Player Rating -> College Potential

quote:

Originally posted by CoachVictory:
PopTime,

I'm confused.
I believe you said that your son attended 3 PG showcases and PG was integral in his being recruited but you don't think that PG's opinion should have anything to do with our college search??

You can do with it whatever you want CV. What I meant was that PG played an integral part in my son's recruitment from an exposure standpoint. I didn't use their rating(s) to target schools.

Thanks PopTime,

I'm kinda hijacking this thread a bit but.... How did PG help with exposure? Did colleges find your son simply by virtue of being in the PG system?

Thanks again,
CV

Here is how PG helps with exposure.

You go to a PG event.

You play against some of the best competition in the country.

There are a bazillion college and pro scouts - as well as PG personnel - at the event.

You play - they see you.

You are now exposed. For better or worse.

CV,

Not sure this will help make any sense, but we grade more players as DI caliber than there are DI spots available.

This means we think there are lots of players capable of playing at that level, but not enough places for all of them.

The most important thing outside of a good education is that a player has the opportunity to continue his baseball career at some level. That allows for the possibility of continuing baseball after college if that is the dream.

More often than not the thing colleges most often list about their recruits are things like national rankings or accomplishments at big events.

Here are some links from top DI colleges, from various parts of the country, that might give some clues to all of this stuff. Best of luck to your son.

Notre Dame

Clemson

UCLA

Florida State

Texas Christian (TCU)

Georgia Tech

quote:

Not sure this will help make any sense, but we grade more players as DI caliber than there are DI spots available

PG, that's interesting. Mix in the fact that there are less than a full allotment of D-1 roster spots available because there are players sitting on D-1 benches that are NOT D-1 caliber players AND players that DIDN'T attend a PG showcase and it becomes more apparent that the gap could widen between the PG rated D-1 player and the actual D-1 player. Do you have any idea what percent of players that PG evaluates as D-1 that actually attend D-1? Of course there will be parents of players of other divisions (JUCO - DII etc.) that will make a case (right or wrong) that PG evaluations were accurate with their son(s) because their sons are D-1 material but they chose another division for reasons OTHER than baseball. Again, that's an interesting revelation.
Fungo

quote:

by PG: Not sure this will help make any sense, but we grade more players as DI caliber than there are DI spots available

sure, it makes perfect sense

the facts bear out that despite the wealth of knowledge today's players/parents are armed with via this site & others ... the articles, interviews, recruiting timeline, etc -
the recruiting process is (still) driven by the college coach's preferences & needs, period -
NOT the savy of the parents.

time after time feedback on this board continues to show little or NO relationship of the player's original top choices (targets) to where he ended up playing.

I do feel the knowledge is valuable as it gives you a feeling of control in a situation where you have no control, and it gives ya some busy work (letters, questionaires, videos, etc.) to keep your sanity intact as the process unfolds all by itself -

jmho

ps - the single action that affects the entire process would be playing in front of a coach looking for a player like YOU

hope that makes sense

quote:

by fungo: there are players sitting on D-1 benches that are NOT D-1 caliber players

now you're thinking tooo much

Q- what's the player riding the pine at Yankee Stadium called?

A- a major league player

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
jmho

ps - the single action that affects the entire process would be playing in front of a coach looking for a player like YOU

hope that makes sense

Agree 100%. A player with the grades, ability, desire and means will almost never be recruited until the recruiting guy sees him play, maybe more than once.

Not trying to hijack but there is a good article in Baseball America for subscribers, btw, regarding the very likelihood of overall academic standards for NCAA college baseball players being raised via the APR, Academic Progress Requirement.

Given the shorter season, timewise cramming games into a shoter period resulting in more games per week and the APR, the average college player will be brighter, teams will be smaller, at least in the fall, recruiting classes smaller, all probably tilting balance toward private schools.

quote:
by fungo: there are players sitting on D-1 benches that are NOT D-1 caliber players


True! And there are even more DI caliber players who went to smaller colleges or Jucos.

There are many reasons why this happens, including…

Being undiscovered
No DI offer
Academics
Location
Not willing to set on DI bench
Desire to play right away
Good recruiting by the small college
To stay draft eligible (juco)
Financial reasons
Scholarship offer
Coaching
Comfort level
And other reasons

One year in our home state… at the time there were 3 DI colleges… The top four players/prospects were small college players. Two ended up playing in the Major Leagues and one AAA. Obviously they were DI caliber players.

I know this is a small sampling, but it really does happen more than people realize. There are not enough DI spots for all DI potential players. Talent does not end at any certain number... DI positions do! There are lots of MLB caliber players in the minor leagues, but only so many MLB positions. There are many players turned in for the draft who go undrafted. (only so many draft spots).

quote:

remember -
you choosing THEM is totally irrelevant (no matter what rating you have) ...
unless THEY FIRST CHOOSE YOU

at this stage of the process your list should be - colleges you'd like to attend

later on that list will change to - colleges showing interest in you

later yet the list changes to - colleges that want you

if you're lucky some colleges on list #1 will be on list #3, but don't be surprised if it's completely different

Bee>....

This pretty much mirrored the way it worked out for our son! IF, and I emphasize "if," our son had a more projectible, physical size, things would have been different. But, as a result of going to these events, talking, watching, and learning, for various coaches, scouts, and event organizers, we figured out how the 'landscape' of college baseball worked. Our son is very happy with his decision and knows he will play in college at a great university.

"Here is how PG helps with exposure.

You go to a PG event.

You play against some of the best competition in the country.

There are a bazillion college and pro scouts - as well as PG personnel - at the event.

You play - they see you.

You are now exposed. For better or worse."

--------------------------

I guess my son will need to attend a larger PG showcase then. If there were a bazillion scouts at the showcase we were at then they were pretty well hidden.

Coach, I think you should separate showcases and tournaments, and the effects each have.

The showcases identify players and the tools they bring to the table. The games at the showcases allow for a venue to show those tools. Different PG showcases have different levels of scouts in attendance.

Your son went to a State showcase, which kind of gets him in the system and identifies him. Also, the guys who run the events are in constant contact with college coaches who inquire about who may be available to fill a certain need.

A larger event like the PG Northeast Showcase brings a very good level of scouts. Go to the PG site (or PG Northeast) and look at the scouts in attendance at the NE Top Prospects event. They were there. They were visible. And, there were new kids identified and signed from that event.

Now, the next level is the WWBA tournaments. Those games are generally crawling with scouts because they bring the top players throughout the country to one area.

Thanks Wayback,

We plan on going to the Northeast Underclass showcase in August. Any idea how useful the "Sunshine" showcases are?

Thanks,
CV

I have been told that top players from the Sunshine showcases are invited to participate in the National Showcase, which is attended by hundreds of scouts.

I'm a big fan of the Northeast in Wareham. Last year was the first year for the NE Sunshine, so I can't speak for that. Wareham brings a remarkable number of scouts from all levels and a wide geographic area.

Check out the list: http://www.perfectgame.org/Northeast/news/06_08_29_ne_top_colleges_scouts.aspx

By my son's senior year (summer before), we knew many of the scouts from recruiting, camps, tourney, etc. They were in Wareham. I saw them. Son talked to them. It was real. Schools from Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virgina, Maryland, and on and on. D1, D2, D3, etc.

I think Wareham is the biggest event in the Northeast. And, I know they are looking to have it make a splash by bringing in National level kids which will draw recruiters for all to benefit from. Look at the list of kids who atended last year (Dietrich for example)...some from out of NE, but attended anyway. That tells you something.

Aside from the invitation only events (PG National, AFLAC...or, outside of PG---Tourney of Stars, East Coast Pro, Area Codes), I would attend World Showcase and PG Northeast. Problem for you and World is timing...it is in January. Wareham is August and sets the table for fall recruiting calender. Then follow that up by getting on a roster for the WWBA in Jupiter for October. If you can start earlier by getting on WWBA team for July event in East Cobb, then all the better.

So, if I were a junior from the Northeast...my goals now would be East Cobb WWBA, Wareham (PG Northeast) and Jupiter WWBA. That would give 2 tourneys and a big showcase.

Thanks wayback (love your redsox image BTW),

Does my son have to be invited by PG to attend the Northeast Top Prospect? If so, do you think a 7.5 rating at the state showcase warrants an invite?
I have heard the the Northeast Top Prospect is well attended. It sounds like a great time.

Thanks again,
CV

I can't speak for PG.

But, my guess is he will get an invite. You can also request invite via PG's website. Right now, the link is not there. I believe their process is that they send out invites, then activate link to complete filling spots. Otherwise, contact Dan or Mike via the PG Northeast web page.

I gotta tell you, I will miss these times. Hopefully, Wayback, Jr will continue playing for many more years, and we'll just move on to the next stage. But, this is great stuff. We checked the schedule for the school he'll be moving on to. We've identifed players (or committed players) on almost every opponent's team. He has friends from all these events and he'll be playing against them in college. Gonna be fun!

Call me paranoid - but some of the questions here are beginning to seem less like questions and more like well crafted "back door slams" on PG - IMO.

Hi iitg,

I hope you don't think I am back door slamming PG.
Everything I have seen/heard about PG has been good. Our experience at the showcase was great and the feedback was timely. Son and I look forward to attending a couple more PG Showcases/Tournaments to get more exposure (as wayback suggested).

Thanks,
CV

I have read some good comments and opinions about PG here and thought I would add my 2 cents.

My 2008 son is a RHP and attended a PG state showcase last summer, prior to his junior year of HS. We decided to attend prior to his junior year rather than prior to his senior year so he would know what he needed to work on to get where he wants to go. It was a good experience for him. It was run by professional knowlegable people and run well.

My son and I got out of it just what we hoped to. He was able to see where he stood compared to players form the general area and of the same age or older.

My son was rated a 6.5. To date he has recieved Letters/Questionaires form 4 colleges, 2-D1's, 1-D2, and 1-D3. The D1's are certainly not top programs in the country but none the less they are D1's. We believe the letters he got are the results of showcases other than the PG one that he attended, based on the shcools in attendance at the other showcases.

The bottom line is; PG did for us just what we wanted them to do. They gave my son some idea of where he stands. He knows what he needs to do, and what to work on to get where he wants to go. Plus his name and pic are on PG's web site for us to use as a reference.

PG does a great job. Its not necessarily about the ranking the player gets. If a coach sees him play and likes what he sees, the player will get contacted.

For us its all about exposure.

I have been to the PG showcases and yes kids do get low grades I have also seen some kids at these showcases who I rate as one of the best get a 7.5 and a player who was a local kid who I rated at a 6 get an 8.5
The PG showcases are good for you to see how your child fairs against players from other areas and they do get scouted. with that said some of the PG and other showcases are better to attend then others.
You will get a profile and a video and get put on the website so you can see how you compare but
knowing which showcases have the most scouts and colleges attending are the harder one to get into
but they are a good gauge to start
Baseball America and a lot of College and pro scouts swear by the PG and baseball america profile and if you look up the past players getting scholarships and drafted most players have attended 2-3 showcases and are listed on both sites as the top players of their year Hope this helps.
ZMAN

Before I say this, I feel compelled to offer an apology, and to further qualify what I'm going to offer with the statement that I have NO direct experience with PG...my son never attended one of their personal showcase events. Also, from following this site for the last several years, I will attest to the fact that PGStaff is among the most considerate, considered, and knowledgeable of it's members.

Now, having prefaced my comments with what I hope are appropriate apologies and qualifications, I offer the following observation(s):

I have reviewed with interest the PG "rating" of those players in our area who HAVE attended certain PG showcase events and had their ratings posted, most of whom I've seen play for years. I think the ratings are generally good RELATIVE assesments of their ability, in other words, the better/more promising players have received the higher ratings. That said, I don't think one should take the various DEFINITIONS PG offers for those ratings literally. IMHO, the AVERAGE rating seems to be 7.0-7.5 for attendees, with none at/below 6.0. Now, one could argue that weak players (at/below 6.0) aren't likely to attend these events and I might tend to agree, but many of the 7.0 or 7.5 players simpy don't match the definitions associated with those scores. Accordingly, IMHO, the definitions are, or can be, misleading, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

PG may well be offering a valuable service for a fair price, but I suspect it wouldn't be good for business to offer an insulting (or, even, unflattering) assessment to a paying customer. I would respectfully suggest that rather than focusing on the corresponding definition for one's numerical PG rating (e.g., on which round your player should be drafted, or which level of college recruiters should be showing up at your door), you'd be better served by comparing, in relative terms, your player's numerical PG rating to other players you/he know well.

Again, my apologies to PGStaff and/or any other effected individuals/concerns.

I tell you where PG helps more than anything else in my view....the confirm the thinking of the recruiting coach.....

If the coach thinks from his 20 page notes that this kid is pretty good, and PG says he's pretty good....then 1+1=2

This is important for mid level players like my son, moreso than the super stud everybody knows is great.

Kb2610,

No apologies needed. I appreciate people who give their honest opinion in a polite manner. There is nothing you’ve written that is offensive to me and much of it is actually true and makes sense.

FWIW, We do tend to give players the highest possible grade based on how we perceive their potential. When someone receives a 7 it does not mean that at this instant he is…
7 -- Potential low round pick, or DI prospect or top level Juco, DII

It means he has the POTENTIAL to accomplish that. I do believe that college recruiters and pro scouts have a better understanding of our system than most people do.

Our goal is never to harm a player (though many would disagree), our goal is to always help players if possible! At the same time we must stay honest or no one will follow our stuff.

We are going to redefine our grading scale this year. But in every case… We would much rather over rate a player than under rate him. We could be wrong either way, so why be wrong in a way that might actually hurt a player.

Is this misleading?

Depends on how you look at it and we have graded players below 6. Most of our complaints come from people who think we have graded their son too low. Not once have we ever had a college coach or MLB scout complain that we have graded someone too high. We do get many calls from college coaches and scouts telling us we have someone “ranked” too low.

Anyway, the system is not perfect and neither are we. But it seems to work fairly well so far. The debate usually revolves around the 5 to 7 range. Those that are graded 9 or 10 are hardly ever questioned.

WHEW...!!!

Thank you PG, I consider you a gentleman and I fretted over my post lest it be deemed offensive.

Respectfully, I suggest that it is the "definitions" that could be misleading, or misinterpreted...not so much the numerical rating. I'm comfortable that the numerical rating can be utilized by a participant to guage his performance relative to other participants, even nationwide, but particularly those who attended the same event. However, if a 7.0 is, basically, a LOW-AVERAGE score for your events (it certainly seemed to be for the one where I knew most of the players), I think it can be misleading to tell that player (as the 7.0 definition does) he's a "potential low round [MLB draft] pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII."

Now, I understand you intend the term "potential," to be construed as a projection of possible future abilities (projectibility?). I also understand that you want to remain positive, optimistic, and not discouraging (as well as, I think, the various reasons why). I'm merely suggesting people be careful when making, what are for them, very important decisions based on these definitions...like the individual who began this thread seemed to be.

Not that PG or anyone else for that matter needs to hear my 2cents but as usual I will give it anyway. Would it make sense to have a two level rating system that rates current and projected skill levels?

Let's say that a player based on what the evaluator sees that day at a showcase give the player a rating of 6 based on current skill set. However this kid is 6'3 and 170lbs sophomore pitcher that throws 82 now and has an undeveloped second pitch. Now the evaluators sees a lot more potential in this kid and believe if he puts in the work and his body develops as expected he projects much higher so they give him a projected rating of 8.5.

I know this is not an original idea however it seems like this might give everyone involved a better understanding of where a player stands today and more importantly where they could be if the stars align to reach his full potential?

First of all

quote:

I think it can be misleading to tell that player (as the 7.0 definition does) he's a "potential low round [MLB draft] pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII."

We think he has the "potential" to play DII baseball at the least. The definition covers a lot of ground. People need to read the entire discription rather than just the first couple words. But in those first couple words is the key word "potential". We gave Prince Fielder an 8 one time! Thought his only tool was the bat and he was overweight. By definition we thought he had the potential to be (Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect) Later we graded him a 10 (Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect)
First time we were wrong second time we were right. Still means we were wrong the first time.

We can afford to be wrong about players (everybody is wrong sometimes) We can not afford to be wrong on purpose. Misleading the player would mean we are misleading the scouts and college coaches... We can't afford to do THAT!

jerseydad,

We used to do what you say, but to us the only important thing is what we see as potential (projection). We would have some unbelievable differences if we did both. Especially among the youger players. We approach it very much like any scout would... How much does the player project!

Some will reach and even surpass our grade. Others will fall short. There are way too many cases out there of weak scrawny young kids ending up being early draft picks. We use what we see, what we know, compare to others, and our imagination. Nothing scientific about it at all. And in the end, we are somewhat proud of our track record. Anyone willing to do the research will understand why.

It is only natural for parents to seek information about their son as far as rankings, OFP ratings, and potential draft status.

Some parents get beat up in discussions about the level of their sons talent, and how it may be skewed because daddy and mommy see things through rose colored glasses, thus the quest for information.

Lists are nice. Feedback from college coaches, and moreso, MLB scouts carry more weight when seeking that evaluation. They have more to go by.

Maybe I shouldn't go here but..

****************************************************************************************************
PG write up from early last summer:

******XX is a 2008 LHP with a 5'10'', 130 lb. frame from ***XX, who attends ******X HS. Skinny, young body. Easy delivery with slinging arm action. Sound mechanics. 3 pitches for strikes. Tailing 80 mph FB. Good quality CB/Chg. Great composure on the mound. Very good athlete, fields his position like a vet. Competitor. Will pitch above his tools. Follow for strength gains.
***************************************************************************************************

I saw this guy pitch at the showcase my son attended, they were on the same team. I was a little shocked when I saw his rating. He walked the first guy he faced on 6 pitches, and then sat down 9 in a row, if I remember correctly, 4 were Ks and not a ball left the infield. (since they didn’t allow walks the kid proceeded to strike the batter he walked, out on three pitches) I guess it is his size that contributed to his 7 rating.

Maybe PG, you guys could put something in that indicates why you think they are a 7. Reading the write up, I'd think, a young immature pitcher with decent speed and 3 quality pitches, this kid is on his way. After reading these posts, I now think you guys see this kid as just another common place pitcher.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Maybe PG, you guys could put something in that indicates why you think they are a 7 ... this kid is on his way.

Obrady, they prolly do have further notes for their own use that would be of little use to the public

just wondering how you'd project that pitcher

I might look at the 7 rating with respect to a rising Jr at 5'10" 130# throwing 80, who could be 5'10" 137# throwing 83 after his jr yr - -
but IF in that yr he sprouts to 6'3" 185#, bringing it at 87 ... well, that's why they make erasers

I would have expected an 8 with notes about continued growth (the projection piece of the educated guess)

I see a skinny, obvious immature kid, throwing 80 with three good pitches, excellent form and control; has the upside of growth and possible major increase in speed.

Just the O'Brady scouting service and believe me, I get paid as much as I deserve for this talent.

I would guess that many people are like me and would like to have as much feedback on their kids as possible. So if PG sees that a better bat could improve standing/rating, I'd like to know.

I also know size is a VERY important piece of the equation. At this same event, a big 2007 kid 6'7", throwing 82, who walked 4 or 5 and gave up a lot of hits and runs in his three innings of work, was rated a 8. And of course the scouts were all in the stands just a buzz.

quote:

by OB: a big 2007 kid 6'7", throwing 82, who walked 4 or 5 and gave up a lot of hits and runs in his three innings of work, was rated a 8.

unfortunatly they can refine mechanics, but not size

quote:

if PG sees that a better bat could improve standing/rating, I'd like to know

I think what you're getting in a showcase setting is the opportunity to show your stuff in front of people ...

that PG shares a rating and a few comments is a plus, but specifics for improvement are your instructor's area - jmo

quote:

I see a skinny, obvious immature kid, throwing 80 with three good pitches, excellent form and control; has the upside of growth and possible major increase in speed.

I think it is fair for PG to project baseball potential. Not sure anyone, including PG can be expcted to project, height, size and weight gain for a 16/17 year old who is 5'10, 130 lbs. With that said, I believe a 7 does incorporate some projection on size gains.
There are not many/any? 5'10", 130lb. pitchers throwing 80 mph who are successful if drafted or in DI college baseball. Could they, at the next level, have an outing like you saw? Sure. The next game, hitters read the scouting report, make adjustments and likely a very different result. Very few can be consistenly successful in minor league ball or DI/high level DII/DKKK throwing 80mph, even if you are a lefty and know how to pitch.
Remember, at the next level, the hitters are a lot better than they were the day you saw this young man pitch.
I read this as PG saying if he grows some, gains strength, has some veolcity increase, he projects a 7. However they are not projecting him to become 6'1" and 175lbs based on his age and current size. If they did, he probably would be an 8.

I have found PG ratings to be right on the money.

I could give you many examples of players who I know who attended their showcases and where they ended up playing (or drafted) gives indication that they pretty much have a system that works. I can see why many coaches rely on that information.

These ratings were pretty much within a two year span of when they showcased and when they graduated HS. Only one player that I know who was rated 9 at first (and accurate description of his pitching) ended up first rounder out of HS. But I do know that player made substantial gains in a two year period, most likely worked on a few things during that time frame.

I always beleive that showcase events should be used as a tool for improvement and that would be up to the player and parents to figure out where improvement lies. I can't see PG giving suggestions to each and every player that they see on how to improve.

JMO.

My son is an 8.5 (three events) and has been a very good HS and AAU player. He's a senior now and has received very little interest from any level and most of it has been generated by us reaching out to them....two low D1's, no D2's and a couple of D3's is all he's heard from. Maddening to me.

I believe PG's ratings are right on for my kid but it hasn't translated............yet.

(Yes, I've emailed, called, sent resumes etc......I'm sure it'll work out at some point)

quote:

.two low D1's, no D2's and a couple of D3's is all he's heard from. Maddening to me.

Find, welcome to the HSBBW. If your son is an 8.5, then the word isn't getting out and your son and you need to do more to get it out. But recognize, sometimes it does not work. College baseball recruiting is very, very inexact. Good players get overlooked by DI coaches all the time. But you have a lot of time(I am assuming your son is a 2007). Our son, I thought, was a pretty good player. Coaches at the Stanford All Star Camp thought so too. DI coaches didn't. Well, that was in 1999, he has completed college and is still playing. There are great options at the DII/III level. An 8.5 will play every inning of every game at most of those if he works hard and improves. Your comment that it has not translated...yet isn't completely true. Sounds like he has options. I agree you should aim higher. If it doesn't happen, he will have options and sometimes they are better!

Coach Victory,

One thing I haven't seem mentioned here, but to be fair I haven't read every post, is your son's height. A 6'5" pitcher is often perceived as likely to have a higher ceiling as his body may be capable of more velocity, while a 5'9" pitcher won't be given the same benefit of the doubt, so that's a plus. Height is a good thing for pitchers to attract interest, lack of height is a bad thing. Some schools, particularly many D-1's, don't seem to much care for pitchers that are under 6 feet tall. A 6'5" pitcher throwing low 80's will attract more attention than a 5'9" guying throwing the same thing.

I had two sons go to PG events, the first received a 7.5 and I felt the writeup and the rating were on the mark. The second received a 8 as a sophmore, but never did any further PG events. Both received interest from colleges consistent with the PG ratings. (Both are now at a Virginia D III and very pleased.)

Hello,

Here is what PG did for my kid:

I wanted a true, non-biased assessment of my son's ability. He is a freshman. I spoke with six parents whose son's did either a PG or other showcase. Out of those six parents, four said it was a good idea, two said it was too early, wait til he's a sophmore.

I took him to a State Showcase and he was rated a 7.

This week, he had high school tryouts. The confidence my son gained by attending that PG Showcase was incredible. He has always felt that he was pretty good. But being up against some of the top players in the region was a big boost for him. So much so that he not only had a great tryout, he made the Varsity squad. He looked at that 7 as closer to 10 than closer to 1.

He will attend more PG events and his goal now is to continue to get better and raise his rating.

Nothing to do with college recruiting, just our experience.

CNY2010, Welcome to the HSBBW.
You and your Son are right on with your attitude toward's what a showcase can do for you!!
It's more than a rating.
It's seeing where you stack-up against other very good player's.
And give's you something to shoot for.
Lets you see what you need to improve on, And give's you a boost of confidence to get better if you work hard at it?

Good Luck this season.
EH

The origin of this post was regarding PG ratings. Although I feel PG is a credible organization that provides valuable data to all, the rating system is completely inaccurate at the lower end. Although PG claims, and I'm sure it's true as I have no call to suspect his honesty, that players do get rated below a 6, I have yet to see it.

I.E. 5'6" 120lb 2009 throwing mid 60's from the outfield, rated a 6. We actually know this kid, and he has as much chance of playing D1 as I do captaining the space shuttle. The likelyhood that he plays any college ball is suspect.

I don't see the point in having 1-5 ratings if you are not going to ever use them. I understand the business idea of not delivering bad news, but the flipside is discussions like these that bring the rating system into question.

Some people think that we shouldn't take the descriptions so literally. Well, why are there descriptions of the ratings then? And PG did write them, so there is some accountability.

A guy told me once, "anyone can deliver good news, the people that are truly successful are the ones that can deliver bad news".