are based upon each individual player's ability to reach the NFL, and levels of talent beneath that along the way. That's the metric. How good can this kid be? The more certain they are about where a kid will end up, the more locked in the rating.
I was told the other day that what we observe as the "Auburn commitment drop" is very real and happens for a specific reason.
Players that end up at the top tier schools are much more likely to rise to the NFL afterwards.
Players in the next tier are slightly less likely to get there.
So when a player commits to Auburn over Bama, or UGA, or Clemson, e.g., it's justifiable to downrank them because on the only metric that counts, their chances just dropped.
It's also self-fulfilling prophecy and explains why those teams will never finish outside the top 10 in rankings, unless they fall back into the next tier, that is.
The system itself is the problem. It fails to act independently of the setting in which a player plays.
I was told the other day that what we observe as the "Auburn commitment drop" is very real and happens for a specific reason.
Players that end up at the top tier schools are much more likely to rise to the NFL afterwards.
Players in the next tier are slightly less likely to get there.
So when a player commits to Auburn over Bama, or UGA, or Clemson, e.g., it's justifiable to downrank them because on the only metric that counts, their chances just dropped.
It's also self-fulfilling prophecy and explains why those teams will never finish outside the top 10 in rankings, unless they fall back into the next tier, that is.
The system itself is the problem. It fails to act independently of the setting in which a player plays.
