15 of 32 projected 1st round NFL prospects rated 3-stars or less

[ansleyr815]

Read more: How Andrew Luck, other*NFL draft prospects ranked as recruits - Andy Staples - SI.com

If Peter King picked the first round correctly in his Mock Draft last week, nearly half of this year's newest crop of millionaires will have played high above recruitniks' predictions. Fifteen of the 32 players in King's Mock rated three stars or fewer out of high school, meaning evaluators felt they would, at best, be solid contributors at the FBS level.

So how did the recruitniks misjudge so many players so badly? They didn't. They misjudged a few players, which is to be expected when trying to project how 17-year-olds will fare as 20-year-olds. After last year's draft, writer Matt Hinton broke down the numbers, and they backed up the star ranking system's relative reliability as a predictor of success in college and beyond.

If 15 of 32 earning three stars or fewer sounds like a lot, consider the fact that from 2003-08, Rivals.com ranked 208 players as five-stars, 1,807 players as four-stars and 13,862 as a three-star or lower. In other words, two- and three-star players made up 87.3 percent of the players Rivals ranked during that period. Meanwhile, four- and five-stars -- of which King's Mock included 17 -- made up only 12.7 percent of the players ranked during that period. So, if the numbers hold, 53 percent of the first-rounders will come from the top eighth of the recruits.

That said, the stories always seem to be better when the player claws his way out of relative obscurity.

[Scotty's Flat Top]

So 17 of 32 are 3* or greater

[utvolpj]

If 15 of 32 earning three stars or fewer sounds like a lot, consider the fact that from 2003-08, Rivals.com ranked 208 players as five-stars, 1,807 players as four-stars and 13,862 as a three-star or lower. In other words, two- and three-star players made up 87.3 percent of the players Rivals ranked during that period. Meanwhile, four- and five-stars -- of which King's Mock included 17 -- made up only 12.7 percent of the players ranked during that period. So, if the numbers hold, 53 percent of the first-rounders will come from the top eighth of the recruits.

just thought this was an important part

[schwompal]

Originally Posted by Scotty's Flat Top

So 17 of 32 are 3* or greater

No, 17 of 32 are 4* or greater and 15 are 3* or less

[PapaBurgundy]

Really only proves that, as we all know, it's not anything close to an exact science. But it's all we got.

[Yankee_Vol]

17 is still more than half

[Biopsyman]

A better stat would be the bankruptcy rate after their career is over

[Vol8188]

Originally Posted by Scotty's Flat Top

So 17 of 32 are 3* or greater

No, 17 of 32 are 4* or higher. Which isn't bad considering the number of highly talented kids who can't make the grades or decide to rob a student outside a gas station, I think the recruiting services due well.

[Scotty's Flat Top]

Originally Posted by schwompal

No, 17 of 32 are 4* or greater and 15 are 3* or less

good catch, thats what I meant.

Originally Posted by Yankee_Vol

17 is still more than half

exactly

[HSVol]

Clearly Andy Staples hates UT.

[SCvol333]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

just thought this was an important part

it is, but many on this board will struggle with math and just can't grasp the concept that some 3 stars players being high picks doesnt mean evaluators are poor

3 star and lower is just a much bigger pool - they also can't see that of the players that are 3 star or lower a lot are big guys - these are more difficult to project b/c you it is harder to see who will be able to add weight when they are 17 - so they will keep taking stories like this and saying that it proves you don't need to recruit highly ranked kids to win at a high level and be completely off base

[nicksjuzunk]

Dooley is signing 100% first rounders.

[Vols4us]

Actually what it means is the recruting services have created a way to make money getting people to believe they have a valuable service, which may or may not be true. This discussion totally leaves out the ability and willingness of coaches to develop the players once they hit campus, which has the largest impact on whether they make the first round of the draft. It goes on from there in many directions.

[TBtheGBwiththeTD]

These numbers are pretty crazy IMO. I understand that there are many more 3 star or less guys, and that it's extremely difficult to predict future success from high school, but 15 of these FIRST ROUNDERS were supposed to have a ceiling as a FBS solid contributor. If your taken in the first round of the NFL draft, you have done more than establish yourself as a guy that contributes. Your a college stud, or an athletic freak of nature, if you go that high.

I think this is further information that while recruiting rankings and fun to look at, they certainly can't be viewed as a strong predictor for future success.

People think and say that if you want to be a perennial contender for the BCS, you need to have all these super hyped, star filled prospects. I just think its pretty cool almost half the best guys in the draft are 3 star, not-so-hyped guys.

TIFWIW

[fade route]

I've heard it said by a few recruiting analysts that the primary difference between a 5* prospect and a 3* star one isn't that the 5* recruit is that much more talented than the 3*, but that the 5* is more physically ready to compete right away, whereas the 3* may take time to develop. So, by the time both are seniors, there's not as much difference between the 2 as there was when they were in HS
Posted via VolNation Mobile