JCG posted:2019Dad posted:JCG posted:Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?
Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.
10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect 9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect 8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect 7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII 6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect 5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect 4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect 3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect 2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect 1 -- No prospect at this time I think it's better. The PG scale doesn't try to correlate levels of HS ability to the scale, which is where the Stanford scale gets really loopy. It also notes differences in levels of Juco and D3 ball, which Stanford does not do. And that's appropriate.
Stanford's first mention of Juco is here:
4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future
C'mon. There is a Juco team near us that could beat many if not most D1 teams, and there are other Juco teams nearby that couldn't beat a really good HS team. An "average" HS player would get cut from the first team in the fall, and would ride pine on the others.
The main problem with Stanford is that it's a scale that seems to be meant to let the families of lesser players down gently, and in the process may be giving them more hope than is warranted.
Fair enough. I agree the evaluation of what is average or above average, etc. at the HS level muddies things. But I guess I don't see it too differently from someone going to a PG showcase, getting a 7.0 rating and seeing that it means they are a "D1 prospect" and a "potential low round pick" to boot! 