-
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Could it be that the parents who pay $550 a pop for their son to go to a PG Showcase don't want to see him rated as a "mere 5-6"?
I sense a rating escalation to satisfy the paying customers.
I sense a rating escalation to satisfy the paying customers.
Obviously PG is best to answer your question, but like BOF states not many will want to be told that they are not a prospect nor a lot of families which have no chance spend a larger sum of money to attend a showcase, but I am also of the belief that there is an amount of overlap in the skill levels of DI, DII, DIII, Juco, and NAIA where one can find a program that they will fit in. I often times state that where the program is may not be where the player would see themselves play at or want to attend school academically, but they could play.
If you actually recruiting for a program and using it as a source of players, you may in fact want to look at the 5-6 ranges that you can motivate to play at a DIII program based on academics and opportunity to have a chance to play.
If you actually recruiting for a program and using it as a source of players, you may in fact want to look at the 5-6 ranges that you can motivate to play at a DIII program based on academics and opportunity to have a chance to play.
quote:If you actually recruiting for a program and using it as a source of players, you may in fact want to look at the 5-6 ranges that you can motivate to play at a DIII program based on academics and opportunity to have a chance to play.
Those receiving 7 ratings -- and those with higher ratings who are academically-inclined -- may also be interested. My hunch is that there are a lot more players receiving 6's and 7's than there are available D2 and JUCO positions, meaning a lot of players in that range may be looking for a place to play come spring.
Our family visted a very successful D3 school last fall. The coach told us he goes after the D1 borderline players, he loses some of them but also gets some of them.
quote:Originally posted by mike.black66:
How can I trust a 6 or 7 ranking when there is no such thing as a 1,2,3, or 4? I am baffled with this rating system.
mike - I don't find your first couple of posts to this site (in this and the recruiting forum) to be very friendly. They seemed designed to embarrass PG imho. Why don't you direct these questions to him in private using the PM feature of this site? I have a very strong feeling you a) have an agenda and b) are not going to be around here very long with that attitude. Other than that, welcome to the site
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:quote:Originally posted by mike.black66:
How can I trust a 6 or 7 ranking when there is no such thing as a 1,2,3, or 4? I am baffled with this rating system.
mike - I don't find your first couple of posts to this site (in this and the recruiting forum) to be very friendly. They seemed designed to embarrass PG imho. Why don't you direct these questions to him in private using the PM feature of this site? I have a very strong feeling you a) have an agenda and b) are not going to be around here very long with that attitude. Other than that, welcome to the site
quote:Originally posted by mike.black66:
How can I trust a 6 or 7 ranking when there is no such thing as a 1,2,3, or 4? I am baffled with this rating system.
I would guess most kids who are in that range know it and see no need to attend, so I wouldn't expect to see many, if any 5 to 6 and belows.
Is it possible if a kid gets a score that low they don't publish it or the kid asks to be removed from their list?
Maybe the answer is somewhere in between....
There have been a number of very public discussions about the PG rating system in the past. If you use the search feature you should be able to find them. Having attended about 6 PG showcases, I tend to agree that the customers are somewhat self-selecting. It is highly unusual to find a player who sticks out on the lower end. There are some stars and there are a lot of good, solid ball players. I know of several players rated 7 or 7.5 who are playing or will be playing at D1 schools and I know quite a few players rated 8 or higher who are playing at D3s. If I were you I'd go after the players that interest you and sell your program to them.
mike,
Now I've found your second post. Here is another honest answer.
This has been explained many times on here. Most of the events we don't have many participants that end up at DIII schools.
If one looks through the statistics you will notice that nearly 78% of last years entire draft class attended PG events. If you look at the colleges attended you will notice a very high percentage of DI colleges listed.
We have often said that our grade is determined by "potential" rather than "current" ability. Most players we see have "potential" to play DI, DII, or Juco. Most of our events are not set up to appeal to DIII type players. Some players who end up at DIII colleges are still DI potential in our estimation. In addition, many of those graded below 5 (sometimes higher) request that we take their grade off... and we do. The search function on crosschecker will not allow filtering by a specific grade. It only shows those with a filtered grade on up. Our actual database has many lower grades that don't appear on pgcrosschecker.
We do have a tendency to grade high rather than low. If you think about it... If someone goes to your event would you rather miss high or low when grading that player? Especially when dealing with "potential"!
In many years of doing this we have never received a complaint from a scout or college coach about our grading system. We have received many compliments. Most complaints come from parents who think we have graded their son too low.
We are going to change the grading system, because it does confuse some people. We're just not in hurry to do that.
BOF,
If a 5 or 6 is the most we can honestly give a player, that is what we do. It has been done many times. We are always interested in satisfying customers, but not interested in jeopardizing our integrity! There is no conspiracy involved.
Thanks for the thought though!
Now I've found your second post. Here is another honest answer.
This has been explained many times on here. Most of the events we don't have many participants that end up at DIII schools.
If one looks through the statistics you will notice that nearly 78% of last years entire draft class attended PG events. If you look at the colleges attended you will notice a very high percentage of DI colleges listed.
We have often said that our grade is determined by "potential" rather than "current" ability. Most players we see have "potential" to play DI, DII, or Juco. Most of our events are not set up to appeal to DIII type players. Some players who end up at DIII colleges are still DI potential in our estimation. In addition, many of those graded below 5 (sometimes higher) request that we take their grade off... and we do. The search function on crosschecker will not allow filtering by a specific grade. It only shows those with a filtered grade on up. Our actual database has many lower grades that don't appear on pgcrosschecker.
We do have a tendency to grade high rather than low. If you think about it... If someone goes to your event would you rather miss high or low when grading that player? Especially when dealing with "potential"!
In many years of doing this we have never received a complaint from a scout or college coach about our grading system. We have received many compliments. Most complaints come from parents who think we have graded their son too low.
We are going to change the grading system, because it does confuse some people. We're just not in hurry to do that.
BOF,
If a 5 or 6 is the most we can honestly give a player, that is what we do. It has been done many times. We are always interested in satisfying customers, but not interested in jeopardizing our integrity! There is no conspiracy involved.
Thanks for the thought though!
In defense of PG, the higher ratings are given sparingly. I know a lot of players, and I haven't seen any 10's or 9.5's that weren't justified, and have been surprised at many extremely talented players who received 9's or lower. There is a D1 2010 RHP commit in my area who got a 7.5. His college commit is to a solid D1 program. Perhaps he had a bad day, but I don't think his score was because of grade inflation. If anything, he was one of the many who scored lower than what his eventual college outcome was. I have heard the "pay for a good grade" argument before, but I haven't seen much objective evidence of it based on kids I know who attended PG events. In any data set, there will always be a few questionable calls, but for the most part, I think PG makes its evalautions with integrity using experienced observers.
So why aren't a lot of low ratings issued? Probably because most parents would know a showcase is a waste of time and money if their son was in the 1-5 category, unless they had unrealistic views of their son's talent. Hence, mostly pretty good HS players attend the showcases. They are expensive and people have to consider the value. The cost actually acts as an evaluation threshold for the less talented players. Competent HS and summer coaches can tell a player if its worth the cost.
So why aren't a lot of low ratings issued? Probably because most parents would know a showcase is a waste of time and money if their son was in the 1-5 category, unless they had unrealistic views of their son's talent. Hence, mostly pretty good HS players attend the showcases. They are expensive and people have to consider the value. The cost actually acts as an evaluation threshold for the less talented players. Competent HS and summer coaches can tell a player if its worth the cost.
mike.black,
I do agree with one point. Many D3 programs are extraordianarily good (JUCO's NAIA, and D2 as well), but for the most part, I have seen D3 teams mainly filled with kids who were HS varsity starters, or better athletes who chose not to pursue a D1 career for a variety of reasons, usually educational. My oldest son did that, preferring the D3 route to the huge time committment of D1.
PG's rankings do overgeneralize at the lower levels, and could stand a little re-calibrating to the extent they indicate that various programs are "lesser" programs just because of their divisional status. But it is true that generally D1 has the most talent and that talent levels drop off a bit in lower divisions.
I do agree with one point. Many D3 programs are extraordianarily good (JUCO's NAIA, and D2 as well), but for the most part, I have seen D3 teams mainly filled with kids who were HS varsity starters, or better athletes who chose not to pursue a D1 career for a variety of reasons, usually educational. My oldest son did that, preferring the D3 route to the huge time committment of D1.
PG's rankings do overgeneralize at the lower levels, and could stand a little re-calibrating to the extent they indicate that various programs are "lesser" programs just because of their divisional status. But it is true that generally D1 has the most talent and that talent levels drop off a bit in lower divisions.
mike,
Thanks for replying on that other post. I will believe you when you say you help recruit at a small college.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a solid DIII prospect.
I coached at two small colleges. I was always looking for players who were better than our competitors. If I had a roster full of 7s and above, which we always did, we were going to be very successful. One year we had two pitchers who ended up pitching in the Big Leagues and a CF who got to AAA. Also had two players later transfer to DI schools.
So if a 3 (our scale) Is defined - ("Possible" DIII or low level Juco prospect) what does that say?
It tells the player he is a POSSIBLE DIII player. It tells the "competitive" DIII coaches to look higher!
Mike... If you are really helping recruit DIII players, look higher than 3s and 4s. There are 7s and even 8s at some DIII schools. There simply are not enough DI spots to take all the potential DI players.
Thanks for replying on that other post. I will believe you when you say you help recruit at a small college.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a solid DIII prospect.
I coached at two small colleges. I was always looking for players who were better than our competitors. If I had a roster full of 7s and above, which we always did, we were going to be very successful. One year we had two pitchers who ended up pitching in the Big Leagues and a CF who got to AAA. Also had two players later transfer to DI schools.
So if a 3 (our scale) Is defined - ("Possible" DIII or low level Juco prospect) what does that say?
It tells the player he is a POSSIBLE DIII player. It tells the "competitive" DIII coaches to look higher!
Mike... If you are really helping recruit DIII players, look higher than 3s and 4s. There are 7s and even 8s at some DIII schools. There simply are not enough DI spots to take all the potential DI players.
Mike,
If you're truly a coach, I suggest you go to this site and you will find players. You will even get to see them. It's absolutely free to college coaches. You just have to register.http://www.baseballwebtv.com/
If you're truly a coach, I suggest you go to this site and you will find players. You will even get to see them. It's absolutely free to college coaches. You just have to register.http://www.baseballwebtv.com/
Got it - seems to make sense based on the explanation of a "projectable" ranking and I can also see that the statistical sample is pre-selected to some extent, as parents will hold off until they think their son will score a particular number.
The projectability factor will tend to group the rankings as well as the data is already pre-selected, together with a little bit of “please the customer” factor you end up with the ranking scale that is shifted slightly higher than a straight "as you see it" non pre-selected data ranking system.
So Mike I would just sort the data a little higher than your intuition initially told you and see what you come up with.
Actually, I would be curious to see how it works for you so keep us informed if you can.
The projectability factor will tend to group the rankings as well as the data is already pre-selected, together with a little bit of “please the customer” factor you end up with the ranking scale that is shifted slightly higher than a straight "as you see it" non pre-selected data ranking system.
So Mike I would just sort the data a little higher than your intuition initially told you and see what you come up with.
Actually, I would be curious to see how it works for you so keep us informed if you can.
So my interpretation of the ratings would be that a player who receives a 6 (possible D1, definite D2) is someone who at the showcase was evaluated to already be suited to play at the D2 level and with improvement could go to D1. Is this accurate?
Just an observation:
You say you are with a small Division III school---we accept that--to me that means a rather limited recruiting budget particularly where travel is concerned
The region you are in has some excellent baseball talent
If I where you I would be beating the bushes in your region seeking players, rather than being concerned about ratings lists and how they are formulated.
If you utilize the list then isolate the players in your region and get to see them in action for yourself and do your own evaluation.
Just my thoughts
You say you are with a small Division III school---we accept that--to me that means a rather limited recruiting budget particularly where travel is concerned
The region you are in has some excellent baseball talent
If I where you I would be beating the bushes in your region seeking players, rather than being concerned about ratings lists and how they are formulated.
If you utilize the list then isolate the players in your region and get to see them in action for yourself and do your own evaluation.
Just my thoughts
First of all, Mike, this is not intened to infer anything about your questions or responses, just my experiences.
PG - Very good reply - Certainly, there are other fine baseball services available; however, as I have said for many years, in my opinion, Perfect Game does it far better than any other organization. My son attended his one and only Showcase at the end of his freshman year (15 yrs old) and I realized at that time, his rating was based on projections. Now a senior in high school, I know his rating is still very accurate today because it has been verified by the responses of many recruiters and pro scouts. Maybe, the system doesn't fit every single player and maybe, they miss one or two; however, it is the best system I have ever encountered for amature athletes.
PG - Very good reply - Certainly, there are other fine baseball services available; however, as I have said for many years, in my opinion, Perfect Game does it far better than any other organization. My son attended his one and only Showcase at the end of his freshman year (15 yrs old) and I realized at that time, his rating was based on projections. Now a senior in high school, I know his rating is still very accurate today because it has been verified by the responses of many recruiters and pro scouts. Maybe, the system doesn't fit every single player and maybe, they miss one or two; however, it is the best system I have ever encountered for amature athletes.
quote:My main concern is that I really can't find a single player under a 5 rating. Why do these ratings exist? It makes it impossible for me to sort through lower level "fit" players.
A better statistic for me would be, how many 2008 graduates are listed on th crosschecker with a PG grade over 6 who did NOT go on to play college baseball at all? Is this a large percent? If so, that is a concern for me when filtering players.
Mike,
We simply don't get many players who would fit in something less than a 5 category. 5 - Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect
Please don't take that to mean there is anything wrong with being a DIII player. Once again, there are some DIII players with DI ability. So there are definetely some 5s to 8s or even better playing DIII baseball somewhere.
Once again notice the word "Possible". Most everyone we see could be projected at least a 5. Even though they might currently be a 4.
The first time we saw Prince Fielder we gave him a 6.5 and thought we were being generous. Later we gave him a 10 and would have graded him higher if we had a higher grade to give. We were asked to delete the 6.5 and we did. We are wrong at times, but never wrong on purpose. Knowing ahead of time we will be wrong at times, we would rather be wrong because we over rated someone than under rated someone. Under Rating someone is more damaging than Over rating them.
Really, if I knew ahead of time someone was going to grade a 4 or lower, I'd tell them they shouldn't be at one of our events. Believe it or not, I have told people they probably would not benefit by attending.
I don't think you can filter what you're looking for, but that information is available if you search long enough.
In our estimation and my own opinion when I coached. The high level DIII's are not DIII's! We would never push a high level DIII away from a showcase other than maybe the most elite type events like the National Showcase.
There are many levels of DIII baseball. None of which should be an embarrassment.
Yes, I believe most players who end up at nearly any college, could have the "potential" to play at a higher level.
There is absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about playing college baseball at any level. Did I somehow make it sound like a joke or are you just into arguing?
I'm starting to feel that paranoia creeping in again!
Listen just read what I've written, don't add anything to it. Please we will gladly give you a refund if pgcrosschecker isn't providing you with enough accurate information. Somehow, I'm once again thinking there is much more involved here.
There are many levels of DIII baseball. None of which should be an embarrassment.
Yes, I believe most players who end up at nearly any college, could have the "potential" to play at a higher level.
There is absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about playing college baseball at any level. Did I somehow make it sound like a joke or are you just into arguing?
I'm starting to feel that paranoia creeping in again!
Listen just read what I've written, don't add anything to it. Please we will gladly give you a refund if pgcrosschecker isn't providing you with enough accurate information. Somehow, I'm once again thinking there is much more involved here.
quote:The first time we saw Prince Fielder we gave him a 6.5
Dang!- my son(current 2009/just turned 17) got rated the same as Prince!
Mike, many players go D3 for many reasons. Son was rated 6.5 as a 16 y old LHP. We looked mainly D3 for many reasons, academics, playing time, etc.
If I was a coach of D3, I would be looking at the 6 and 7 ratings as many want to play and develop, and a strong D3 (or even not so strong) will afford them (especially pitchers) more opportunities to get innings.
I agree with his PG rating and if he reaches what are reachable goals, I would not be surprised at a late round draft pick for a LHP. But, I also wouldnt be surprised if he didnt get drafted.
At this point, all he can do is continue to grow, get an education, pitch, have fun, and develop.
PG quick question. Why do some ask to have the lower ratings removed? Seems to me that if a player is rated at a lower number at a showcase one year and then he goes the next and improves his rating, that would only help him. IE: shows that he is getting better as a player over time/experience,is there something I'm not understanding about the rating system? 
Mike, my kid was originally graded a 6.5 by PG. That's "possible D1 prospect". Guess what? He's now D1. Oh, and he was drafted. That was not a "miss" by PG that was the truth at that time! I accepted it and my son kept plugging away to get a better ranking and improve his play.
You can try but you won't convince anyone on this board that PG is anything but reputable. Hopefully, you don't have an agenda, but if you do, you're spinning your wheels because the truth always wins out. And all you're doing is giving free advertising to PG because folks reading this are going to know how we feel about them.
If there is no agenda--again, I hope not--let us know what college you're recruiting for and we'll gladly send some players your way. I know a few 2's and 3's.
You can try but you won't convince anyone on this board that PG is anything but reputable. Hopefully, you don't have an agenda, but if you do, you're spinning your wheels because the truth always wins out. And all you're doing is giving free advertising to PG because folks reading this are going to know how we feel about them.
If there is no agenda--again, I hope not--let us know what college you're recruiting for and we'll gladly send some players your way. I know a few 2's and 3's.
I know a player that got a 6.5 at his first PG showcase after his fresh year in hs going into his soph season. Later he was a 8.5. His last showcase he was a 9.5 and signed with LSU. I was at the showcase where he got the 6.5 and thought it was generous. Later I thought the 9.5 was about right.
It is based on potential. When you go to a PG showcase most if not all the players would be stars on their hs team. They are all very good players. People dont pay that kind of money and fly pay to travel to attend these types of events is their son is not good. Why would they?
I have always been very impressed with the way kids I know that attend end up getting rated. Its almost always right where I would rank them. Most of the time if I miss I would rank them a little lower than PG does.
Now if you want to see a bunch of low scores just hold these events for free and hold them all around the nation so everyone can attend. Pay all travel expenses and feed them for free. But I bet you would still have a hard time getting as many to these events as you do to the ones that are held now. Why? Because the kids that are good will do whatever they have to do to be seen and evaluated. The majority of the rest would have better things to do.
It is based on potential. When you go to a PG showcase most if not all the players would be stars on their hs team. They are all very good players. People dont pay that kind of money and fly pay to travel to attend these types of events is their son is not good. Why would they?
I have always been very impressed with the way kids I know that attend end up getting rated. Its almost always right where I would rank them. Most of the time if I miss I would rank them a little lower than PG does.
Now if you want to see a bunch of low scores just hold these events for free and hold them all around the nation so everyone can attend. Pay all travel expenses and feed them for free. But I bet you would still have a hard time getting as many to these events as you do to the ones that are held now. Why? Because the kids that are good will do whatever they have to do to be seen and evaluated. The majority of the rest would have better things to do.
from my own experience,i've known many recruited d1 players that turned out to be nonqualifiers out of high school. but fit perfectly into most any d3 or jc program.
if i were a d3 coach i'd be looking at the 7's and 8's as well as the clearing house , sat scores. i think you'll find you'll be better off.
but that's me.
if i were a d3 coach i'd be looking at the 7's and 8's as well as the clearing house , sat scores. i think you'll find you'll be better off.
but that's me.
Let me just say this to prove my point. I hold many camps during the year. Most are free. Thats right free to anyone that wants to attend. I do this to see players , work with players and allow some guys to teach because thats a great way to learn as well. And just because I love being at the park and teaching the game. Sometimes I charge but its always a minimal fee and it goes towards paying my former players that are working the camps etc.
You want to know who shows up at these events? The top guys around. The better players on their hs teams. The last one day camp I held we had 65 players attend. They came from all over the state of NC , some from SC and VA. There was not one player that was not a very good hs player. Every kid that showed up was very solid. Some were absolute studs. Now why is this? The answer is obvious when you have been around the game as long as I have. These guys are the players they are becuase they cant wait for something like this. There is nothing they would rather do that go get some baseball. They take advantage of every opportunity they can to get better and work at the game and to enjoy the game and to be around other players.
Just coach a team from your community ONE year. The kids that want the extra bp most of the time are your better hitters. The kids that want more ground balls are usually your better fielders. The kids that love the game the most and want to work at the game the most are usually your better players. I wonder why?
There I go again PG. Sorry.
You want to know who shows up at these events? The top guys around. The better players on their hs teams. The last one day camp I held we had 65 players attend. They came from all over the state of NC , some from SC and VA. There was not one player that was not a very good hs player. Every kid that showed up was very solid. Some were absolute studs. Now why is this? The answer is obvious when you have been around the game as long as I have. These guys are the players they are becuase they cant wait for something like this. There is nothing they would rather do that go get some baseball. They take advantage of every opportunity they can to get better and work at the game and to enjoy the game and to be around other players.
Just coach a team from your community ONE year. The kids that want the extra bp most of the time are your better hitters. The kids that want more ground balls are usually your better fielders. The kids that love the game the most and want to work at the game the most are usually your better players. I wonder why?
There I go again PG. Sorry.
Mike - I hesitate to join in here because I am not a coach. However, I can tell you that after seeing several tournaments and events that what is being said about players self selecting is correct.
There are several very good players that never go to a PG showcase. However, very many of them go to at least 1 or 2 of the tournaments. Not going to a showcase can be indicative of a lot of things including choosing to pursue other showcases, lack of financial resources (it is expensive), lack of opportunity for other reasons, football or involvement in other sports, lack of interest, etc.
Still, I'm sure that you're good at spotting talent and potential since you're helping recruit. I've known several kids who know, and their parent know, that they will not play D1 ball. These kids will often still play on competitive summer teams but I've found that many of them choose to focus on smaller schools and target the coaches of the schools they want to attend. They are good players that have chosen not to put much more into getting noticed because they may not have much chance of appealing to schools outside of their region.
The kids I've seen that fit this mode would probably rank in the 5-7 range if they attended a PG showcase, in my estimate. There is usually something that they do or don't do or some physical stature that would eliminate them from playing at most D1 programs. Being 5 foot 6, running an 7.6 sixty as a middle infielder, or having less developed footwork or hitting mechanics, for instance.
I'm suggesting that a lot of the kids you may want to target would be those that PG has on file but that haven't been to a showcase. Some you will find on a state by state list of unranked players, for instance.
I agree with the earlier posts that stated you should go for the best players you can find. I know plenty of 7-8 rated players that have decided to play D3. If you contact kids and advertise you may be surprised at how many would consider travelling well outside of their region to attend your school.
It would be great if PG gave ratings to those that didn't attend a showcase. But in a sense they do that through their national and state rankings. You may get more out of looking there to start.
Good luck.
There are several very good players that never go to a PG showcase. However, very many of them go to at least 1 or 2 of the tournaments. Not going to a showcase can be indicative of a lot of things including choosing to pursue other showcases, lack of financial resources (it is expensive), lack of opportunity for other reasons, football or involvement in other sports, lack of interest, etc.
Still, I'm sure that you're good at spotting talent and potential since you're helping recruit. I've known several kids who know, and their parent know, that they will not play D1 ball. These kids will often still play on competitive summer teams but I've found that many of them choose to focus on smaller schools and target the coaches of the schools they want to attend. They are good players that have chosen not to put much more into getting noticed because they may not have much chance of appealing to schools outside of their region.
The kids I've seen that fit this mode would probably rank in the 5-7 range if they attended a PG showcase, in my estimate. There is usually something that they do or don't do or some physical stature that would eliminate them from playing at most D1 programs. Being 5 foot 6, running an 7.6 sixty as a middle infielder, or having less developed footwork or hitting mechanics, for instance.
I'm suggesting that a lot of the kids you may want to target would be those that PG has on file but that haven't been to a showcase. Some you will find on a state by state list of unranked players, for instance.
I agree with the earlier posts that stated you should go for the best players you can find. I know plenty of 7-8 rated players that have decided to play D3. If you contact kids and advertise you may be surprised at how many would consider travelling well outside of their region to attend your school.
It would be great if PG gave ratings to those that didn't attend a showcase. But in a sense they do that through their national and state rankings. You may get more out of looking there to start.
Good luck.
Well, Mike, they DON'T rank everyone high. I think that was sortof the point I was making. I know of at least one other poster whose son got a lower PG score and guess what--he's playing college ball at a top school.
Guess what, there are DIII players drafted every year and there are a lot of DI players that do not get drafted.....there is overlap.
It really sounds like you are either you have other motives or you are trying to have someone do all the work for you in your recruiting.
Since you are recruiting for a DIII program, I am sure you are aware that you will need to sell yourself much more that a DI, DII, or JC, since the tendency for the players to want to go to a higher level with the possibility of getting money or since many DIII are smaller schools with a higher cost of education without athletic grants.
Since you are a DIII recruiting coach you may need to know that the source you are looking for players gets more professional and DI prospects than anyone else in the business, in order for you to find someone who will do your work, you may want to contact another group which tends to charge a large amount (thousands of dollars) to play on their teams for a tournament and who’s niche is players at lower levels that will send you out recruiting information on those who sign up for their service, if you need their name I can provide that to you.
It really sounds like you are either you have other motives or you are trying to have someone do all the work for you in your recruiting.
Since you are recruiting for a DIII program, I am sure you are aware that you will need to sell yourself much more that a DI, DII, or JC, since the tendency for the players to want to go to a higher level with the possibility of getting money or since many DIII are smaller schools with a higher cost of education without athletic grants.
Since you are a DIII recruiting coach you may need to know that the source you are looking for players gets more professional and DI prospects than anyone else in the business, in order for you to find someone who will do your work, you may want to contact another group which tends to charge a large amount (thousands of dollars) to play on their teams for a tournament and who’s niche is players at lower levels that will send you out recruiting information on those who sign up for their service, if you need their name I can provide that to you.
It would be interesting to know how many ratings PG gives out in a given class, say the class of 2009. From looking at the information that is available to me at my lower subscription level I would guess that there are less than 2000 kids that have attended a showcase and have received a rating. Can you answer this, PG? If this is anywhere close to correct it makes perfect sense that most most players have a 7 or better.
Don't go after the lower players??
Every player should strive to play the highest baseball possible.
Every Coach should strive to pick up the best talent available.
Mike, go after the best players you can get in your program.
Don't settle for anything less Thats your JOB, Be a Recruitor.
EH
Every player should strive to play the highest baseball possible.
Every Coach should strive to pick up the best talent available.
Mike, go after the best players you can get in your program.
Don't settle for anything less Thats your JOB, Be a Recruitor.
EH
quote:Originally posted by mike.black66:
Are you trying to say that a 6.5 (possible DI prospect) is not a high ranking??? Do people here realize the difficulty of playing DI baseball? You assumed a 6.5 to be an insult, which in reality is a heck of a compliment
Yes, I'm saying a 6.5 is not a high ranking. And no, I am not assuming it to be an insult. Like I said, my own son got a 6.5 and I was not "insulted".
PG is grading players not just on present ability but on projection. All but a few of their showcases are for Juniors and lower, with most of them (I believe) to be for sophomores. So let's take a sophomore who gets a 6.5. This says he has the potential to go D1. A lot of high school players have the potential to go D1 if they work at their game! A lot don't but I've been to a lot of showcases and I don't see them there. Either they weren't invited or don't have the skill or desire to go to the next level.
So this 6.5 kid is "insulted", mopes around, plays video games instead of working on his game and his potential is squandered.
Or he can work his butt off and get a 9.5.
quote:Originally posted by mike.black66:
Why not wait until Senior year to rank them? They all have potential.
Many of the guys who played on our travel team and high school team had committed to DI schools early their Junior year.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:quote:Originally posted by mike.black66:
Are you trying to say that a 6.5 (possible DI prospect) is not a high ranking??? Do people here realize the difficulty of playing DI baseball? You assumed a 6.5 to be an insult, which in reality is a heck of a compliment
Yes, I'm saying a 6.5 is not a high ranking. And no, I am not assuming it to be an insult. Like I said, my own son got a 6.5 and I was not "insulted".
PG is grading players not just on present ability but on projection. All but a few of their showcases are for Juniors and lower, with most of them (I believe) to be for sophomores. So let's take a sophomore who gets a 6.5. This says he has the potential to go D1. A lot of high school players have the potential to go D1 if they work at their game! A lot don't but I've been to a lot of showcases and I don't see them there. Either they weren't invited or don't have the skill or desire to go to the next level.
So this 6.5 kid is "insulted", mopes around, plays video games instead of working on his game and his potential is squandered.
Or he can work his butt off and get a 9.5.
I agree with Bum. i know my son was not satisfied with a 6.5. But he chose to use it as a challenge to keep improving . -knowing that coaches look at these ratings he of course felt he was behind a lot of players out there. He wasnt insulted, but he wasnt happy either-
Oh brother 
Mine was ranked 0.0 on the Blutarsky Scale
Mine was ranked 0.0 on the Blutarsky Scale
Mike,
You are becoming more and more obvious with each post. You are the very first college coach we've ever heard complain about this. Odd that you would show up on the LIST thread. Wouldn't be because you are associated with someone that thread pertains to... WOULD IT! Then you start this thread oddly enough! Your motive is clear.
You just keep banging away. Why would a college recruiter do that?
I will continue answering you when ever possible because I am stupid!
You are becoming more and more obvious with each post. You are the very first college coach we've ever heard complain about this. Odd that you would show up on the LIST thread. Wouldn't be because you are associated with someone that thread pertains to... WOULD IT! Then you start this thread oddly enough! Your motive is clear.
You just keep banging away. Why would a college recruiter do that?
I will continue answering you when ever possible because I am stupid!
Mike, or whoever he is, certainly seems to have an agenda. Focusing on things that don't at all represent a recruiters mentality, asking a lot of questions and not answering any. A review of his recent and only posts tells a story.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I will continue answering you when ever possible because I am stupid!
Does that mean I am stupid too?
_______________________________________________
Why am I being insulted for bringing up a topic that is extremely important to me and my job?
_______________________________________________
If it's so important to your job, you should have to see the kid play and make your own evalution anyway. As good as I think the PG organization is, I would not make a decision on a kid unless I saw him play myself and did other research.
236 to go!
Why am I being insulted for bringing up a topic that is extremely important to me and my job?
_______________________________________________
If it's so important to your job, you should have to see the kid play and make your own evalution anyway. As good as I think the PG organization is, I would not make a decision on a kid unless I saw him play myself and did other research.
236 to go!
kbat,
I have nothing against the way you look at this. I won't try to change your mind. Some of what you've stated I would agree with.
However, tomorrow if I can find the time at the office, I will list some, lower than 8 grade, players who just recently signed with some of what everyone here would say are Top Level DI college programs.
I have nothing against the way you look at this. I won't try to change your mind. Some of what you've stated I would agree with.
However, tomorrow if I can find the time at the office, I will list some, lower than 8 grade, players who just recently signed with some of what everyone here would say are Top Level DI college programs.
Well thats fine. But what happens when a kid goes to a PG WWBA event and rakes all weekend? Makes plays in the field and comes up clutch for his team? What happens when he tanks a 90plus fastball out of the park with wood with over 50 college coaches watching the game? Do you think they are worried about what his ranking is? Oh we love this kid but you know he is only ranked a 7.0 by PG. Dang it and we really liked that kid! If he was only ranked a 9 we would offer him today.
With several members expressing skepticism above, I thought I should do a little investigation.
I did some cross-checking of the IP number and e-mail addresses for "mike.black". I suppose it's possible that he is involved in DIII recruiting, but it also appears that he is listed under his real name (not Mike Black) on the Staff page of a competitor of the company he is trying to disparage. I won't mention the name of that competitor, but it is one that has been the topic of discussions on our site before.
"Mike", it looks like you have been here under a couple of different names this year with a similar agenda. Please don't use this site for that purpose any more.
Julie
I did some cross-checking of the IP number and e-mail addresses for "mike.black". I suppose it's possible that he is involved in DIII recruiting, but it also appears that he is listed under his real name (not Mike Black) on the Staff page of a competitor of the company he is trying to disparage. I won't mention the name of that competitor, but it is one that has been the topic of discussions on our site before.
"Mike", it looks like you have been here under a couple of different names this year with a similar agenda. Please don't use this site for that purpose any more.
Julie
quote:Originally posted by MN-Mom:
With several members expressing skepticism above, I thought I should do a little investigation.
I did some cross-checking of the IP number and e-mail addresses for "mike.black". I suppose it's possible that he is involved in DIII recruiting, but it also appears that he is listed under his real name (not Mike Black) on the Staff page of a competitor of the company he is trying to disparage. I won't mention the name of that competitor, but it is one that has been the topic of discussions on our site before.
"Mike", it looks like you have been here under a couple of different names this year with a similar agenda. Please don't use this site for that purpose any more.
Julie
Good work MN!
I feel so used by this
nah JK- he actually gave a lot of good PR to PG!
and when I find out "Mr. Blacks" company- he will get lots of bad word of mouth from me to my other baseball parents-very bush league stuff!
Mike, need a shovel for that hole?
MN-MOM Thanks for checking that out.
PG you have a lot of patience and composure explaining your company. Although I felt the way you were being questioned was inappropriate. Im glad that the poster was exposed.
PG you have a lot of patience and composure explaining your company. Although I felt the way you were being questioned was inappropriate. Im glad that the poster was exposed.
Jerry, looks like you might have to cancel a certain PG Crosschecker account. 
How does one send a PM? I keep trying but is says I'm not logged in, but I am. Sorry to post this on this thread.
quote:Originally posted by kbat2012:
I maybe wrong, but please don't try to convince me otherwise, because I won't listen and won't change my view.
quote:Originally posted by MN-Mom:
but it also appears that he is listed under his real name (not Mike Black) on the Staff page of a competitor of the company he is trying to disparage. I won't mention the name of that competitor
Julie,
For people like me, that don't read between lines real well, or newcomers that don't know the players, why not post the guys name and mention the company? You didn't rip on either one. If he/they said it, there's nothing wrong with attribution.
You could state it as...through investigation of the ip addresses it appears as though this address links to Joe Blow who is an employee of Joes Showcases.
It would certainly make the members and lurkers of this site more informed and educated consumers. Something this site has always stood for and excelled at.
There is no shame in truth or honesty. You wouldn't be doing anymore than that.
JMHO
quote:That's JMHO about PG showcase, I am stick with it. I maybe wrong, but please don't try to convince me otherwise, because I won't listen and won't change my view.
JMHO, in your statement above, there is no " maybe ".
CPLZ,
The IP address and some e-mail evidence match a Representative listed on the Baseball Factory site.
The IP address and some e-mail evidence match a Representative listed on the Baseball Factory site.
Julie,
You're the best!
You're the best!
quote:Originally posted by MN-Mom:
CPLZ,
The IP address and some e-mail evidence match a Representative listed on the Baseball Factory site.
quote:Originally posted by Homerun04:
Since you are a DIII recruiting coach you may need to know that the source you are looking for players gets more professional and DI prospects than anyone else in the business, in order for you to find someone who will do your work, you may want to contact another group which tends to charge a large amount (thousands of dollars) to play on their teams for a tournament and who’s niche is players at lower levels that will send you out recruiting information on those who sign up for their service, if you need their name I can provide that to you.
I guessed right
Interesting topic and some good points made on both sides of the aisle. Its unfortunate that the topic was raised by an obvious tool with an agenda.
From what I've seen of PG ratings over the years- and I've checked thousands of profiles- is that very few players score less than a 7. Personally I've never seen less than a 6, and they are a rare site indeed.
The reality is that there are a miniscule percentage of players that a sleeping blind man can tell are the elite talents. They usually have several tools that would grade out much higher than average, or one tool that is flat out off the charts. For these players,it really matters little if they attend a PG Event or get a grade, things will pretty much take care of themselves.
As you slide down the scale, there's a larger group of 8.5-9.0 guys...and a much larger number of decent players...lets say guys in the 7-8 range. Getting separation in this group is difficult. These players begin to all look alike, and making an accurate eval off a weekend view is very difficult. This becomes a bigger problem as the number of players increases and the number of different people doing the evaluating increases.
Therefore, you end up with a boatload of 7.0's and 7.5's...and from my observation this is the bulk of the scores from the players at these anybody can attend events.
The majority of players that I have seen ranked as 7s are going to be D3/NAIA guys out of high school out in this part of the world, or will head to JUCO.
I do see players who are scored lower than I know they should be. I've seen guys rated as 9.5 that I know are rated way too high, but I have the advantage of seeing these players much more than PG does.
I'd agree with the original post that perhaps the description of the scale is misleading. .
Keep in mind that there is a pretty significant difference between a top 30 and a bottom 30 D1 program. A top 20 D2 school would compete very well with many D1 programs......it isn't a competitive designation necessarily.
Finally, in my opinion, if you obtain a PG score between 7 and 8, it probably does you no good to use this when communicating with a D1 college coach. In the eyes of this rating system, you are an average player who has aspirations of playing in college...and there's nothing wrong with that.
From what I've seen of PG ratings over the years- and I've checked thousands of profiles- is that very few players score less than a 7. Personally I've never seen less than a 6, and they are a rare site indeed.
The reality is that there are a miniscule percentage of players that a sleeping blind man can tell are the elite talents. They usually have several tools that would grade out much higher than average, or one tool that is flat out off the charts. For these players,it really matters little if they attend a PG Event or get a grade, things will pretty much take care of themselves.
As you slide down the scale, there's a larger group of 8.5-9.0 guys...and a much larger number of decent players...lets say guys in the 7-8 range. Getting separation in this group is difficult. These players begin to all look alike, and making an accurate eval off a weekend view is very difficult. This becomes a bigger problem as the number of players increases and the number of different people doing the evaluating increases.
Therefore, you end up with a boatload of 7.0's and 7.5's...and from my observation this is the bulk of the scores from the players at these anybody can attend events.
The majority of players that I have seen ranked as 7s are going to be D3/NAIA guys out of high school out in this part of the world, or will head to JUCO.
I do see players who are scored lower than I know they should be. I've seen guys rated as 9.5 that I know are rated way too high, but I have the advantage of seeing these players much more than PG does.
I'd agree with the original post that perhaps the description of the scale is misleading. .
Keep in mind that there is a pretty significant difference between a top 30 and a bottom 30 D1 program. A top 20 D2 school would compete very well with many D1 programs......it isn't a competitive designation necessarily.
Finally, in my opinion, if you obtain a PG score between 7 and 8, it probably does you no good to use this when communicating with a D1 college coach. In the eyes of this rating system, you are an average player who has aspirations of playing in college...and there's nothing wrong with that.
quote:The IP address and some e-mail evidence match a Representative listed on the Baseball Factory site.
wow...there's a shock.
I hope everyone considering a visit to Tucson in January reads this.
Mn-Mom
mike.black66:
........OH GOOD GRIEF!
Nice try " Mike ".
quote:did some cross-checking of the IP number and e-mail addresses for "mike.black".
quote:The IP address and some e-mail evidence match a Representative listed on the Baseball Factory site.
mike.black66:
quote:A rating system equates to honestly. Why would the integrity of this evaluation system need to be sent through private messaging if there is nothing to hide? Isn't this an open forum? Shouldn't parents know what coaches are viewing? Why am I being insulted for bringing up a topic that is extremely important to me and my job?
quote:I am baffled with this rating system.
........OH GOOD GRIEF!
Nice try " Mike ".
After reading some of the posts here, one would believe... If you would be a high score there is no need to get involved. If you would score at the next level... There is no need to get involved. If you would score extremely low... We have even said there is no reason to get involved.
Guess that means we're doing it all wrong and this thing is certain to fail! Though, I'm kind of surprised by the number of college coaches that subscribe to pgcrosschecker. Seems like they really don't need it at all.
Seeing that 9.5 was used as an example of someone being over rated, I might just list all the 9.5s and above. We don't just give players a grade like that for kicks. That said, I bet we did miss on a couple anyway. Hey... Sometimes we have been wrong! I do know it's much easier to dispute the grades than it is to give them.
Anyway, I'm having our tech guy compile the statistics regarding grading we have done over the past years. I don't know what the results will show, but I'm going to provide them here no matter what they look like. Could be that those statistics might cause us to change the system a bit sooner.
Interesting enough, there is a book that has just been released called appropriately "Perfect Game USA". No it wasn't written by us, but it is about us, for the most part. I've read it and it is well written. I think there are some first hand accounts from parents, players, scouts, etc. that might give someone a different perspective than what some here might think. Even some "grading" stories. To be honest I don't think the book is worth the price tag (I believe it is $35) but it is well written and it does mention some less than flattering stuff about us. Please understand that the author (who actually posts here once in a great while and the HSBBW is mentioned more than once in the book) or PG sets the price. Also, please understand that PG does not make any money off the book. The book was finished quite some time ago and as always, many things have changed since then.
If anyone ever buys this book, please don't complain to us about the price.
Julie, you are quite the detective! I'm glad you figured that out before I made even a bigger fool out of myself.
Oddly enough I've noticed a couple posts have been deleted.
Guess that means we're doing it all wrong and this thing is certain to fail! Though, I'm kind of surprised by the number of college coaches that subscribe to pgcrosschecker. Seems like they really don't need it at all.
Seeing that 9.5 was used as an example of someone being over rated, I might just list all the 9.5s and above. We don't just give players a grade like that for kicks. That said, I bet we did miss on a couple anyway. Hey... Sometimes we have been wrong! I do know it's much easier to dispute the grades than it is to give them.
Anyway, I'm having our tech guy compile the statistics regarding grading we have done over the past years. I don't know what the results will show, but I'm going to provide them here no matter what they look like. Could be that those statistics might cause us to change the system a bit sooner.
Interesting enough, there is a book that has just been released called appropriately "Perfect Game USA". No it wasn't written by us, but it is about us, for the most part. I've read it and it is well written. I think there are some first hand accounts from parents, players, scouts, etc. that might give someone a different perspective than what some here might think. Even some "grading" stories. To be honest I don't think the book is worth the price tag (I believe it is $35) but it is well written and it does mention some less than flattering stuff about us. Please understand that the author (who actually posts here once in a great while and the HSBBW is mentioned more than once in the book) or PG sets the price. Also, please understand that PG does not make any money off the book. The book was finished quite some time ago and as always, many things have changed since then.
If anyone ever buys this book, please don't complain to us about the price.
Julie, you are quite the detective! I'm glad you figured that out before I made even a bigger fool out of myself.
Oddly enough I've noticed a couple posts have been deleted.
PG
This post is not to defend you but to explain why programs and coaches like ourselves attend your events
01-- subsequent to the Warham event every year we run our Warwick 14 team Wood Bat Tournament in Warwick RI--many of the coaches who attend Warham attend the Warwick event because they are in the region and we have 14 teams in attendance all at one site--it all feeds off each other
02-- Many of the kids in the event have just returned from Warham and coaches get to see them in tournament competition-- another perspective for them--we have have coaches who are there for at least three days
03-- we, as a team, attend the qualifiers not for rankings but for the exposure they give us
04-- keep in mind coaches want to see players in action, not read the rankings--they can use the rankings to help them focus but they wills till want to see the players for themselves
The key is TO BE SEEN and it all works together--the ranking at the end of the day may mean nothing other then they to highlight a player that a coach may want to check out on his own.
Everything is relative--you can have 5 coaches watch a kid and not all will have the same reaction to his performance
Folks it is a very difficult process for coaches in making decisions
Sit back and enjoy the ride and try not to be too clinical especially if this is your first ride
Realize this--some of us have more experience in this situation, it doesn't make us experts but it makes us more experienced
Just enjoy the ride
This post is not to defend you but to explain why programs and coaches like ourselves attend your events
01-- subsequent to the Warham event every year we run our Warwick 14 team Wood Bat Tournament in Warwick RI--many of the coaches who attend Warham attend the Warwick event because they are in the region and we have 14 teams in attendance all at one site--it all feeds off each other
02-- Many of the kids in the event have just returned from Warham and coaches get to see them in tournament competition-- another perspective for them--we have have coaches who are there for at least three days
03-- we, as a team, attend the qualifiers not for rankings but for the exposure they give us
04-- keep in mind coaches want to see players in action, not read the rankings--they can use the rankings to help them focus but they wills till want to see the players for themselves
The key is TO BE SEEN and it all works together--the ranking at the end of the day may mean nothing other then they to highlight a player that a coach may want to check out on his own.
Everything is relative--you can have 5 coaches watch a kid and not all will have the same reaction to his performance
Folks it is a very difficult process for coaches in making decisions
Sit back and enjoy the ride and try not to be too clinical especially if this is your first ride
Realize this--some of us have more experience in this situation, it doesn't make us experts but it makes us more experienced
Just enjoy the ride
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Though, I'm kind of surprised by the number of college coaches that subscribe to pgcrosschecker. Seems like they really don't need it at all.
PG,
In all fairness, aren't players nationally ranked on pgcrosscheker also? That means you could have an 8.5 at 104 and an 8 at 804 (just as an example, if it is way off, please correct me as I'm not trying to paint a picture with an absurd example). That would be quite a difference and I would think that most coaches would at least cross reference thier PG rating with their PG ranking.
CPLZ,
You have brought up an interesting subject there. I will reply as soon as I get enough time to do so.
You have brought up an interesting subject there. I will reply as soon as I get enough time to do so.
Those who say that it isn't worth it for the players who grade out under an 8 must not have a player who graded out under an 8. One thing PG can't measure is desire. As mentioned earlier, I know a few 7-7.5s who are at D1 or top tier D2s. Every one of them works his rear end off 12 months a year.
Too much being made here on the number tagged to a player. As long as the 10s are all the best prospects and the 9s follow and then the 8s, everyone (scouts and recruiters) has a baseline to start when seeing the players.
Remember that evaluation is subjective. Some players showcase very well. Kids running 6.5 and 6.6 in the 60 open eyes wide. Pitchers throwing 90 plus always get noticed. Projection is a forecast based on baseball experience and knowledge. Perfect Game has established itself as the leader in this industry.
Don't get caught up in what the number is as long as it's consistent.
Remember that evaluation is subjective. Some players showcase very well. Kids running 6.5 and 6.6 in the 60 open eyes wide. Pitchers throwing 90 plus always get noticed. Projection is a forecast based on baseball experience and knowledge. Perfect Game has established itself as the leader in this industry.
Don't get caught up in what the number is as long as it's consistent.
PG's talent/potential rating system is to baseball talent/potential evaluation what the military justice system is to justice (or military music is to music). We are talking about "rough" justice, rough music, and rough evaluations.
Two sixty times at 0800. Six ground ball plays. Ten swings against BP pitching. Two games, maybe 5 or 6 at-bats and 5 or 6 fielding chances. Seriously, how much is there to evaluate?
I have to believe that PG looks at the 60 time and throwing velocity most, since those are the only two objective measures in the evaluation. Based upon the athleticism reflected by those two numbers, PG can project POTENTIAL. The kid who is a 6.50 sixty guy and who throws 88 mph across the infield projects, wrt POTENTIAL, better than the kid who is a 7.10 sixty guy and who throws 78 mph across the infield. The former gets a 9.0, the latter a 7.0. PG will admit, I think, that those numbers do not, indeed, cannot, reflect heart, work ethic, attitude, skill (vs. athletic talent), or even quickness, hand-eye coordination, knowledge of the strike zone, game understanding. . .
So, the 7.0 kid may end up being a much better player than the 9.0 kid, above, because he is single-mindedly committed to getting better and doing what is necessary to play at the highest level possible. The 9.0 kid may not care, may be lazy, may not work hard at all. Who knows.
PG's projections, then, are rough, at best. I don't think PG denies this.
It would appear, from what I have observed and from the discussion here, that PG may want to tweak the numbers a little. Using metrics from their database of profiles, PG should be able to reveal how many of their 7.0s ended up in the pros, or at Div I, and so forth. Same for all levels.
But the PG score is only one rating among many. What counts, in the end, is the fit for the kid and whether the coach and staff at a potential college think the kid fits in the program. The fit should be comfortable both ways.
I have written on this site before, and will repeat it here--baseball truly does reflect life. The top 10% are clearly superior, whether it is baseball or military performance or med school or sales. The bottom 10% are clearly there for a reason. It is the middle 80% that provides the challenge. How do we distinguish among this group? My guess is that at any PG event, or like event, the top 10% score 9.5 or 10, and they clearly are superior baseball talents with superior athletic potential. They are bigger, faster, stronger. The bottom 10% tend to stay away from PG events, but still, you get rankings in the 5/6 range. These young men should not give up, but they should refocus on getting better and finding a great college fit. Those ranked 7 to 9 are in the crunch. I suspect alot of 7s are as good, in the end, as most of the 9s. The athletic potential that PG is able to measure in the limited opportunity to see them is awfully close. Those who succeed (say, play Div I ball) are those that have the best work ethic (heart, attitude, dedication) and most opportunity (you cannot get better if you don't play).
I know of two kids at the HS my son attends. These two scored 7s at PG events. Both are playing major Div I baseball. The work ethic and skill level these kids developed allowed them to simply surpass the "better" athletes (some of which were almost certainly graded well above them at the PG events they attended).
Two sixty times at 0800. Six ground ball plays. Ten swings against BP pitching. Two games, maybe 5 or 6 at-bats and 5 or 6 fielding chances. Seriously, how much is there to evaluate?
I have to believe that PG looks at the 60 time and throwing velocity most, since those are the only two objective measures in the evaluation. Based upon the athleticism reflected by those two numbers, PG can project POTENTIAL. The kid who is a 6.50 sixty guy and who throws 88 mph across the infield projects, wrt POTENTIAL, better than the kid who is a 7.10 sixty guy and who throws 78 mph across the infield. The former gets a 9.0, the latter a 7.0. PG will admit, I think, that those numbers do not, indeed, cannot, reflect heart, work ethic, attitude, skill (vs. athletic talent), or even quickness, hand-eye coordination, knowledge of the strike zone, game understanding. . .
So, the 7.0 kid may end up being a much better player than the 9.0 kid, above, because he is single-mindedly committed to getting better and doing what is necessary to play at the highest level possible. The 9.0 kid may not care, may be lazy, may not work hard at all. Who knows.
PG's projections, then, are rough, at best. I don't think PG denies this.
It would appear, from what I have observed and from the discussion here, that PG may want to tweak the numbers a little. Using metrics from their database of profiles, PG should be able to reveal how many of their 7.0s ended up in the pros, or at Div I, and so forth. Same for all levels.
But the PG score is only one rating among many. What counts, in the end, is the fit for the kid and whether the coach and staff at a potential college think the kid fits in the program. The fit should be comfortable both ways.
I have written on this site before, and will repeat it here--baseball truly does reflect life. The top 10% are clearly superior, whether it is baseball or military performance or med school or sales. The bottom 10% are clearly there for a reason. It is the middle 80% that provides the challenge. How do we distinguish among this group? My guess is that at any PG event, or like event, the top 10% score 9.5 or 10, and they clearly are superior baseball talents with superior athletic potential. They are bigger, faster, stronger. The bottom 10% tend to stay away from PG events, but still, you get rankings in the 5/6 range. These young men should not give up, but they should refocus on getting better and finding a great college fit. Those ranked 7 to 9 are in the crunch. I suspect alot of 7s are as good, in the end, as most of the 9s. The athletic potential that PG is able to measure in the limited opportunity to see them is awfully close. Those who succeed (say, play Div I ball) are those that have the best work ethic (heart, attitude, dedication) and most opportunity (you cannot get better if you don't play).
I know of two kids at the HS my son attends. These two scored 7s at PG events. Both are playing major Div I baseball. The work ethic and skill level these kids developed allowed them to simply surpass the "better" athletes (some of which were almost certainly graded well above them at the PG events they attended).
My son was placed on a PG list after playing in a tournament sponsored by PG at East Cobb in 2004. No 60 time, no BP, just game situations and performance-based observations. He went to showcases after PG already IDed him. So it's much more than the simple formula you lay out.
I do agree that hard workers give themselves the best chance for success.
I do agree that hard workers give themselves the best chance for success.
Caulfield -
I agree 100%
I agree 100%
what isaac said. only he said it much better than I did.
Replying to a few questions I couldn't get to earlier.
Some we have graded very low and have left their grade blank. Others request that we take off the grade, some request we take off the entire profile. Guess they are thinking it might not help them. Others have gone from very low grades to very high grades. This does show something important because most players don't improve that much unless they are very serious, have a good work ethic and are tough minded. All of which are positive qualities. Most people don't improve that much by accident. See "Bum's son!
I will keep working on this, but I need our tech guys to help. I checked one SEC conference school (Alabama) because they were the first "highest" level college to show up on our database. Here are the results based on 46 players we graded who have signed or cvommited to Alabama.
14 graded 10
8 graded 9.5
7 graded 9
6 graded 8.5
4 graded 8
2 graded 7.5
2 graded 7
3 graded below 7
One player we graded a 6 ran a 7.4 60, threw 76 across the infield, pitching he topped at 71, and his hitting notes were not all that great. He was a high school senior at the time we graded him.
I can probably give many more examples if the tech guys have time to produce it.
Sometimes we actually rank a lower graded player higher than the higher graded player. We get lots of emails and calls when that happens. It should be remembered that we only attach a grade from showcase events. We do not attach a grade to players in tournaments. That is because we can't always get enough during a game to accurately grade based on potential. However, let me give an example.
Player A is graded a 9 at a showcase.
Player B is graded an 8 at a showcase.
Player B didn't show as much ability at the showcase that player A did. But later on Player B showed a ton of ability at a tournament. He still shows up an 8, but we now think he is much better than an 8, in fact we think he is even better than Player A at this point, so we rank him accordingly.
It has always been my belief, that we shouldn't rank kids after a certain point. Instead of rankings by the number of 1-2500, I always thought we should rank the top 250-500 by number and list the others alphabetically as higher level prospects.
CPLZ brings up a very good point that I think many here who follow our stuff would agree with. The truth is that the difference between whoever is ranked 150 and 250 is so little, that it is entirely likely that #250 could be a better player than #150. That said the differnce between who is ranked 650 and 2050 might be even closer.
Often we get complaints about players moving down in the list even though they have performed well. This wouldn't happen if we quit looking at players once the first rankings were released. But, we are always seeing new players and adjusting accordingly. When we see a player who we think is a definite top 50 type, that means everyone ranked 50 are lower moves down a notch when we enter the new guy into the rankings. The more guys we see that are among the very best, the more others move down. It doesn't mean we think less of their ability. It means we found another top guy. This can be hard for some to understand.
All this can be very important. A few years ago we saw a RHP from Kansas the very first time at a tournament. Not many knew who he was before that. The next time the rankings were updated he was ranked around #20 in the country. His very next game had 40 scouts including at least a dozen scouting directors at a small town in Kansas. He was later drafted in the 2nd round by the Pirates.
People do pay attention.
quote:PG quick question. Why do some ask to have the lower ratings removed? Seems to me that if a player is rated at a lower number at a showcase one year and then he goes the next and improves his rating, that would only help him. IE: shows that he is getting better as a player over time/experience,is there something I'm not understanding about the rating system?
Some we have graded very low and have left their grade blank. Others request that we take off the grade, some request we take off the entire profile. Guess they are thinking it might not help them. Others have gone from very low grades to very high grades. This does show something important because most players don't improve that much unless they are very serious, have a good work ethic and are tough minded. All of which are positive qualities. Most people don't improve that much by accident. See "Bum's son!
quote:However, tomorrow if I can find the time at the office, I will list some, lower than 8 grade, players who just recently signed with some of what everyone here would say are Top Level DI college programs.
I will keep working on this, but I need our tech guys to help. I checked one SEC conference school (Alabama) because they were the first "highest" level college to show up on our database. Here are the results based on 46 players we graded who have signed or cvommited to Alabama.
14 graded 10
8 graded 9.5
7 graded 9
6 graded 8.5
4 graded 8
2 graded 7.5
2 graded 7
3 graded below 7
One player we graded a 6 ran a 7.4 60, threw 76 across the infield, pitching he topped at 71, and his hitting notes were not all that great. He was a high school senior at the time we graded him.
I can probably give many more examples if the tech guys have time to produce it.
quote:PG,
In all fairness, aren't players nationally ranked on pgcrosscheker also? That means you could have an 8.5 at 104 and an 8 at 804 (just as an example, if it is way off, please correct me as I'm not trying to paint a picture with an absurd example). That would be quite a difference and I would think that most coaches would at least cross reference thier PG rating with their PG ranking.
Sometimes we actually rank a lower graded player higher than the higher graded player. We get lots of emails and calls when that happens. It should be remembered that we only attach a grade from showcase events. We do not attach a grade to players in tournaments. That is because we can't always get enough during a game to accurately grade based on potential. However, let me give an example.
Player A is graded a 9 at a showcase.
Player B is graded an 8 at a showcase.
Player B didn't show as much ability at the showcase that player A did. But later on Player B showed a ton of ability at a tournament. He still shows up an 8, but we now think he is much better than an 8, in fact we think he is even better than Player A at this point, so we rank him accordingly.
It has always been my belief, that we shouldn't rank kids after a certain point. Instead of rankings by the number of 1-2500, I always thought we should rank the top 250-500 by number and list the others alphabetically as higher level prospects.
CPLZ brings up a very good point that I think many here who follow our stuff would agree with. The truth is that the difference between whoever is ranked 150 and 250 is so little, that it is entirely likely that #250 could be a better player than #150. That said the differnce between who is ranked 650 and 2050 might be even closer.
Often we get complaints about players moving down in the list even though they have performed well. This wouldn't happen if we quit looking at players once the first rankings were released. But, we are always seeing new players and adjusting accordingly. When we see a player who we think is a definite top 50 type, that means everyone ranked 50 are lower moves down a notch when we enter the new guy into the rankings. The more guys we see that are among the very best, the more others move down. It doesn't mean we think less of their ability. It means we found another top guy. This can be hard for some to understand.
All this can be very important. A few years ago we saw a RHP from Kansas the very first time at a tournament. Not many knew who he was before that. The next time the rankings were updated he was ranked around #20 in the country. His very next game had 40 scouts including at least a dozen scouting directors at a small town in Kansas. He was later drafted in the 2nd round by the Pirates.
People do pay attention.
Sorry for using up so much space, but here are some players graded 6 or lower and the college they signed with. There are High level DI, other DI, DII, DIII, NAIA, and JCs listed.
PG-Grade College Commitment
3 IA
5 UNC Greensboro
5 West Virginia
5 NM Juco
5 Whitman College
5.5 Boston College
5.5 Davidson
5.5 Furman
5.5 Grambling
5.5 Longwood
5.5 Loyola Marymount
5.5 Minnesota
5.5 Saint Peters
5.5 St. Johns
5.5 Texas A&M
5.5 Valparaiso
5.5 Aurora
5.5 Barry
5.5 Faulkner
5.5 Lynn
5.5 North Florida CC
5.5 Riverside CC
5.5 Southern Maine
5.5 Trinity (TX)
6.5 Alabama
6 Alabama State
6 Albany
6 Arizona
6 Arizona St.
6 Bowling Green
6 Brown
6 Cal St Bakersfield
6 Cal State Fullerton
6 California Irvine
6 Canisius
6 Cornell
6 Creighton
6 Duke
6 Fairleigh Dickinson
6 Florida
6 Florida
6 Florida Atlantic
6 Florida State
6 Georgia Tech
6 Grambling
6 High Point
6 Illinois State
6 Iona College
6 Iowa
6 James Madison
6 La Salle
6 LaSalle
6 Liberty
6 Louisiana State
6 Maryland
6 Miami
6 Mississippi
6 Niagara
6 Northeastern
6 Oklahoma State
6 Old Dominion
6 Richmond
6 Rutgers
6 Rutgers
6 Saint Louis
6 San Diego
6 Seton Hall
6 South Alabama
6 Southern Illinois
6 St. Bonaventure University
6 St. Bonaventure University
6 St. Josephs
6 St. Joseph's
6 St. Marys
6 Stetson
6 Stetson
6 Tulane
6 UC Irvine
6 UCSB
6 University of Portland
6 Utah
6 VMI
6 Winthrop
6 Wofford
6 Aurora
6 Babson
6 Barry
6 Belmont-Abbey
6 Biola
6 Bowdoin
6 Caldwell College
6 College of Mt. St. Joseph
6 Denison University
6 Drexel
6 Elgin CC
6 Ellsworth CC
6 Endicott
6 Flagler
6 Florida Southern
6 Florida Tech
6 Frederick CC
6 Georgia Col & St U, GA
6 Hawaii Pacific
6 Hill JC
6 Huntingdon College
6 Jefferson Davis CC
6 Kentucky Wesleyan
6 Kirkwood
6 Lake City CC
6 Lakeland College
6 Long Beach City College
6 Lynn
6 Marshalltown CC
6 Mary Washington
6 Millersville
6 MIT
6 N
6 Navarro College
6 New Mexico Military Institute
6 NM Juco
6 North Florida
6 North Georgia
6 Occidental College
6 Polk CC
6 Seminole (OK) JC
6 Skidmore College
6 Southwest Tennessee
6 St Lawrence Uni
6 St Mary’s College (MD)
6 St. Cloud State
6 Trinity
6 Trinity (TX)
6 Trinity College
6 Trinity International
6 U Southern Indiana
6 UMBC
6 University of Mary Washington
6 University of Scranton
6 University of Scranton
6 Ventura College
PG-Grade College Commitment
3 IA
5 UNC Greensboro
5 West Virginia
5 NM Juco
5 Whitman College
5.5 Boston College
5.5 Davidson
5.5 Furman
5.5 Grambling
5.5 Longwood
5.5 Loyola Marymount
5.5 Minnesota
5.5 Saint Peters
5.5 St. Johns
5.5 Texas A&M
5.5 Valparaiso
5.5 Aurora
5.5 Barry
5.5 Faulkner
5.5 Lynn
5.5 North Florida CC
5.5 Riverside CC
5.5 Southern Maine
5.5 Trinity (TX)
6.5 Alabama
6 Alabama State
6 Albany
6 Arizona
6 Arizona St.
6 Bowling Green
6 Brown
6 Cal St Bakersfield
6 Cal State Fullerton
6 California Irvine
6 Canisius
6 Cornell
6 Creighton
6 Duke
6 Fairleigh Dickinson
6 Florida
6 Florida
6 Florida Atlantic
6 Florida State
6 Georgia Tech
6 Grambling
6 High Point
6 Illinois State
6 Iona College
6 Iowa
6 James Madison
6 La Salle
6 LaSalle
6 Liberty
6 Louisiana State
6 Maryland
6 Miami
6 Mississippi
6 Niagara
6 Northeastern
6 Oklahoma State
6 Old Dominion
6 Richmond
6 Rutgers
6 Rutgers
6 Saint Louis
6 San Diego
6 Seton Hall
6 South Alabama
6 Southern Illinois
6 St. Bonaventure University
6 St. Bonaventure University
6 St. Josephs
6 St. Joseph's
6 St. Marys
6 Stetson
6 Stetson
6 Tulane
6 UC Irvine
6 UCSB
6 University of Portland
6 Utah
6 VMI
6 Winthrop
6 Wofford
6 Aurora
6 Babson
6 Barry
6 Belmont-Abbey
6 Biola
6 Bowdoin
6 Caldwell College
6 College of Mt. St. Joseph
6 Denison University
6 Drexel
6 Elgin CC
6 Ellsworth CC
6 Endicott
6 Flagler
6 Florida Southern
6 Florida Tech
6 Frederick CC
6 Georgia Col & St U, GA
6 Hawaii Pacific
6 Hill JC
6 Huntingdon College
6 Jefferson Davis CC
6 Kentucky Wesleyan
6 Kirkwood
6 Lake City CC
6 Lakeland College
6 Long Beach City College
6 Lynn
6 Marshalltown CC
6 Mary Washington
6 Millersville
6 MIT
6 N
6 Navarro College
6 New Mexico Military Institute
6 NM Juco
6 North Florida
6 North Georgia
6 Occidental College
6 Polk CC
6 Seminole (OK) JC
6 Skidmore College
6 Southwest Tennessee
6 St Lawrence Uni
6 St Mary’s College (MD)
6 St. Cloud State
6 Trinity
6 Trinity (TX)
6 Trinity College
6 Trinity International
6 U Southern Indiana
6 UMBC
6 University of Mary Washington
6 University of Scranton
6 University of Scranton
6 Ventura College
Here are some 7 and 7.5s and the college they signed with
7 Alabama State
7 Albany
7 Albany
7 Arizona
7 Arizona
7 Arizona
7 Arizona
7 Arkansas
7 Auburn
7 Auburn
7 Austin Peay
7 Baylor
7 Belmont
7 Binghamton
7 Binghamton
7 Binghamton University
7 Boston College
7 Boston College
7 Bowling Green
7 Bradley
7 Brown
7 Brown
7 Brown
7 Brown
7 Bryant
7 Buffalo
7 Cal Irvine
7 Cal Poly
7 Cal St Bakersfield
7 Cal State Northridge
7 California
7 California
7 California
7 California Irvine
7 California Irvine
7 California Irvine
7 Cal-State Bakersfield
7 Campbell University
7 Canisius
7 Canisius
7 Cat St. Northridge
7 Central Florida
7 Central Florida
7 Central Florida
7 Central Michigan
7 Cincinnati
7 Cincinnati
7 Coastal Carolina
7 Coastal Carolina
7 College of Charleston
7 College of Charleston
7 Columbia
7 Connecticut
7 Cornell
7 Creighton
7 Creighton
7 Creighton
7 Dallas Baptist
7 David Lipscomb
7 Davidson
7 Davidson College
7 Dayton
7 Delaware
7 DMACC/Bradley
7 Duke
7 Duke
7 East Carolina
7 East Carolina
7 East Carolina
7 Eastern Illinois
7 Elon
7 Elon
7 Evansville
7 Fairleigh Dickinson
7 Fairleigh Dickinson
7 Fairleigh Dickinson
7 Farleigh Dickenson
7 FL State
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida Atlantic
7 Florida International
7 Florida State
7 Florida State
7 Florida State
7 Florida State
7 Fordham
7 Fordham
7 Fresno State
7 Fresno State
7 Furman
7 Furman
7 Furman
7 Gardner Webb
7 Gardner Webb
7 Gardner-Webb University
7 George Mason
7 George Mason
7 George Washington
7 George Washington
7 Georgetown
7 Georgetown
7 Georgetown
7 Georgetown
7 Georgia
7 Georgia Southern
7 Georgia Tech
7 Georgia Tech
7 Grambling
7 Hartford
7 Hawaii
7 High Point
7 Hofstra
7 Houston
7 Houston
7 Illinois Chicago
7 Iowa
7 Jacksonville
7 Jacksonville State
7 Jacksonville State
7 Jacksonville U
7 James Madison
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Lafayette
7 Lafayette
7 LaSalle
7 Liberty
7 Liberty
7 Long Beach State
7 Long Island
7 Long Island
7 Longwood University
7 Louisiana Lafayette
7 Louisiana Tech
7 Louisville
7 Louisville
7 Lousiana Tech
7 Maine
7 Maine
7 Maine
7 Marist
7 Marist
7 Marist
7 Marist
7 Maryland
7 Maryland Baltimore County
7 Maryland Baltimore County
7 Massachusettes
7 Massachusetts
7 Massachusetts
7 Memphis
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Michigan
7 Michigan State
7 Minnesota
7 Mississippi
7 Mississippi State
7 Missouir
7 Missouri
7 Missouri
7 Missouri
7 Missouri St U, MO
7 Monmouth
7 Mount St Mary's
7 Mount St. Mary's
7 Navy
7 Navy
7 Nebraska
7 Nebraska
7 Nebraska
7 Nebraska
7 New Jersey Tech
7 New Mexico St.
7 New Orleans
7 New York Tech
7 Niagara
7 Nichols St
7 NJIT
7 Norfolk St.
7 North Carolina
7 North Carolina
7 North Carolina St.
7 Northeastern
7 Northeastern
7 Northeastern
7 Northern Illinois
7 Northern Illinois
7 Northern Iowa
7 Northern Iowa
7 Northwestern
7 Notre Dame
7 Notre Dame
7 Notre Dame
7 Ohio
7 Oklahoma St
7 Oral Roberts
7 Oregon
7 Oregon State
7 Pennsylvania
7 Pepperdine
7 Pepperdine
7 Purdue
7 Quinnipiac
7 Quinnipiac University
7 Rhode Island
7 Rhode Island
7 Rhode Island
7 Rice
7 Rice
7 Rider
7 Rutgers
7 Sacramento State
7 Saint Francis
7 Saint Mary's
7 Samford
7 San Diego
7 San Diego
7 San Diego
7 San Diego State
7 San Francisco
7 San Francisco
7 San Jose St.
7 Santa Clara
7 Santa Clara
7 Santa Clara U
7 Seton Hall
7 Seton Hall
7 Siena
7 Siena
7 Siena
7 South Alabama
7 South Alabama
7 South Alabama
7 South Carolina Upstate
7 Southern Cal
7 Southern Miss
7 Southern Mississippi
7 St Johns
7 St. John's
7 St. Joseph's
7 St. Peters
7 Stanford
7 Stanford
7 Stanford
7 Stetson
7 Stetson
7 Stetson
7 Temple
7 Tennessee
7 Tennessee Tech
7 Texas A&M
7 Texas A&M
7 Texas A&M
7 Texas Arlington
7 Texas State
7 Texas State
7 Texas Tech
7 Texas Tech
7 The Citadel, SC
7 Troy
7 Tulane
7 U Florida
7 U Nebraska Lincoln
7 U New Orleans
7 U of Alabama, Birmingham
7 U Oklahoma (OK)
7 UC Riverside
7 UC Santa Barbara
7 UC Santa Barbara
7 UC-Davis
7 UCLA
7 UCLA
7 UCLA
7 UNC
7 UNC Charlotte
7 UNC Greensboro
7 UNC Greensboro
7 UNC-Charlotte
7 UNC-Charlotte
7 UNC-Greensboro
7 University of Texas Arlington
7 UNLV
7 UNLV
7 UNLV
7 Vanderbilt
7 Vermont
7 Vermont
7 Vermont
7 Vermont
7 Villanova
7 Villanova
7 Virginia Tech
7 VMI
7 VMI
7 Wagner
7 Wagner
7 Wake Forest
7 Wake Forest
7 Wake Forest
7 William & Mary
7 William & Mary
7 Winthrop
7 Wofford
7 Wofford
7 Wright State
7 Yale
7 Yale
7 Yale U
7 Youngstown State
7 Alabama Southern CC
7 Albertus Magnus College
7 American International College
7 Amherst
7 Angelina JC
7 Angelo State University
7 Atlanta Christian College
7 Azusa Pacific
7 Babson College
7 Barry
7 Barry
7 Barry
7 Barry (FL)
7 Belmont Abbey
7 Berry College
7 Biola University
7 Biola University
7 Bowdoin College
7 Brandeis
7 Cal State University
7 Calhoun CC
7 Catholic
7 Catholic University of America
7 Chandler Gilbert
7 Chapman University
7 Chattahoochie CC
7 Christopher Newport University
7 Clarion
7 Clark
7 Cleveland State CC
7 Cochise
7 Concordia
7 Cowley County CC
7 CW Post
7 Eastern Connecticut
7 Eckerd
7 Eckerd College
7 Elgin CC
7 Ellsworth CC
7 Emory
7 Emory
7 Florence Darlington
7 Florida Southern College
7 Francis Marion
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce College
7 Fresno CC
7 Greensboro College
7 Guilford
7 Hill CC
7 Hillsborough CC
7 Hillsborough CC
7 Hillsborough Community College
7 Hillsdale College
7 Houston Baptist
7 Howard
7 Illinois Wesleyan University
7 Indian River CC
7 Iowa Western CC
7 Iowa Western CC
7 Ithaca College
7 Jefferson College
7 Jefferson JC
7 John Hopkins
7 John Hopkins
7 John Logan JC
7 Kentucky Wesleyan
7 Kirkwood CC
7 Kirkwood CC
7 Lake City CC
7 Lakeland CC
7 Lakeland College
7 Limestone
7 Lindenwood
7 Loretta
7 Louisburg College
7 Loyola University of New Orleans
7 Lynn
7 Macalester College
7 Madison Area
7 Manatee CC
7 Manhattan
7 Mansfield University
7 Massasoit CC
7 Meremec CC
7 Meridian CC
7 Mesa CC
7 Miami Dade Community College
7 Middle Georgia
7 Midland College
7 Millersville University
7 Missouri/San Jac CC
7 Missouri-Rolla
7 Montevallo
7 Montreat College
7 Muscatine CC
7 New Mexico JC
7 Newberry
7 Newberry
7 Newberry College
7 NIACC
7 North Carolina Central University
7 North Florida
7 North Florida CC
7 Northeastern JC
7 Nova Southeastern
7 Nova Southeastern University
7 Nova Southeastern Universty
7 NW Missouri State
7 Orange Coast Col, CA
7 Ouachhita-Baptist
7 Pace
7 Palm Beach CC
7 Pensacola CC
7 Piedmont College
7 Pittsburgh
7 Point Loma Nazarene
7 Polk CC
7 Polk CC
7 Polk CC
7 Potomac St Col, WV
7 Ramapo College
7 Ranger College
7 Redlands
7 Redlands CC
7 Reedley
7 Rend Lake
7 Rhodes
7 Riverside CC
7 Rochester
7 Rochester Institute of Technology
7 Rockland CC
7 Saint Petersburg CC
7 Saint Petersburg CC
7 Salisbury University
7 San Jacinto JC
7 Savannah College
7 Savannah College of Art and Design
7 Savannah College or Art & Design
7 Savannah State University
7 Scottsdale CC
7 Seward County CC
7 Skidmore College
7 Southern Arkansas
7 Southern Maine
7 Southern Union CC
7 St Josephs University
7 St Lawrence Uni
7 St. Joe's Rensselaer, IN
7 St. Joseph (IN)
7 St. Josephs (ME)
7 St. Peter's College
7 Stonehill College
7 Stonybrook
7 SUNY Stonybrook
7 Taft College
7 Tampa
7 Tennessee Wesleyan
7 The College of NJ
7 The University of Texas at Dallas
7 Thomas University
7 Toledo
7 Trinity (CT)
7 Trinity (Texas)
7 Truman State
7 Tufts University
7 Tufts University
7 U Maryland Col Park
7 University of Montevallo
7 Upper IA Univ
7 Upper Iowa
7 Upper Iowa
7 Ursinus
7 UW-Stevens Point
7 Valdosta State
7 Vincennes
7 Vincennes CC
7 Wallace St CC
7 Wallace State CC
7 Waubensee CC
7 Wayne State
7 West Chester
7 West Florida
7 West Virginia State University
7 Western College
7 Western Nebraska CC
7 Western Nevada College
7 Western Oklahoma CC
7 Western Oklahoma State College
7 Widener
7 William Paterson University
7 Williams
7 Yavapai CC
7 Young Harris CC
7 Young Harris Jc
7.5 Alabama
7.5 Alabama
7.5 Albany
7.5 Appalachian St.
7.5 Appalachian State
7.5 Appalachian State
7.5 Arizona
7.5 Arizona State U
7.5 Arkansas
7.5 Arkansas
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas State
7.5 Army
7.5 Army
7.5 Auburn
7.5 Baylor
7.5 Baylor
7.5 Baylor
7.5 Belmont
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Bradley
7.5 Bradley
7.5 Brown
7.5 Brown
7.5 Brown
7.5 Bucknell
7.5 BYU
7.5 Cal Irvine
7.5 Cal Poly
7.5 Cal Poly
7.5 Cal Poly SLO
7.5 Cal State Bakersfield
7.5 Cal State Northridge
7.5 Cal State Northridge
7.5 California
7.5 California Irvine
7.5 Cal-State Bakersfield
7.5 Canisius
7.5 Canisius
7.5 Central Connecticut
7.5 Central Connecticut State
7.5 Central Florida
7.5 Central Florida
7.5 Central Florida
7.5 Central Michigan
7.5 Central Michigan
7.5 Charleston Southern
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Clemson
7.5 Clemson
7.5 Clemson
7.5 Coastal Carolina
7.5 College of Charleston
7.5 Columbia
7.5 Columbia
7.5 Columbia
7.5 Cornell
7.5 Dallas Baptist
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 David Lipscomb
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Dayton
7.5 Dayton
7.5 DMACC/North Dakota State
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duquesne
7.5 East Carolina
7.5 East Carolina
7.5 East Tennessee St.
7.5 East Tennessee State
7.5 Eastern Kentucky
7.5 Eastern Kentucky
7.5 Eastern Michigan
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Evansville
7.5 Fairfield
7.5 Fairfield
7.5 Fairfield University
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Farleigh Dickenson
7.5 FL State
7.5 Florida
7.5 Florida
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida International
7.5 Florida International
7.5 Florida State
7.5 Florida State
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fresno St
7.5 Fresno State
7.5 Fresno State
7.5 Furman
7.5 Furman
7.5 Gardner Webb
7.5 Gardner Webb
7.5 Gardner Webb
7.5 Gardner-Webb University
7.5 George Mason
7.5 George Washington
7.5 George Washington University
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgia
7.5 Georgia
7.5 Georgia
7.5 Georgia Southern
7.5 Georgia Southern Universtiy
7.5 Georgia State
7.5 Georgia Tech
7.5 Gonzaga
7.5 Harvard
7.5 Harvard
7.5 Hawaii
7.5 Hawaii
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Holy Cross
7.5 Houston
7.5 Houston
7.5 Illinois State
7.5 Indiana State
7.5 Iona
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Jacksonville
7.5 Jacksonville
7.5 Jacksonville State
7.5 Jacksonville U
7.5 James Madison
7.5 James Madison
7.5 Kansas
7.5 Kansas
7.5 Kansas
7.5 Kansas State
7.5 Kansas State
7.5 Kent State
7.5 Kent State
7.5 Kentucky
7.5 Kentucky
7.5 La Salle
7.5 Lafayette
7.5 Lafayette
7.5 LA-Lafayette
7.5 LA-Lafayette
7.5 Lamar
7.5 LaSalle
7.5 Lehigh
7.5 Lehigh
7.5 LeMoyne
7.5 Liberty
7.5 Lipscomb
7.5 Long Beach State
7.5 Long Beach State
7.5 Long Island
7.5 Long Island
7.5 Longwood
7.5 Louisiana Monroe
7.5 Louisiana State
7.5 Louisiana State
7.5 Louisville
7.5 Louisville
7.5 Maine
7.5 Manhattan College
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marshall University
7.5 Maryland
7.5 Maryland Baltimore County
7.5 Maryland Baltimore County
7.5 Massachusettes
7.5 Massachusetts
7.5 Massachusetts
7.5 Massachusetts
7.5 Mercer
7.5 Miami
7.5 Miami
7.5 Miami
7.5 Miami (OH)
7.5 Michigan
7.5 Michigan
7.5 Middle Tennessee State
7.5 Missouri
7.5 Monmouth
7.5 Monmouth
7.5 Mount St. Mary's
7.5 Navy
7.5 Nebraska
7.5 Nebraska
7.5 Nebraska
7.5 New Jersey Institute of Technology
7.5 New Mexico State
7.5 New Orleans
7.5 New Orleans
7.5 New York Tech
7.5 Niagara
7.5 NJIT
7.5 Norfolk St.
7.5 North Carolina
7.5 North Carolina
7.5 North Carolina State
7.5 North Carolina State
7.5 North Carolina State
7.5 North Carolina Wilmington
7.5 North Dakota St.
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northern Colorado
7.5 Northern Iowa
7.5 Northern Iowa
7.5 Northwestern St.
7.5 Notre Dame
7.5 Notre Dame
7.5 Notre Dame
7.5 Oklahoma State
7.5 Old Dominion
7.5 Oral Roberts
7.5 Oregon
7.5 Oregon State
7.5 Oregon State
7.5 Penn State
7.5 Pennsylvania
7.5 Pepperdine
7.5 Pepperdine
7.5 Princeton
7.5 Princeton
7.5 Princeton
7.5 Purdue
7.5 Purdue
7.5 Purdue
7.5 Quinnipiac
7.5 Quinnipiac
7.5 Quinnipiac University
7.5 Radford
7.5 Radford
7.5 Radford
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rice
7.5 Rice
7.5 Rice
7.5 Rice
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Rider
7.5 Rutgers
7.5 Rutgers
7.5 Sacramento State
7.5 Saint Bonaventure
7.5 Saint Francis
7.5 Saint Francis
7.5 Saint Louis
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Peters
7.5 Samford
7.5 Samford
7.5 Samford
7.5 Samford
7.5 San Diego
7.5 San Diego State
7.5 San Diego State
7.5 San Diego State
7.5 San Francisco
7.5 San Jose St.
7.5 Santa Clara
7.5 Santa Clara
7.5 Santa Clara
7.5 Seton Hall
7.5 Siena
7.5 Siena
7.5 Siena
7.5 Sierra
7.5 South Alabama
7.5 South Carolina
7.5 South Carolina
7.5 South Florida
7.5 Southeast Missouri
7.5 Southern California
7.5 Southern Ilinois-Edwardsville
7.5 Southern Mississippi
7.5 St. Louis
7.5 St. Louis
7.5 St. Louis
7.5 St. Marys
7.5 St. Marys
7.5 St. Peters
7.5 St. Peters
7.5 Stanford
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Temple
7.5 Tennessee
7.5 Tennessee Tech
7.5 Texas A&M Corpus Christi
7.5 Texas AM Corpus Christi
7.5 Texas Arlington
7.5 Texas Christian
7.5 Texas Tech
7.5 Texas Tech
7.5 Texas-San Antonio
7.5 The Citadel
7.5 Tulane
7.5 Tulane
7.5 Tulane
7.5 U Conn
7.5 U Hawaii
7.5 U Houston
7.5 U Louisiana Lafayette
7.5 U Nebraska Lincoln
7.5 UAB
7.5 UC Davis
7.5 UC Davis
7.5 UC Riverside
7.5 UC Santa Barbara
7.5 UCLA
7.5 UCLA
7.5 UNC
7.5 UNC Asheville
7.5 UNC Asheville
7.5 UNC Wilmington
7.5 UNC-Asheville
7.5 UNC-Charlotte
7.5 UNI
7.5 University of Pennsylvania
7.5 UNLV
7.5 UNLV
7.5 UNLV
7.5 UNLV
7.5 USC
7.5 USC
7.5 Utah
7.5 Utah
7.5 UW-Milwaukee
7.5 Valparaiso
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vermont
7.5 Vermont
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Virginia
7.5 Virginia
7.5 Virginia Commonwealth
7.5 Virginia Tech
7.5 VMI
7.5 VMI
7.5 VMI
7.5 Wagner
7.5 Wake Forest
7.5 Wake Forest
7.5 Wake Forest
7.5 Washington
7.5 Western Carolina
7.5 Western Kentucky
7.5 William & Mary
7.5 William & Mary
7.5 William & Mary
7.5 Winthrop
7.5 Winthrop
7.5 Winthrop
7.5 Wisconsin Milwaukee
7.5 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
7.5 Wofford
7.5 Wofford
7.5 Xavier
7.5 Yale
7.5 Yale
7.5 Air Force
7.5 Alabama Southern CC
7.5 Alabama Southern JC
7.5 Alvernia College
7.5 American International
7.5 Amherst
7.5 Andrew College
7.5 Arizona Western
7.5 Augustana
7.5 Azusa Pacific U
7.5 Babson College
7.5 Barry
7.5 Barry
7.5 Barry
7.5 Barry
7.5 Belmont Abbey
7.5 Bevill St.
7.5 Biola
7.5 Bossier Parish CC
7.5 Bowdoin College
7.5 Brandeis
7.5 Broward CC
7.5 Broward CC
7.5 Cal State San Marcos
7.5 California(PA)
7.5 Chattahoochee Valley CC
7.5 Chico State
7.5 Christopher Newport University
7.5 Cisco JC
7.5 Citadel FB
7.5 Columbus St.
7.5 Columbus State
7.5 Crowder CC
7.5 Cuesta CC
7.5 Daytona Beach
7.5 DMACC
7.5 E. Connecticut State
7.5 East Stroudsburg University
7.5 Eastfield CC
7.5 Eckerd
7.5 Elgin CC
7.5 Ellsworth CC
7.5 Ellsworth CC
7.5 Ellsworth JC
7.5 Embury Riddle
7.5 Emory
7.5 Emory University
7.5 Erie CC
7.5 FL Southern
7.5 Flagler
7.5 Florence Darlington
7.5 Florida Southern
7.5 Florida Southern
7.5 Florida Southern College
7.5 Francis Marion
7.5 Franciscan
7.5 Franklin & Marshall
7.5 Franklin Pierce
7.5 Grayson County College
7.5 Grossmont Junior College
7.5 Gulf Coast CC
7.5 Hagerstown CC
7.5 Harding University
7.5 Hawaii Pacific
7.5 Heartland CC
7.5 Heartland CC
7.5 Heidelberg
7.5 Heidelberg College
7.5 Hill JC
7.5 Hillsborough CC
7.5 Howard
7.5 Howard
7.5 Iowa Central
7.5 Iowa Western CC
7.5 Iowa Western CC/South Alabama
7.5 Jeff Davis CC
7.5 Jefferson Davis
7.5 John Hopkins
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Kenyon College
7.5 Kirkwood
7.5 Kirkwood
7.5 Kirkwood CC
7.5 Kirkwood CC
7.5 Kishwaukee College (IL)
7.5 LaGrange College
7.5 Lake City CC
7.5 Lake Sumter
7.5 Lake Sumter
7.5 Lakeland CC
7.5 Lincoln Lane CC
7.5 Lindenwood
7.5 Louisiana St U at Eunice, LA
7.5 Lynn
7.5 Manatee
7.5 Manhattanville
7.5 Mars Hill
7.5 Maryville
7.5 Massachusetts Maritime Academy
7.5 Massasoit CC
7.5 MATC-Madison
7.5 Mclennan JC (TX)
7.5 McMurry University
7.5 Mesa CC
7.5 Miami Dade CC South (FL)
7.5 Midland
7.5 Millersville U
7.5 Mount Mercy
7.5 Neosho CC
7.5 Nevada
7.5 New Haven
7.5 niversity of Rhode Island
7.5 North Carolina Central University
7.5 North Carolina Greensboro
7.5 North Florida
7.5 North Florida
7.5 North Florida
7.5 North Georgia
7.5 Northeast Texas CC
7.5 Nova Southeastern
7.5 Nova Southeastern
7.5 NW Missouri State
7.5 Ohio State (FB)
7.5 Okaloosa Walton CC
7.5 Okaloosa Walton JC
7.5 Oklahoma City U
7.5 Orange Coast Col, CA
7.5 Orange Coast College
7.5 Palm Beach CC
7.5 Palm Beach CC
7.5 Palomar
7.5 Palomar / Oklahoma
7.5 Paris JC
7.5 Patrick Henry CC
7.5 Pensacola CC
7.5 Pensacola JC
7.5 Pfeiffer
7.5 Pitt CC
7.5 Point Loma Nazarene
7.5 Polk CC
7.5 Riverside
7.5 Riverside CC
7.5 Rollins
7.5 Rowan
7.5 Sacred Heart University
7.5 Saint Petersburg CC
7.5 Salisbury University
7.5 San Jacinto JC
7.5 Savannah
7.5 Savannah College
7.5 Savannah School of Art/Design
7.5 Scottsdale CC
7.5 Seminole CC
7.5 Seminole St
7.5 Seminole St.
7.5 Shippensburg University
7.5 South Carolina Aiken
7.5 Southern Nazarene
7.5 Southern New Hampshire
7.5 Southern New Hampshire
7.5 Southern U A&M
7.5 Southern Utah
7.5 St Lawrence University
7.5 St. Leo
7.5 St. Leo
7.5 St. Thomas
7.5 Stonehill College
7.5 Stonybrook
7.5 Stonybrook
7.5 Tallahassee CC
7.5 Tampa
7.5 Tampa
7.5 Trinity
7.5 Trinity College
7.5 Trinity College
7.5 U Mass Amherst
7.5 UCSD
7.5 UCSD
7.5 UMASS-Lowell
7.5 UMBC
7.5 Upper IA Univ
7.5 Upper Iowa
7.5 US Naval Academy
7.5 UW-Stevens Point
7.5 Valdosta State
7.5 Vanguard
7.5 Vincennes
7.5 Virginia FB
7.5 Wabash Valley
7.5 Wallace State CC
7.5 Walters State CC
7.5 Wayne State
7.5 Weatherford College
7.5 West Chester
7.5 West Chester University of Pennsylvania
7.5 West Florida
7.5 West Palm Beach CC
7.5 Western New England College
7.5 Widener University
7.5 Wisconsin Whitewater
7.5 Yavapai
7.5 Yavapai
7.5 Yavapai CC
7 Alabama State
7 Albany
7 Albany
7 Arizona
7 Arizona
7 Arizona
7 Arizona
7 Arkansas
7 Auburn
7 Auburn
7 Austin Peay
7 Baylor
7 Belmont
7 Binghamton
7 Binghamton
7 Binghamton University
7 Boston College
7 Boston College
7 Bowling Green
7 Bradley
7 Brown
7 Brown
7 Brown
7 Brown
7 Bryant
7 Buffalo
7 Cal Irvine
7 Cal Poly
7 Cal St Bakersfield
7 Cal State Northridge
7 California
7 California
7 California
7 California Irvine
7 California Irvine
7 California Irvine
7 Cal-State Bakersfield
7 Campbell University
7 Canisius
7 Canisius
7 Cat St. Northridge
7 Central Florida
7 Central Florida
7 Central Florida
7 Central Michigan
7 Cincinnati
7 Cincinnati
7 Coastal Carolina
7 Coastal Carolina
7 College of Charleston
7 College of Charleston
7 Columbia
7 Connecticut
7 Cornell
7 Creighton
7 Creighton
7 Creighton
7 Dallas Baptist
7 David Lipscomb
7 Davidson
7 Davidson College
7 Dayton
7 Delaware
7 DMACC/Bradley
7 Duke
7 Duke
7 East Carolina
7 East Carolina
7 East Carolina
7 Eastern Illinois
7 Elon
7 Elon
7 Evansville
7 Fairleigh Dickinson
7 Fairleigh Dickinson
7 Fairleigh Dickinson
7 Farleigh Dickenson
7 FL State
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida
7 Florida Atlantic
7 Florida International
7 Florida State
7 Florida State
7 Florida State
7 Florida State
7 Fordham
7 Fordham
7 Fresno State
7 Fresno State
7 Furman
7 Furman
7 Furman
7 Gardner Webb
7 Gardner Webb
7 Gardner-Webb University
7 George Mason
7 George Mason
7 George Washington
7 George Washington
7 Georgetown
7 Georgetown
7 Georgetown
7 Georgetown
7 Georgia
7 Georgia Southern
7 Georgia Tech
7 Georgia Tech
7 Grambling
7 Hartford
7 Hawaii
7 High Point
7 Hofstra
7 Houston
7 Houston
7 Illinois Chicago
7 Iowa
7 Jacksonville
7 Jacksonville State
7 Jacksonville State
7 Jacksonville U
7 James Madison
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Kansas State
7 Lafayette
7 Lafayette
7 LaSalle
7 Liberty
7 Liberty
7 Long Beach State
7 Long Island
7 Long Island
7 Longwood University
7 Louisiana Lafayette
7 Louisiana Tech
7 Louisville
7 Louisville
7 Lousiana Tech
7 Maine
7 Maine
7 Maine
7 Marist
7 Marist
7 Marist
7 Marist
7 Maryland
7 Maryland Baltimore County
7 Maryland Baltimore County
7 Massachusettes
7 Massachusetts
7 Massachusetts
7 Memphis
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Miami
7 Michigan
7 Michigan State
7 Minnesota
7 Mississippi
7 Mississippi State
7 Missouir
7 Missouri
7 Missouri
7 Missouri
7 Missouri St U, MO
7 Monmouth
7 Mount St Mary's
7 Mount St. Mary's
7 Navy
7 Navy
7 Nebraska
7 Nebraska
7 Nebraska
7 Nebraska
7 New Jersey Tech
7 New Mexico St.
7 New Orleans
7 New York Tech
7 Niagara
7 Nichols St
7 NJIT
7 Norfolk St.
7 North Carolina
7 North Carolina
7 North Carolina St.
7 Northeastern
7 Northeastern
7 Northeastern
7 Northern Illinois
7 Northern Illinois
7 Northern Iowa
7 Northern Iowa
7 Northwestern
7 Notre Dame
7 Notre Dame
7 Notre Dame
7 Ohio
7 Oklahoma St
7 Oral Roberts
7 Oregon
7 Oregon State
7 Pennsylvania
7 Pepperdine
7 Pepperdine
7 Purdue
7 Quinnipiac
7 Quinnipiac University
7 Rhode Island
7 Rhode Island
7 Rhode Island
7 Rice
7 Rice
7 Rider
7 Rutgers
7 Sacramento State
7 Saint Francis
7 Saint Mary's
7 Samford
7 San Diego
7 San Diego
7 San Diego
7 San Diego State
7 San Francisco
7 San Francisco
7 San Jose St.
7 Santa Clara
7 Santa Clara
7 Santa Clara U
7 Seton Hall
7 Seton Hall
7 Siena
7 Siena
7 Siena
7 South Alabama
7 South Alabama
7 South Alabama
7 South Carolina Upstate
7 Southern Cal
7 Southern Miss
7 Southern Mississippi
7 St Johns
7 St. John's
7 St. Joseph's
7 St. Peters
7 Stanford
7 Stanford
7 Stanford
7 Stetson
7 Stetson
7 Stetson
7 Temple
7 Tennessee
7 Tennessee Tech
7 Texas A&M
7 Texas A&M
7 Texas A&M
7 Texas Arlington
7 Texas State
7 Texas State
7 Texas Tech
7 Texas Tech
7 The Citadel, SC
7 Troy
7 Tulane
7 U Florida
7 U Nebraska Lincoln
7 U New Orleans
7 U of Alabama, Birmingham
7 U Oklahoma (OK)
7 UC Riverside
7 UC Santa Barbara
7 UC Santa Barbara
7 UC-Davis
7 UCLA
7 UCLA
7 UCLA
7 UNC
7 UNC Charlotte
7 UNC Greensboro
7 UNC Greensboro
7 UNC-Charlotte
7 UNC-Charlotte
7 UNC-Greensboro
7 University of Texas Arlington
7 UNLV
7 UNLV
7 UNLV
7 Vanderbilt
7 Vermont
7 Vermont
7 Vermont
7 Vermont
7 Villanova
7 Villanova
7 Virginia Tech
7 VMI
7 VMI
7 Wagner
7 Wagner
7 Wake Forest
7 Wake Forest
7 Wake Forest
7 William & Mary
7 William & Mary
7 Winthrop
7 Wofford
7 Wofford
7 Wright State
7 Yale
7 Yale
7 Yale U
7 Youngstown State
7 Alabama Southern CC
7 Albertus Magnus College
7 American International College
7 Amherst
7 Angelina JC
7 Angelo State University
7 Atlanta Christian College
7 Azusa Pacific
7 Babson College
7 Barry
7 Barry
7 Barry
7 Barry (FL)
7 Belmont Abbey
7 Berry College
7 Biola University
7 Biola University
7 Bowdoin College
7 Brandeis
7 Cal State University
7 Calhoun CC
7 Catholic
7 Catholic University of America
7 Chandler Gilbert
7 Chapman University
7 Chattahoochie CC
7 Christopher Newport University
7 Clarion
7 Clark
7 Cleveland State CC
7 Cochise
7 Concordia
7 Cowley County CC
7 CW Post
7 Eastern Connecticut
7 Eckerd
7 Eckerd College
7 Elgin CC
7 Ellsworth CC
7 Emory
7 Emory
7 Florence Darlington
7 Florida Southern College
7 Francis Marion
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce
7 Franklin Pierce College
7 Fresno CC
7 Greensboro College
7 Guilford
7 Hill CC
7 Hillsborough CC
7 Hillsborough CC
7 Hillsborough Community College
7 Hillsdale College
7 Houston Baptist
7 Howard
7 Illinois Wesleyan University
7 Indian River CC
7 Iowa Western CC
7 Iowa Western CC
7 Ithaca College
7 Jefferson College
7 Jefferson JC
7 John Hopkins
7 John Hopkins
7 John Logan JC
7 Kentucky Wesleyan
7 Kirkwood CC
7 Kirkwood CC
7 Lake City CC
7 Lakeland CC
7 Lakeland College
7 Limestone
7 Lindenwood
7 Loretta
7 Louisburg College
7 Loyola University of New Orleans
7 Lynn
7 Macalester College
7 Madison Area
7 Manatee CC
7 Manhattan
7 Mansfield University
7 Massasoit CC
7 Meremec CC
7 Meridian CC
7 Mesa CC
7 Miami Dade Community College
7 Middle Georgia
7 Midland College
7 Millersville University
7 Missouri/San Jac CC
7 Missouri-Rolla
7 Montevallo
7 Montreat College
7 Muscatine CC
7 New Mexico JC
7 Newberry
7 Newberry
7 Newberry College
7 NIACC
7 North Carolina Central University
7 North Florida
7 North Florida CC
7 Northeastern JC
7 Nova Southeastern
7 Nova Southeastern University
7 Nova Southeastern Universty
7 NW Missouri State
7 Orange Coast Col, CA
7 Ouachhita-Baptist
7 Pace
7 Palm Beach CC
7 Pensacola CC
7 Piedmont College
7 Pittsburgh
7 Point Loma Nazarene
7 Polk CC
7 Polk CC
7 Polk CC
7 Potomac St Col, WV
7 Ramapo College
7 Ranger College
7 Redlands
7 Redlands CC
7 Reedley
7 Rend Lake
7 Rhodes
7 Riverside CC
7 Rochester
7 Rochester Institute of Technology
7 Rockland CC
7 Saint Petersburg CC
7 Saint Petersburg CC
7 Salisbury University
7 San Jacinto JC
7 Savannah College
7 Savannah College of Art and Design
7 Savannah College or Art & Design
7 Savannah State University
7 Scottsdale CC
7 Seward County CC
7 Skidmore College
7 Southern Arkansas
7 Southern Maine
7 Southern Union CC
7 St Josephs University
7 St Lawrence Uni
7 St. Joe's Rensselaer, IN
7 St. Joseph (IN)
7 St. Josephs (ME)
7 St. Peter's College
7 Stonehill College
7 Stonybrook
7 SUNY Stonybrook
7 Taft College
7 Tampa
7 Tennessee Wesleyan
7 The College of NJ
7 The University of Texas at Dallas
7 Thomas University
7 Toledo
7 Trinity (CT)
7 Trinity (Texas)
7 Truman State
7 Tufts University
7 Tufts University
7 U Maryland Col Park
7 University of Montevallo
7 Upper IA Univ
7 Upper Iowa
7 Upper Iowa
7 Ursinus
7 UW-Stevens Point
7 Valdosta State
7 Vincennes
7 Vincennes CC
7 Wallace St CC
7 Wallace State CC
7 Waubensee CC
7 Wayne State
7 West Chester
7 West Florida
7 West Virginia State University
7 Western College
7 Western Nebraska CC
7 Western Nevada College
7 Western Oklahoma CC
7 Western Oklahoma State College
7 Widener
7 William Paterson University
7 Williams
7 Yavapai CC
7 Young Harris CC
7 Young Harris Jc
7.5 Alabama
7.5 Alabama
7.5 Albany
7.5 Appalachian St.
7.5 Appalachian State
7.5 Appalachian State
7.5 Arizona
7.5 Arizona State U
7.5 Arkansas
7.5 Arkansas
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas Little Rock
7.5 Arkansas State
7.5 Army
7.5 Army
7.5 Auburn
7.5 Baylor
7.5 Baylor
7.5 Baylor
7.5 Belmont
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Binghamton
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Boston College
7.5 Bradley
7.5 Bradley
7.5 Brown
7.5 Brown
7.5 Brown
7.5 Bucknell
7.5 BYU
7.5 Cal Irvine
7.5 Cal Poly
7.5 Cal Poly
7.5 Cal Poly SLO
7.5 Cal State Bakersfield
7.5 Cal State Northridge
7.5 Cal State Northridge
7.5 California
7.5 California Irvine
7.5 Cal-State Bakersfield
7.5 Canisius
7.5 Canisius
7.5 Central Connecticut
7.5 Central Connecticut State
7.5 Central Florida
7.5 Central Florida
7.5 Central Florida
7.5 Central Michigan
7.5 Central Michigan
7.5 Charleston Southern
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Cincinnati
7.5 Clemson
7.5 Clemson
7.5 Clemson
7.5 Coastal Carolina
7.5 College of Charleston
7.5 Columbia
7.5 Columbia
7.5 Columbia
7.5 Cornell
7.5 Dallas Baptist
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 Dartmouth
7.5 David Lipscomb
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Davidson
7.5 Dayton
7.5 Dayton
7.5 DMACC/North Dakota State
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duke
7.5 Duquesne
7.5 East Carolina
7.5 East Carolina
7.5 East Tennessee St.
7.5 East Tennessee State
7.5 Eastern Kentucky
7.5 Eastern Kentucky
7.5 Eastern Michigan
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Elon
7.5 Evansville
7.5 Fairfield
7.5 Fairfield
7.5 Fairfield University
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
7.5 Farleigh Dickenson
7.5 FL State
7.5 Florida
7.5 Florida
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Atlantic
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida Gulf Coast
7.5 Florida International
7.5 Florida International
7.5 Florida State
7.5 Florida State
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fordham
7.5 Fresno St
7.5 Fresno State
7.5 Fresno State
7.5 Furman
7.5 Furman
7.5 Gardner Webb
7.5 Gardner Webb
7.5 Gardner Webb
7.5 Gardner-Webb University
7.5 George Mason
7.5 George Washington
7.5 George Washington University
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgetown
7.5 Georgia
7.5 Georgia
7.5 Georgia
7.5 Georgia Southern
7.5 Georgia Southern Universtiy
7.5 Georgia State
7.5 Georgia Tech
7.5 Gonzaga
7.5 Harvard
7.5 Harvard
7.5 Hawaii
7.5 Hawaii
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 High Point
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Hofstra
7.5 Holy Cross
7.5 Houston
7.5 Houston
7.5 Illinois State
7.5 Indiana State
7.5 Iona
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Iowa
7.5 Jacksonville
7.5 Jacksonville
7.5 Jacksonville State
7.5 Jacksonville U
7.5 James Madison
7.5 James Madison
7.5 Kansas
7.5 Kansas
7.5 Kansas
7.5 Kansas State
7.5 Kansas State
7.5 Kent State
7.5 Kent State
7.5 Kentucky
7.5 Kentucky
7.5 La Salle
7.5 Lafayette
7.5 Lafayette
7.5 LA-Lafayette
7.5 LA-Lafayette
7.5 Lamar
7.5 LaSalle
7.5 Lehigh
7.5 Lehigh
7.5 LeMoyne
7.5 Liberty
7.5 Lipscomb
7.5 Long Beach State
7.5 Long Beach State
7.5 Long Island
7.5 Long Island
7.5 Longwood
7.5 Louisiana Monroe
7.5 Louisiana State
7.5 Louisiana State
7.5 Louisville
7.5 Louisville
7.5 Maine
7.5 Manhattan College
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marist
7.5 Marshall University
7.5 Maryland
7.5 Maryland Baltimore County
7.5 Maryland Baltimore County
7.5 Massachusettes
7.5 Massachusetts
7.5 Massachusetts
7.5 Massachusetts
7.5 Mercer
7.5 Miami
7.5 Miami
7.5 Miami
7.5 Miami (OH)
7.5 Michigan
7.5 Michigan
7.5 Middle Tennessee State
7.5 Missouri
7.5 Monmouth
7.5 Monmouth
7.5 Mount St. Mary's
7.5 Navy
7.5 Nebraska
7.5 Nebraska
7.5 Nebraska
7.5 New Jersey Institute of Technology
7.5 New Mexico State
7.5 New Orleans
7.5 New Orleans
7.5 New York Tech
7.5 Niagara
7.5 NJIT
7.5 Norfolk St.
7.5 North Carolina
7.5 North Carolina
7.5 North Carolina State
7.5 North Carolina State
7.5 North Carolina State
7.5 North Carolina Wilmington
7.5 North Dakota St.
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northeastern
7.5 Northern Colorado
7.5 Northern Iowa
7.5 Northern Iowa
7.5 Northwestern St.
7.5 Notre Dame
7.5 Notre Dame
7.5 Notre Dame
7.5 Oklahoma State
7.5 Old Dominion
7.5 Oral Roberts
7.5 Oregon
7.5 Oregon State
7.5 Oregon State
7.5 Penn State
7.5 Pennsylvania
7.5 Pepperdine
7.5 Pepperdine
7.5 Princeton
7.5 Princeton
7.5 Princeton
7.5 Purdue
7.5 Purdue
7.5 Purdue
7.5 Quinnipiac
7.5 Quinnipiac
7.5 Quinnipiac University
7.5 Radford
7.5 Radford
7.5 Radford
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rhode Island
7.5 Rice
7.5 Rice
7.5 Rice
7.5 Rice
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Richmond
7.5 Rider
7.5 Rutgers
7.5 Rutgers
7.5 Sacramento State
7.5 Saint Bonaventure
7.5 Saint Francis
7.5 Saint Francis
7.5 Saint Louis
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Mary's
7.5 Saint Peters
7.5 Samford
7.5 Samford
7.5 Samford
7.5 Samford
7.5 San Diego
7.5 San Diego State
7.5 San Diego State
7.5 San Diego State
7.5 San Francisco
7.5 San Jose St.
7.5 Santa Clara
7.5 Santa Clara
7.5 Santa Clara
7.5 Seton Hall
7.5 Siena
7.5 Siena
7.5 Siena
7.5 Sierra
7.5 South Alabama
7.5 South Carolina
7.5 South Carolina
7.5 South Florida
7.5 Southeast Missouri
7.5 Southern California
7.5 Southern Ilinois-Edwardsville
7.5 Southern Mississippi
7.5 St. Louis
7.5 St. Louis
7.5 St. Louis
7.5 St. Marys
7.5 St. Marys
7.5 St. Peters
7.5 St. Peters
7.5 Stanford
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Stetson
7.5 Temple
7.5 Tennessee
7.5 Tennessee Tech
7.5 Texas A&M Corpus Christi
7.5 Texas AM Corpus Christi
7.5 Texas Arlington
7.5 Texas Christian
7.5 Texas Tech
7.5 Texas Tech
7.5 Texas-San Antonio
7.5 The Citadel
7.5 Tulane
7.5 Tulane
7.5 Tulane
7.5 U Conn
7.5 U Hawaii
7.5 U Houston
7.5 U Louisiana Lafayette
7.5 U Nebraska Lincoln
7.5 UAB
7.5 UC Davis
7.5 UC Davis
7.5 UC Riverside
7.5 UC Santa Barbara
7.5 UCLA
7.5 UCLA
7.5 UNC
7.5 UNC Asheville
7.5 UNC Asheville
7.5 UNC Wilmington
7.5 UNC-Asheville
7.5 UNC-Charlotte
7.5 UNI
7.5 University of Pennsylvania
7.5 UNLV
7.5 UNLV
7.5 UNLV
7.5 UNLV
7.5 USC
7.5 USC
7.5 Utah
7.5 Utah
7.5 UW-Milwaukee
7.5 Valparaiso
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vanderbilt
7.5 Vermont
7.5 Vermont
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Villanova
7.5 Virginia
7.5 Virginia
7.5 Virginia Commonwealth
7.5 Virginia Tech
7.5 VMI
7.5 VMI
7.5 VMI
7.5 Wagner
7.5 Wake Forest
7.5 Wake Forest
7.5 Wake Forest
7.5 Washington
7.5 Western Carolina
7.5 Western Kentucky
7.5 William & Mary
7.5 William & Mary
7.5 William & Mary
7.5 Winthrop
7.5 Winthrop
7.5 Winthrop
7.5 Wisconsin Milwaukee
7.5 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
7.5 Wofford
7.5 Wofford
7.5 Xavier
7.5 Yale
7.5 Yale
7.5 Air Force
7.5 Alabama Southern CC
7.5 Alabama Southern JC
7.5 Alvernia College
7.5 American International
7.5 Amherst
7.5 Andrew College
7.5 Arizona Western
7.5 Augustana
7.5 Azusa Pacific U
7.5 Babson College
7.5 Barry
7.5 Barry
7.5 Barry
7.5 Barry
7.5 Belmont Abbey
7.5 Bevill St.
7.5 Biola
7.5 Bossier Parish CC
7.5 Bowdoin College
7.5 Brandeis
7.5 Broward CC
7.5 Broward CC
7.5 Cal State San Marcos
7.5 California(PA)
7.5 Chattahoochee Valley CC
7.5 Chico State
7.5 Christopher Newport University
7.5 Cisco JC
7.5 Citadel FB
7.5 Columbus St.
7.5 Columbus State
7.5 Crowder CC
7.5 Cuesta CC
7.5 Daytona Beach
7.5 DMACC
7.5 E. Connecticut State
7.5 East Stroudsburg University
7.5 Eastfield CC
7.5 Eckerd
7.5 Elgin CC
7.5 Ellsworth CC
7.5 Ellsworth CC
7.5 Ellsworth JC
7.5 Embury Riddle
7.5 Emory
7.5 Emory University
7.5 Erie CC
7.5 FL Southern
7.5 Flagler
7.5 Florence Darlington
7.5 Florida Southern
7.5 Florida Southern
7.5 Florida Southern College
7.5 Francis Marion
7.5 Franciscan
7.5 Franklin & Marshall
7.5 Franklin Pierce
7.5 Grayson County College
7.5 Grossmont Junior College
7.5 Gulf Coast CC
7.5 Hagerstown CC
7.5 Harding University
7.5 Hawaii Pacific
7.5 Heartland CC
7.5 Heartland CC
7.5 Heidelberg
7.5 Heidelberg College
7.5 Hill JC
7.5 Hillsborough CC
7.5 Howard
7.5 Howard
7.5 Iowa Central
7.5 Iowa Western CC
7.5 Iowa Western CC/South Alabama
7.5 Jeff Davis CC
7.5 Jefferson Davis
7.5 John Hopkins
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Johnson County CC
7.5 Kenyon College
7.5 Kirkwood
7.5 Kirkwood
7.5 Kirkwood CC
7.5 Kirkwood CC
7.5 Kishwaukee College (IL)
7.5 LaGrange College
7.5 Lake City CC
7.5 Lake Sumter
7.5 Lake Sumter
7.5 Lakeland CC
7.5 Lincoln Lane CC
7.5 Lindenwood
7.5 Louisiana St U at Eunice, LA
7.5 Lynn
7.5 Manatee
7.5 Manhattanville
7.5 Mars Hill
7.5 Maryville
7.5 Massachusetts Maritime Academy
7.5 Massasoit CC
7.5 MATC-Madison
7.5 Mclennan JC (TX)
7.5 McMurry University
7.5 Mesa CC
7.5 Miami Dade CC South (FL)
7.5 Midland
7.5 Millersville U
7.5 Mount Mercy
7.5 Neosho CC
7.5 Nevada
7.5 New Haven
7.5 niversity of Rhode Island
7.5 North Carolina Central University
7.5 North Carolina Greensboro
7.5 North Florida
7.5 North Florida
7.5 North Florida
7.5 North Georgia
7.5 Northeast Texas CC
7.5 Nova Southeastern
7.5 Nova Southeastern
7.5 NW Missouri State
7.5 Ohio State (FB)
7.5 Okaloosa Walton CC
7.5 Okaloosa Walton JC
7.5 Oklahoma City U
7.5 Orange Coast Col, CA
7.5 Orange Coast College
7.5 Palm Beach CC
7.5 Palm Beach CC
7.5 Palomar
7.5 Palomar / Oklahoma
7.5 Paris JC
7.5 Patrick Henry CC
7.5 Pensacola CC
7.5 Pensacola JC
7.5 Pfeiffer
7.5 Pitt CC
7.5 Point Loma Nazarene
7.5 Polk CC
7.5 Riverside
7.5 Riverside CC
7.5 Rollins
7.5 Rowan
7.5 Sacred Heart University
7.5 Saint Petersburg CC
7.5 Salisbury University
7.5 San Jacinto JC
7.5 Savannah
7.5 Savannah College
7.5 Savannah School of Art/Design
7.5 Scottsdale CC
7.5 Seminole CC
7.5 Seminole St
7.5 Seminole St.
7.5 Shippensburg University
7.5 South Carolina Aiken
7.5 Southern Nazarene
7.5 Southern New Hampshire
7.5 Southern New Hampshire
7.5 Southern U A&M
7.5 Southern Utah
7.5 St Lawrence University
7.5 St. Leo
7.5 St. Leo
7.5 St. Thomas
7.5 Stonehill College
7.5 Stonybrook
7.5 Stonybrook
7.5 Tallahassee CC
7.5 Tampa
7.5 Tampa
7.5 Trinity
7.5 Trinity College
7.5 Trinity College
7.5 U Mass Amherst
7.5 UCSD
7.5 UCSD
7.5 UMASS-Lowell
7.5 UMBC
7.5 Upper IA Univ
7.5 Upper Iowa
7.5 US Naval Academy
7.5 UW-Stevens Point
7.5 Valdosta State
7.5 Vanguard
7.5 Vincennes
7.5 Virginia FB
7.5 Wabash Valley
7.5 Wallace State CC
7.5 Walters State CC
7.5 Wayne State
7.5 Weatherford College
7.5 West Chester
7.5 West Chester University of Pennsylvania
7.5 West Florida
7.5 West Palm Beach CC
7.5 Western New England College
7.5 Widener University
7.5 Wisconsin Whitewater
7.5 Yavapai
7.5 Yavapai
7.5 Yavapai CC
Sorry, I missed the 6.5s
6.5 Alabama
6.5 Alabama
6.5 Alabama State
6.5 Albany
6.5 Arizona
6.5 Arizona State
6.5 Arkansas State
6.5 Army
6.5 Auburn
6.5 Ball State
6.5 Baylor
6.5 Belmont
6.5 Binghamton
6.5 Binghamton
6.5 Boston College
6.5 Boston College
6.5 Boston College
6.5 Bradley
6.5 Bryant
6.5 Bryant
6.5 Bryant University
6.5 California Irvine
6.5 Campbell
6.5 Canisius
6.5 Canisius
6.5 Centenary
6.5 Clemson
6.5 Columbia
6.5 Cornell
6.5 Davidson
6.5 Delaware
6.5 East Tennessee State
6.5 Elon
6.5 Elon
6.5 Fairfield University
6.5 Fairleigh Dickenson
6.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
6.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
6.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
6.5 Florida
6.5 Florida Atlantic University
6.5 Florida Gulf Coast
6.5 Florida International
6.5 Florida State
6.5 George Mason
6.5 George Washington
6.5 George Washington
6.5 Gonzaga
6.5 Grambling
6.5 Hawaii
6.5 Hawaii
6.5 High Point
6.5 Hofstra
6.5 Holy Cross
6.5 Holy Cross
6.5 Houston
6.5 Illinois Chicago
6.5 Iona
6.5 Iona College
6.5 Kentucky
6.5 Lafayette
6.5 LaSalle University
6.5 Lehigh
6.5 Loyola Marymount
6.5 Maryland
6.5 Mercer
6.5 Miami
6.5 Miami
6.5 Miami
6.5 Michigan
6.5 Michigan State
6.5 Mississippi
6.5 Monmouth
6.5 Navy
6.5 New Mexico
6.5 Niagara
6.5 Northeastern
6.5 Northeastern
6.5 Northern Iowa
6.5 Northwestern State
6.5 Notre Dame
6.5 Notre Dame
6.5 Old Dominion
6.5 Penn State
6.5 Pennsylvania
6.5 Pennsylvania
6.5 Radford
6.5 Rhode Island
6.5 Rhode Island
6.5 Rice (FB)
6.5 Rider
6.5 Rutgers
6.5 San Diego
6.5 San Diego St
6.5 Siena
6.5 Siena
6.5 South Alabama
6.5 South Florida
6.5 Southeastern Louisiana University
6.5 St. Bonaventure University
6.5 St. Johns
6.5 St. Josephs
6.5 St. Marys
6.5 St. Peters
6.5 UCSB
6.5 UNC-Asheville
6.5 University of Portland
6.5 USC-Upstate
6.5 Villanova
6.5 Virginia Military Institute
6.5 Virginia Tech
6.5 Virginia Tech
6.5 Virginia Tech
6.5 VMI
6.5 Wagner
6.5 Wagner
6.5 Wagner College
6.5 Washington State
6.5 Western Carolina
6.5 Western Carolina
6.5 Western Kentucky
6.5 William & Mary
6.5 Wofford
6.5 Wofford
6.5 Yale U
6.5 Adelphi University
6.5 Akron
6.5 Amherst
6.5 Angelo St (TX)
6.5 Barry
6.5 Bevill State
6.5 Biola University
6.5 Catholic
6.5 Clark University
6.5 Colby-Sawyer College
6.5 Colby-Sawyer College
6.5 College of Eastern Utah
6.5 College Stevens Institute of Technology
6.5 Concord
6.5 CW Post
6.5 Daytona Beach
6.5 Denison
6.5 Denison University
6.5 Drury University
6.5 Ellsworth CC
6.5 Enterprise Ozark CC
6.5 Flagler
6.5 Florida College
6.5 Florida Southern
6.5 Florida Tech
6.5 Florida Tech
6.5 Francis Marion
6.5 Franklin & Marshall
6.5 Franklin Pierce College
6.5 Frostburg State
6.5 Golden West JC
6.5 Hampden-Sydney College
6.5 Hill JC
6.5 Hillsborough CC
6.5 Howard JC (TX)
6.5 Iowa Central
6.5 Ithaca College
6.5 John Hopkins
6.5 John Hopkins
6.5 Johnson County CC
6.5 Lander University
6.5 Lenoir-Rhyne College
6.5 Loyola University of New Orleans
6.5 Macalester College
6.5 Manatee
6.5 Manchester CC
6.5 Mansfield University
6.5 Mars Hill College
6.5 Mesa State
6.5 Millersville
6.5 Millersville
6.5 Millersville U
6.5 Millersville University
6.5 New Haven
6.5 New Mexico JC
6.5 Nova Southeastern
6.5 Palm Beach Atlantic
6.5 Potomac St Col, WV
6.5 Redlands
6.5 Rollins
6.5 Rollins
6.5 Saint Petersburg CC
6.5 Salisbury State
6.5 Salisbury University
6.5 Savannah College or Art & Design
6.5 Scottsdale CC
6.5 Skidmore College
6.5 Sonoma State University
6.5 St. Thomas
6.5 Texarkana
6.5 The University of Texas at Dallas
6.5 Thomas University
6.5 Trinity (TX)
6.5 Tufts University
6.5 UCSD
6.5 University of Mary Washington
6.5 University of the South
6.5 Urbana
6.5 UW Whitewater
6.5 Vincennes
6.5 Wabash Valley CC
6.5 Walters State CC
6.5 Wayne State
6.5 Webber
6.5 Wheaton
6.5 Widener
6.5 Alabama
6.5 Alabama
6.5 Alabama State
6.5 Albany
6.5 Arizona
6.5 Arizona State
6.5 Arkansas State
6.5 Army
6.5 Auburn
6.5 Ball State
6.5 Baylor
6.5 Belmont
6.5 Binghamton
6.5 Binghamton
6.5 Boston College
6.5 Boston College
6.5 Boston College
6.5 Bradley
6.5 Bryant
6.5 Bryant
6.5 Bryant University
6.5 California Irvine
6.5 Campbell
6.5 Canisius
6.5 Canisius
6.5 Centenary
6.5 Clemson
6.5 Columbia
6.5 Cornell
6.5 Davidson
6.5 Delaware
6.5 East Tennessee State
6.5 Elon
6.5 Elon
6.5 Fairfield University
6.5 Fairleigh Dickenson
6.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
6.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
6.5 Fairleigh Dickinson
6.5 Florida
6.5 Florida Atlantic University
6.5 Florida Gulf Coast
6.5 Florida International
6.5 Florida State
6.5 George Mason
6.5 George Washington
6.5 George Washington
6.5 Gonzaga
6.5 Grambling
6.5 Hawaii
6.5 Hawaii
6.5 High Point
6.5 Hofstra
6.5 Holy Cross
6.5 Holy Cross
6.5 Houston
6.5 Illinois Chicago
6.5 Iona
6.5 Iona College
6.5 Kentucky
6.5 Lafayette
6.5 LaSalle University
6.5 Lehigh
6.5 Loyola Marymount
6.5 Maryland
6.5 Mercer
6.5 Miami
6.5 Miami
6.5 Miami
6.5 Michigan
6.5 Michigan State
6.5 Mississippi
6.5 Monmouth
6.5 Navy
6.5 New Mexico
6.5 Niagara
6.5 Northeastern
6.5 Northeastern
6.5 Northern Iowa
6.5 Northwestern State
6.5 Notre Dame
6.5 Notre Dame
6.5 Old Dominion
6.5 Penn State
6.5 Pennsylvania
6.5 Pennsylvania
6.5 Radford
6.5 Rhode Island
6.5 Rhode Island
6.5 Rice (FB)
6.5 Rider
6.5 Rutgers
6.5 San Diego
6.5 San Diego St
6.5 Siena
6.5 Siena
6.5 South Alabama
6.5 South Florida
6.5 Southeastern Louisiana University
6.5 St. Bonaventure University
6.5 St. Johns
6.5 St. Josephs
6.5 St. Marys
6.5 St. Peters
6.5 UCSB
6.5 UNC-Asheville
6.5 University of Portland
6.5 USC-Upstate
6.5 Villanova
6.5 Virginia Military Institute
6.5 Virginia Tech
6.5 Virginia Tech
6.5 Virginia Tech
6.5 VMI
6.5 Wagner
6.5 Wagner
6.5 Wagner College
6.5 Washington State
6.5 Western Carolina
6.5 Western Carolina
6.5 Western Kentucky
6.5 William & Mary
6.5 Wofford
6.5 Wofford
6.5 Yale U
6.5 Adelphi University
6.5 Akron
6.5 Amherst
6.5 Angelo St (TX)
6.5 Barry
6.5 Bevill State
6.5 Biola University
6.5 Catholic
6.5 Clark University
6.5 Colby-Sawyer College
6.5 Colby-Sawyer College
6.5 College of Eastern Utah
6.5 College Stevens Institute of Technology
6.5 Concord
6.5 CW Post
6.5 Daytona Beach
6.5 Denison
6.5 Denison University
6.5 Drury University
6.5 Ellsworth CC
6.5 Enterprise Ozark CC
6.5 Flagler
6.5 Florida College
6.5 Florida Southern
6.5 Florida Tech
6.5 Florida Tech
6.5 Francis Marion
6.5 Franklin & Marshall
6.5 Franklin Pierce College
6.5 Frostburg State
6.5 Golden West JC
6.5 Hampden-Sydney College
6.5 Hill JC
6.5 Hillsborough CC
6.5 Howard JC (TX)
6.5 Iowa Central
6.5 Ithaca College
6.5 John Hopkins
6.5 John Hopkins
6.5 Johnson County CC
6.5 Lander University
6.5 Lenoir-Rhyne College
6.5 Loyola University of New Orleans
6.5 Macalester College
6.5 Manatee
6.5 Manchester CC
6.5 Mansfield University
6.5 Mars Hill College
6.5 Mesa State
6.5 Millersville
6.5 Millersville
6.5 Millersville U
6.5 Millersville University
6.5 New Haven
6.5 New Mexico JC
6.5 Nova Southeastern
6.5 Palm Beach Atlantic
6.5 Potomac St Col, WV
6.5 Redlands
6.5 Rollins
6.5 Rollins
6.5 Saint Petersburg CC
6.5 Salisbury State
6.5 Salisbury University
6.5 Savannah College or Art & Design
6.5 Scottsdale CC
6.5 Skidmore College
6.5 Sonoma State University
6.5 St. Thomas
6.5 Texarkana
6.5 The University of Texas at Dallas
6.5 Thomas University
6.5 Trinity (TX)
6.5 Tufts University
6.5 UCSD
6.5 University of Mary Washington
6.5 University of the South
6.5 Urbana
6.5 UW Whitewater
6.5 Vincennes
6.5 Wabash Valley CC
6.5 Walters State CC
6.5 Wayne State
6.5 Webber
6.5 Wheaton
6.5 Widener
Thats interesting thanks. lots of 7.5s at JC and lots of 6 at D1 so there you go its just a baseline unless you are a 9-10 then its something different as someone else mentioned.
As promised, the tech guys gave it to me.
Number of players at each grade.
PG Grade Number of Players
0 - 389
1 - 0
2 - 8
3 - 9
3.5 - 13
4 - 56
4.5 - 4
5 - 187
5.5 - 375
6 - 2,308
6.5 - 2,835
7 - 4,636
7.5 - 3,690
8 - 3,757
8.5 - 2,037
9 - 1,860
9.5 - 974
10 - 1,250
I don't know what any of this means... This includes many years of grading players from Showcases only. One last stat. From 2002 to 2008 there were 5,293 of these players drafted by MLB organizations. And I'm pretty sure another 1,000 or more will be drafted this year.
Number of players at each grade.
PG Grade Number of Players
0 - 389
1 - 0
2 - 8
3 - 9
3.5 - 13
4 - 56
4.5 - 4
5 - 187
5.5 - 375
6 - 2,308
6.5 - 2,835
7 - 4,636
7.5 - 3,690
8 - 3,757
8.5 - 2,037
9 - 1,860
9.5 - 974
10 - 1,250
I don't know what any of this means... This includes many years of grading players from Showcases only. One last stat. From 2002 to 2008 there were 5,293 of these players drafted by MLB organizations. And I'm pretty sure another 1,000 or more will be drafted this year.
PG,
Not to be a picker of nits, but you used the word signed, which to many equates to NLI and scholarship. My guess is that this is not neccisarily the case, to which the word, commited would possibly be more appropriate. Please correct me if these are in fact NLI signers.
Thanks for all the work, very enlightening.
Not to be a picker of nits, but you used the word signed, which to many equates to NLI and scholarship. My guess is that this is not neccisarily the case, to which the word, commited would possibly be more appropriate. Please correct me if these are in fact NLI signers.
Thanks for all the work, very enlightening.
CPLZ,
To be honest I do not actually know who signed anything. You are correct, these are the colleges listed in our database. Guess "commited" would be a better word. But in most cases, they played there, are playing there or commited there. They include current high school player commitments. Some could have even transfered and we just don't know it.
That is being a picker of nits!
To be honest I do not actually know who signed anything. You are correct, these are the colleges listed in our database. Guess "commited" would be a better word. But in most cases, they played there, are playing there or commited there. They include current high school player commitments. Some could have even transfered and we just don't know it.
That is being a picker of nits!
PG,
Do you have any idea if players report that they are playing, played, or committing to colleges that are not DI, I see some, or could there well be many more that just don't report or you are not aware of that are DII, DIII, NAIA, etc.?
Or do you guys go out to look to see where the players play at?
Do you have any idea if players report that they are playing, played, or committing to colleges that are not DI, I see some, or could there well be many more that just don't report or you are not aware of that are DII, DIII, NAIA, etc.?
Or do you guys go out to look to see where the players play at?
PG don't know why you are working so hard the dude is gone.
I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that if you took all of the PG players who were rated at showcases, most would fall in the 6-8 range, and I see that holds true. I know of some that actually flipped because they felt their son's rating should have been higher than an 8, looking back, thinking about his opportunities and those who recruited him and drafted low in HS, that was right on IMO.
Just our story, son's first PG rating came as a junior, 6 months later his second, although not performing as well as teh first time, he received the same rating. It was noted that he pitched just a few days before. That was fair. So doing well your first PG showcase is important, player should go prepared.
As far as ranking, closer to the draft, the stuff was pretty accurate from the predictions, I do beleive that Alan Simpson (who now works with PG) 10 picks away from his pick.
But good advice given to us was not to pay attention to that stuff and let the college coaches and scouts decide. I don't think that this is something we all have control over.
I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that if you took all of the PG players who were rated at showcases, most would fall in the 6-8 range, and I see that holds true. I know of some that actually flipped because they felt their son's rating should have been higher than an 8, looking back, thinking about his opportunities and those who recruited him and drafted low in HS, that was right on IMO.
Just our story, son's first PG rating came as a junior, 6 months later his second, although not performing as well as teh first time, he received the same rating. It was noted that he pitched just a few days before. That was fair. So doing well your first PG showcase is important, player should go prepared.
As far as ranking, closer to the draft, the stuff was pretty accurate from the predictions, I do beleive that Alan Simpson (who now works with PG) 10 picks away from his pick.
But good advice given to us was not to pay attention to that stuff and let the college coaches and scouts decide. I don't think that this is something we all have control over.
quote:Do you have any idea if players report that they are playing, played, or committing to colleges that are not DI, I see some, or could there well be many more that just don't report or you are not aware of that are DII, DIII, NAIA, etc.?
Or do you guys go out to look to see where the players play at?
We try to track as much as possible. I'm sure we miss some stuff. Then again, I wouldn't know that for sure or we wouldn't have missed it.
TPM,
I actually get these questions a lot. This has turned out to be pretty neat. I can answer questions to the group rather than doing it one person at a time.
The important thing is for people to understand we are capable of making mistakes, but never do we intend to mislead anyone when it comes to baseball.
Not surprising to me. 70% of the ratings fall in the 6-8 range as one would expect.
PG, if I'm reading this correctly, you report the schools of 211 players rated a 6.5. Thats's 7.4% of the total of 2835 6.5 s .
There are 519 7.0 players reported out of 4636 (11.2 %)
There are 660 7.5 players reported out of 3690 (17.9 %)
Are we to assume you can't account for the whereabouts of the vast majority of these players or they never played after high school?
PG, if I'm reading this correctly, you report the schools of 211 players rated a 6.5. Thats's 7.4% of the total of 2835 6.5 s .
There are 519 7.0 players reported out of 4636 (11.2 %)
There are 660 7.5 players reported out of 3690 (17.9 %)
Are we to assume you can't account for the whereabouts of the vast majority of these players or they never played after high school?
I only got the numbers from our tech guys. I said I don't know what all of it means. But seeing that you brought it up, here's my best guess.
The numbers (totals) for all players graded are from the beginning of the database. We only started tracking colleges (college commitment list) a couple years ago. In fact, our database didn't even have a box for colleges before we started the college commitment lists.
Also the Grade List contains a very large number of players who are still in high school. Including many who are 2010, 2011 and even 2012 high school grads who have not made a commitment yet.
Guess those would be the main reasons for the large discrepency in the lists. However I'm sure there are some who did not play college baseball. In fact, some like Philip Buchanan, Kirk Hinrich and others went to other sports. Several will be playing in the upcoming bowl games.
That is best explanation I have for now, I'll ask our tech guys tomorrow.
Why are my antennas up and twitching again?
The numbers (totals) for all players graded are from the beginning of the database. We only started tracking colleges (college commitment list) a couple years ago. In fact, our database didn't even have a box for colleges before we started the college commitment lists.
Also the Grade List contains a very large number of players who are still in high school. Including many who are 2010, 2011 and even 2012 high school grads who have not made a commitment yet.
Guess those would be the main reasons for the large discrepency in the lists. However I'm sure there are some who did not play college baseball. In fact, some like Philip Buchanan, Kirk Hinrich and others went to other sports. Several will be playing in the upcoming bowl games.
That is best explanation I have for now, I'll ask our tech guys tomorrow.
Why are my antennas up and twitching again?
Fair enough. Frankly, I'd expect a large number of players to have not played after high school.....that's just the way it is. A lot of guys love the idea of playing at a prominent program. Many more won't play if their option is a school that doesn't fit the bill for them. Its more thaa a baseball decision after all.
You can provide a venue, but its up to the player to succeed.
You can provide a venue, but its up to the player to succeed.
Jerry, at this point I'll bet your tech guys are loving you right now.
Good stuff
By the way, why did mike.black have to list his location as New Jersey? Kind of makes us look bad.
Good stuff
By the way, why did mike.black have to list his location as New Jersey? Kind of makes us look bad.
PG,
you have done a great job explaining your program. Its a great program and doesnt really need to be justified. But if you enjoy doing the numbers then have at it. I just think people put way too much emphasis on all of this, kids develop differently , you could give some one a 6 and three years later that guy could get drafted. It is just a measuring stick. I guess as a non coach type person I just dont put all the eggs in one basket, for me even if my son had gone to a PG event and got a low rating which he might of as a sophmore,he just would continue to work hard.You guys have no way of predicting how a kid turns out, maybe like I said before the 9s and 10 s are a no brainer I dont know. You are well respected in the college coaches community and on this board as well. thanks for all your time doing all this.Anyway rest your brain , have a drink you have been at this for some time.
you have done a great job explaining your program. Its a great program and doesnt really need to be justified. But if you enjoy doing the numbers then have at it. I just think people put way too much emphasis on all of this, kids develop differently , you could give some one a 6 and three years later that guy could get drafted. It is just a measuring stick. I guess as a non coach type person I just dont put all the eggs in one basket, for me even if my son had gone to a PG event and got a low rating which he might of as a sophmore,he just would continue to work hard.You guys have no way of predicting how a kid turns out, maybe like I said before the 9s and 10 s are a no brainer I dont know. You are well respected in the college coaches community and on this board as well. thanks for all your time doing all this.Anyway rest your brain , have a drink you have been at this for some time.
Jerry:
I really appreciate all that you and your guys have done in bringing all this information forward. The transparency into all that is behind the scenes is really refreshing - no one else in the industry has ever done anything like this - once again showing why Perfect Game is above and beyond everyone else.
I really appreciate all that you and your guys have done in bringing all this information forward. The transparency into all that is behind the scenes is really refreshing - no one else in the industry has ever done anything like this - once again showing why Perfect Game is above and beyond everyone else.
quote:Originally posted by jerseydad:
By the way, why did mike.black have to list his location as New Jersey? Kind of makes us look bad.
..............too easy.
All ratings are starting points for the player, as well as recruiters and scouts. PG is a proven commodity, and if the D3 "coach" needs verifications, he needs to attend the venues PG has scheduled and just go do his homework. I wonder if PG could rate some of these coaches for us, now that would be entertaining.
My son (an 09) was given a rating of 8 at his first and only PG showcase in December of 2006.
He has since played in 4 PG events (Jupiter, 17U WWBA, Kernels and Wrigley Field)
He has moved up over 400 spots in the national rankings since this Spring, but his rating is still the same.
I'm not complaining about his rating, it is probably about right.(He was an early signee at a D-1 in the Sun Belt)
My question is this:
Are the ratings only given at individual showcases?
Was the rating ever re-evaluated from 2 1/2 years ago, or did the tournaments he played in just confirm that he is still an 8?
BTW, PG is a great organization!
All of their events have been first-class!
He has since played in 4 PG events (Jupiter, 17U WWBA, Kernels and Wrigley Field)
He has moved up over 400 spots in the national rankings since this Spring, but his rating is still the same.
I'm not complaining about his rating, it is probably about right.(He was an early signee at a D-1 in the Sun Belt)
My question is this:
Are the ratings only given at individual showcases?
Was the rating ever re-evaluated from 2 1/2 years ago, or did the tournaments he played in just confirm that he is still an 8?
BTW, PG is a great organization!
All of their events have been first-class!
ratings are only given at showcases. PG explains that somewhere above.
gitnby,
I tried to address this earlier, you might have missed it.
So a player graded 8 at a showcase (in say 2006) would still maintain that grade of 8 because it was based on that event at that time. However, within our database, there could be added enough reason to think this player is now much better than an 8 so he would move up in the rankings despite his last or only grade is an 8.
Maybe it's an area we could improve on, but presently we don't give a grade other than individual events. While this might be easy to do (change the system) for pitchers, it would be much more difficult for position players. Pitchers at showcases (individual events) pitch live to hitters in a game, very much like they do at a tournament. On the other hand, position players are graded on fielding, throwing, BP, running, etc. Much of what we can't see enough of during an actual game.
We certainly haven't got this stuff mastered yet. There is a lot of room for improvement. I actually enjoy hearing these type things because it makes us think. Intellegence is not our strong suit, so we tend to listen to what others say a lot.
I tried to address this earlier, you might have missed it.
quote:Sometimes we actually rank a lower graded player higher than the higher graded player. We get lots of emails and calls when that happens. It should be remembered that we only attach a grade from showcase events. We do not attach a grade to players in tournaments. That is because we can't always get enough during a game to accurately grade based on potential. However, let me give an example.
Player A is graded a 9 at a showcase.
Player B is graded an 8 at a showcase.
Player B didn't show as much ability at the showcase that player A did. But later on Player B showed a ton of ability at a tournament. He still shows up an 8, but we now think he is much better than an 8, in fact we think he is even better than Player A at this point, so we rank him accordingly.
So a player graded 8 at a showcase (in say 2006) would still maintain that grade of 8 because it was based on that event at that time. However, within our database, there could be added enough reason to think this player is now much better than an 8 so he would move up in the rankings despite his last or only grade is an 8.
Maybe it's an area we could improve on, but presently we don't give a grade other than individual events. While this might be easy to do (change the system) for pitchers, it would be much more difficult for position players. Pitchers at showcases (individual events) pitch live to hitters in a game, very much like they do at a tournament. On the other hand, position players are graded on fielding, throwing, BP, running, etc. Much of what we can't see enough of during an actual game.
We certainly haven't got this stuff mastered yet. There is a lot of room for improvement. I actually enjoy hearing these type things because it makes us think. Intellegence is not our strong suit, so we tend to listen to what others say a lot.
Baseball Factory was recently informed of the above thread on the High School Baseball Web Site. Since 1998, we have not had a consistent presence on this site, so it came as a surprise to our executive team.
Our mission as a company is to help youth and high school players develop their skills and ultimately find a place to play baseball in college. We have always supported and appreciated all businesses in the amateur baseball industry that work towards this common goal.
We have reviewed the posts and claims and will immediately look into this matter.
Our mission as a company is to help youth and high school players develop their skills and ultimately find a place to play baseball in college. We have always supported and appreciated all businesses in the amateur baseball industry that work towards this common goal.
We have reviewed the posts and claims and will immediately look into this matter.
quote:Originally posted by BF_STAFF:
We have reviewed the posts and claims and will immediately look into this matter.
Jason,
Not sure why you have posted here.
Not sure why BF, as you put it, seek
"a consistent presence on this site"
The BF executive team are reputable,
so I don't really understand nor believe
'it came as a surprise'.
Baseball Factory
I see no need for BF to sing it's own song,
as others have done here.
For my inaugural post on HSBBW, I can only echo the complimentary things that have been said about Perfect Game. My son went to a recent showcase; the level of play was very good. As many have suggested previously on this thread, those who might rate a 5 or below simply chose not to attend. By this time in their baseball careers, they may have come to the realization that this is just not what they are going to do in college, and their parents have accepted that as well. That said, we saw one competitor there that looked like he might not have the same skill level, but there is no doubt that he competed. He received a lower than what appears to be an average PG rating, but a bit higher than one might have expected, perhaps in part because he was convinced he could play this game at a high level. I don't know, but maybe the PG raters saw this in the kid, and gave him some subjective recognition for his effort and the way he carried himself; not cocky, by any means, but sure in his mind that he belonged. When this guy is done playing, it will be because they have dragged him off the mound; he will not go quietly. It could be that projectability is not just about brute strength, size or fastball velocity.
The best thing about the time at the PG showcase is that my son met kids from other parts of the country, and all of them seemed to share a love of baseball. They talked about snow in Colorado and Idaho versus Texas, high school and college football, and no doubt several other topics he failed to mention to me. He had a blast and I think the experience will help prepare him for the road to the next level.
The best thing about the time at the PG showcase is that my son met kids from other parts of the country, and all of them seemed to share a love of baseball. They talked about snow in Colorado and Idaho versus Texas, high school and college football, and no doubt several other topics he failed to mention to me. He had a blast and I think the experience will help prepare him for the road to the next level.
quote:Originally posted by BF_STAFF:
Baseball Factory was recently informed of the above thread on the High School Baseball Web Site. Since 1998, we have not had a consistent presence on this site, so it came as a surprise to our executive team.
Our mission as a company is to help youth and high school players develop their skills and ultimately find a place to play baseball in college. We have always supported and appreciated all businesses in the amateur baseball industry that work towards this common goal.
We have reviewed the posts and claims and will immediately look into this matter.
Welcome back to HSBBW, I look forward to your contributions to the community.
We are a diverse group of parents, players, former players, coaches (youth, high school, college, travel teams, and professional), service providers (showcases, tournaments, Bloggers, etc), and friends of the game, whose ultimate goal is to support and provide insight to the pastime we love.
In the community, we have individuals from Canada, Korea, Europe, and all parts of the US that contribute their background, opinions, and experiences to those who will chose to share their experiences, thoughts, and questions.
No one of consequence,
Welcome to HSBBW, good post, thanks for your insight to your son's experience!
I am sure they were comparing more than just the snow and football in the dugout...
Welcome to HSBBW, good post, thanks for your insight to your son's experience!
I am sure they were comparing more than just the snow and football in the dugout...
IMHO, PG participation can benefit just about everyone who attends. For the blue-chippers rated 9 and 10, it can give great added exposure for recruiting and the draft. For those in the middle (7's and 8's), it can help assess what level college program a player should target. For those rated lower than that, it can be a much-needed wake-up call that either spurs a player to improve or confirms that a player doesn't possess as much talent as previously thought.
My son was not a blue-chipper, but his solid rating confirmed that he had the talent to play college ball. Since he at that time played for a small, private school, the objective evaluation was very useful in helping us assess how he stacked up against other talented players.
The dad of a player we know was convinced that his son was major D-1 material. We weren't so sure about that and recommended that they send him to a PG showcase. His "7" rating brought his dad down to earth and helped the family re-evaluate some goals. This fall, the player is being recruited by D2's and some JUCO's.
Another player made All State, but for a private school classification. The parents were aiming high with recruiting, but to our untrained eyes, his talent was not all that tremendous and we recommended that the player get evaluated at a PG showcase. He got a "6" rating and is currently playing for the JV team of a D2 program.
I recall seeing one player who received a sub-6 rating. He ran an 8.35 60, threw 62 in the IF, measured 5'7", 110 lbs., and scored a 5.5. During a scrimmage he threw the ball so hard that an arm bone snapped. The crowd in the stands cringed as he writhed in pain on the ground. His listing on PG's website does not mention a college. Perhaps his rating helped him recognize that he should move on to other pursuits.
My son was not a blue-chipper, but his solid rating confirmed that he had the talent to play college ball. Since he at that time played for a small, private school, the objective evaluation was very useful in helping us assess how he stacked up against other talented players.
The dad of a player we know was convinced that his son was major D-1 material. We weren't so sure about that and recommended that they send him to a PG showcase. His "7" rating brought his dad down to earth and helped the family re-evaluate some goals. This fall, the player is being recruited by D2's and some JUCO's.
Another player made All State, but for a private school classification. The parents were aiming high with recruiting, but to our untrained eyes, his talent was not all that tremendous and we recommended that the player get evaluated at a PG showcase. He got a "6" rating and is currently playing for the JV team of a D2 program.
I recall seeing one player who received a sub-6 rating. He ran an 8.35 60, threw 62 in the IF, measured 5'7", 110 lbs., and scored a 5.5. During a scrimmage he threw the ball so hard that an arm bone snapped. The crowd in the stands cringed as he writhed in pain on the ground. His listing on PG's website does not mention a college. Perhaps his rating helped him recognize that he should move on to other pursuits.
A bit of good news....
Just for kicks, I googled the 5.5 player's name and, lo and behold, learned that he helped lead his high school team to the 3A state championship game in his state. Obviously, his arm recovered from that break. Good for him!
Just for kicks, I googled the 5.5 player's name and, lo and behold, learned that he helped lead his high school team to the 3A state championship game in his state. Obviously, his arm recovered from that break. Good for him!
Wow am I glad we never got caught up in the showcase thing and lists. My son may have never played D1 or college bal.
My advice is to pay attention to your game and not get caught up in rankings and all that stuff. Put some leg work in and there is a place to play. Market to all levels and let them tell you yes or no.
I don't care who the evaluator is they are far from accurate especially if you are not a super stud at the time of being recruited. BB is a developmental game and players that succeed rise to the challenge or they don't.
My advice is to pay attention to your game and not get caught up in rankings and all that stuff. Put some leg work in and there is a place to play. Market to all levels and let them tell you yes or no.
I don't care who the evaluator is they are far from accurate especially if you are not a super stud at the time of being recruited. BB is a developmental game and players that succeed rise to the challenge or they don't.
Just curious did Dustin Pedroia ever get rated? Evan Longoria? The ss for tampa bay , cant think of his name, went to delta JC, was told he was too small to play at the next level. what would those guys have done if they would of given up. Longoria didnt even have a JC looking at him he went to an avg. JC program. Doesnt matter what anyone thinks about you, play the game, and work , have heart and see what happens.I believe there are a ,ot of guys playing at the next level that were told by someone they werent good enough.
All players took a slightly different route to the top. There is no sure fire way or mandatory path to take. Lots of players have reached the top without ever attending a showcase, a camp, or even played on a travel type team. However, I think a large majority of the modern day players have done those things.
Bobble, I'm confused as to why you would think your son may never have played DI or college ball had he gone to showcases or been on a list? There are thousands of others who did go to showcases and were on a list and it didn't stop them from playing DI, college and/or professional baseball.
Bobble, I'm confused as to why you would think your son may never have played DI or college ball had he gone to showcases or been on a list? There are thousands of others who did go to showcases and were on a list and it didn't stop them from playing DI, college and/or professional baseball.
i don't know about getting 'caught-up' in showcases...but the several that i attended with my son were some of the most enjoyabe times we spent together.
PGstaff, I would like to send you a PM, but unable to do so. Would you be so kind as to PM me? Thank you.