Notes from President sperling- effects of cognitive dissonance on sports recruiting

Recently, while posting about an all-state running back I felt had been overlooked on many ranking sites, I found myself in argument with an online stranger who refused acknowledge any source that did not have his favorite running back from a well-known football school at the top of its rankings. While not a bad football player, had decent at best statistics and when my boyfriend and I finally fast-forwarded through all the flashy intros of his highlight videos, there was nothing that exceptional about them aside from the cinematography, of course. At first, we were both confused and a bit frustrated that people take these videos that have more shots of the athlete posing, warming up, and how shiny his helmet is than any actual plays. Now, I like a little flash just as much as anybody in 2018, but I hardly see how these quick, intermittent runs in 4K accompanied by catchy music makes this recruit's actual talent worthy of 5 stars.
For those who never took a college psych class or have simply never heard this term, Cognitive Dissonance is defined as, “the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information” (britannica). In order to ease the tension created by this contradiction of facts, our brain will do backflips to maintain consistency among our beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Cognitive dissonance can be seen in literally any kind of argument, and the world of sports journalism is far from an exception, as sports fans and broadcasters are almost always strongly convicted. The Browns are more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next 5 years than a Patriots fan is likely to listen to an opposing argument and conclude that maybe Tom Brady is perhaps a tad overrated. More likely they will do whatever they can to refute, discredit, or over explain any fact that contradicts their firmly held belief that Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time.  When discussing athletes, sports fans, broadcasters and radio hosts will often resort to titles and statistics to reaffirm the superiority of one athlete over another, even though last week that same “expert” went on a rant about how statistics or titles are not definitive because he believed that athlete just wasn’t that good. That’s how people debate and discuss things, right? Dig so deeply into your opinion and never concede on anything regardless of the facts presented before you. Yes, that’s fine, whatever. But while cognitive dissonance is a natural part of the way humans argue with one another, it also obscures our ability to judge and think critically, especially in the information age.
With the be-all, end-all star-based rating system monopolized by 247 and Rivals, cognitive dissonance can have a deep influence on how we look at college football recruits. When we unquestionably accept 5-star ratings based on 30 alleged offers as ultimate indicators of athleticism and talent, our brains are highly motivated to confirm this fact in order to avoid any inconsistency. Likewise, when watching nearly identical film of a low or unrated prospect, we are more prone to giving a harsh critique that will justify their low media presence or lack of FBS offers. Even more likely, we will disregard the recruit entirely because we are invested in these abstruse online rankings as an accepted fact, which we will be naturally inclined to preserve by rejecting contrary information. The truth is that there are thousands of overlooked high school ball players out there with impressive film, record-breaking stats, and NFL-level combine numbers that simply haven’t had the same media exposure that their peers featured on 247 and Rivals have. The difference often has little to do with the talent of the athletes, and more to do with who was in the right place at the right time. Many of the highly ranked big time recruits go to schools known for having a highly competitive program in a highly competitive area. Here is where cognitive dissonance plays a huge part in the recruiting process itself, as a coach will overlook below average stats and combine numbers in order to stay consistent with the widely held conviction that these schools and areas produce the top talent in the country. What’s more, with the number of FBS offers being a prerequisite for giving out an offer to recruit, coaches and recruiting staff are holding the decisions of other programs as unquestionably valid.  In fact, In the 6 months I’ve spent working in college football, I’ve learned that “well, who’s offered him?” is one of the first things a coach will ask when inquiring about a recruit. When the answer to this question is not a list of top D1 programs, it is not uncommon for a program to assume a recruit’s lack of offers is due to an off-the-field issue or even lead them to reconsider the recruit’s talent entirely. And just like that, a ball player’s value as a student-athlete is now entirely reliant on what the internet has to say about him, as college football fans across the internet are also heavily reliant what they find on 247 and Rivals. Working within this system of stars and alleged offers where Hudl views are more valuable than leading your state in receptions, those who recruit student-athletes no longer have to exercise critical analysis to differentiate one prospect from another. For this reason, one of the biggest motivations behind making the S.T.E.P. Ratings was re-introducing critical elements of what makes a top recruit. So, whether you’re a student-athlete, a coach or scout, or just a fan, be aware of cognitive dissonance and how you form your opinions. ​

Click to Read about what it takes to be a 5 star recruit by clicking below! Great job Maddy!