count against a recruit's eligibility can increase their expected impact on a varsity squad. Even more importantly than how good they'll be as a senior, the extra 5 months can greatly increase their probability of contributing early in their career. For a 3 star, maybe the extra 5 months allows them to be a solid back up/rotation player by their RS-FR or RS-SO year when they otherwise would have taken another year. For a 4 or 5 star blue chip, maybe they'll be ready to start in year one or at least year two rather than just being a rotation player their first year.
• As for your second paragraph ripping the recruiting services. Sure, some 5 stars flame out and some 2 stars become All Americans, but rankings do correlate very highly with on field success.

No. They do not.

No

Eot

@Bone:

1) Time to make an impact is irrelevant. Simple expected contribution is what matters. A 3 is a 3, he is expected to be a roleplayer. A 5 is expected to be an All-Star. Live game experience at the juco level is superior to five months of training camp. Your question was in reference to whether the extra training matters to services, which it doesn't. Since juco players get two years of game time and weight training, you would think it matters, but it doesn't.

2) You asked if it mattered to services, which it doesn't, as people have pointed out. You started an argument that is wholly irrelevant. I don't know why you want to win this, it is what it is. Pissing and moaning about it won't change the system, we don't work for the services.

3) I wasn't ripping the services per se, I agree with your assessment that stars usually matter. I've said it many, many times before. You've twisted my words into something I did not say. The services do fail often, but stars correlate to success. Those are simple facts. I am nothing if not honest.

The fact that no one here is backing you up should say something. Concede, sir.