bhumble
Well-known member
What? Source please.
To your point I don't think the '06 through '08 classes were ranked at all.It's based off of 247, which is not a definitive source on class strength, especially for the FCS.
They only have 14 of our 20 signings listed. Courtney Rogers, who looks like a steal, isn't listed anywhere, nor is Mac Olsen, who just flipped from Fresno.
Schools in markets that have more eyeballs are more accurately graded on there, but most FCS programs are not.
His brother Tracy is pretty well connected in the NW.I'm not convinced that Coach Ford is a great coach, but one thing that dude can do is recruit!
They beat out both Montana schools on some kids. Beat out some mountain west schools on kids....on paper it looks like a great class.
I don’t put much stock in 247 rankings
What? Source please.
Already has.Would the glacier qb bail? Where now??!
Don’t let Ryan Leaf see this or he will go on a tirade about how he is the only Montana kid ever recruited to Miami when they were “The U”.I don’t put much stock in 247 rankings. Last year they assigned 3 cat signees (Vigen, Curnow, can’t recall the 3rd) the same star ranking as Matt Ludwig who at the time, held multiple P4 offers and is likely the most highly recruited kid ever out of Montana.
I guess they didn’t take to kindly to you guys beating their ass and making them the #3 team in Idaho.
What? Source please.
Offer inflation includes more offers coming in because of the first offer which will usually cause a ranking to continually rise. It is very common for someone to get one offer and suddenly all the peers of the team that offered them now want to offer as well to not miss out.Here's a little breakdown on why star ratings are junk science.
247Sports assign star ratings to thousands of high school athletes, but their predictive value drops heavily after the elite tier. The top 200 players nationally—usually 5-stars and high 4-stars—are heavily scouted, verified at camps, and have measurables that translate to college success. Beyond that, ratings become far less reliable for several reasons:
After the top 200, the difference between a 3-star and a 2-star is minimal. Coaches trust their own evaluations because star ratings are more about exposure than guaranteed performance.
- Exposure Bias: Players outside major recruiting regions often receive lower ratings due to limited visibility, not lack of talent.
- Subjectivity: Evaluations rely on highlight reels and camp performances, which don’t always reflect game impact or future development.
- Development Curve: Physical growth, coaching, and scheme fit matter more than a star label. Many 2- and 3-star recruits become NFL starters, while some 4-stars never crack a college lineup.
- Offer Inflation: Ratings often rise after big-school offers, creating a feedback loop rather than an independent assessment.
Precisely why I added that there.Offer inflation includes more offers coming in because of the first offer which will usually cause a ranking to continually rise. It is very common for someone to get one offer and suddenly all the peers of the team that offered them now want to offer as well to not miss out.
Recruiting Journey:Already has.