Status:
Uncommitted
HIGH SCHOOL
Gustavo Cordova
Rating: 88
?
National Avg
Rating: 87.7
?
School Preferences
School
Interest
Offer
Official Visit
Baylor
Medium
Arizona
Medium
California
Medium
Houston
Medium
Oklahoma
Medium
Oklahoma State
Medium
Pittsburgh
Medium
UTSA
Medium
+ 3 More
Staff Predictions
?
Confidence
Prediction
Name & Date
Videos
(2 Total)
12/30/1969
Gustavo Cordova Sophomore Season
12/30/1969
Gus Cordova Junior Season Highlights
Photos
(1 Total)
×
National Average Rating
The National Average Rating is a proprietary formula that calculates an industry-wide aggregate rating for each recruiting prospect. The formula includes publicly listed grades, scores, ratings and rankings by national recruiting services, along with a SicEm365 rating. Combining the data provides a rating for each prospect, which is then normalized to fit the SicEm365 Rating 100-point scale.The intent of this rating is to provide SicEm365 readers with a comprehensive snapshot of how individual prospects rank nationally.
×
SicEm365 Rating
99-100: Elite national prospect (Five-star)
Considered one of the best prospects in the nation and a likely difference-maker at the collegiate level. Displays all of the physical skills to be a future All-American with potential to be an early-round NFL draft pick.90-98: Elite state prospect (Four-star)
Considered one of the best 30-40 prospects in the state and a top 250 national prospect. Displays the physical skills to be a major early contributor at the collegiate level with high professional potential.80-89: Quality prospect (Three-star)
Considered one of the best 100 prospects in the state and a top 500 national prospect. Displays the physical skills to develop into a contributor over the course of his college career. Has the ability to become a professional prospect over time with development.70-79: Solid prospect (Two-star)
Considered one of the top 250 prospects in the state. Has the physical skills to be a potential contributor at a D-1 program over the course of his collegiate career with significant development. Professional potential is low.×