Recruiting Rankings After The Opening

#1
skasper06

skasper06

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
1,323
Likes
1,694
#1
Hey guys, so I am curious. Where should we be in the rankings after the opening, assuming we get Khalil and no one else just yet? Also, who can we expect to see a bump in their individual rating? For one, I see Williams earning that 5th star with Rivals. Any others?
 
#4
#4
Likely around 6th on most sites give or take a spot
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
For fun on 24/7...I added Gibson, McKenzie, Richmond, Settle, Tuttle, Jefferson, Ordway, and Sapp...and we were STILL behind Alabama in the rankings!
 
#7
#7
lovavol said:
fill your needs, can't always look at ratings
Click to expand...


Maybe you should re-read the thread title...it's talking about rankings which would be a direct correlation with player ratings. If the title was about "filling your needs" then your post would have been appropriate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
dick tugnuts said:
Maybe you should re-read the thread title...it's talking about rankings which would be a direct correlation with player ratings. If the title was about "filling your needs" then your post would have been appropriate.
Click to expand...

He's just giving his opinion man :dunno:
Jerk-GIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
Whether you want to admit it or not, stars mean a lot. They don't mean everything, but statistically there is a higher chance of them being good. Otherwise why do scouts who give ratings exist at all?

I'm not a "star counter" as much ad I am a realist. And realistically, more stars produce talent more often than fewer stars. Just look at Bama for example. First in recruiting combined with good coaching has equaled national titles. Even if Coach Jones is a great coach, he needs great players too. And for those too naive to admit it, 5* recruits are usually better than lower ranked recruits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#13
#13
skasper06 said:
Whether you want to admit it or not, stars mean a lot. They don't mean everything, but statistically there is a higher chance of them being good. Otherwise why do scouts who give ratings exist at all?

I'm not a "star counter" as much ad I am a realist. And realistically, more stars produce talent more often than fewer stars. Just look at Bama for example. First in recruiting combined with good coaching has equaled national titles. Even if Coach Jones is a great coach, he needs great players too. And for those too naive to admit it, 5* recruits are usually better than lower ranked recruits.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your point...there are a bunch of outlier teams that don't necessarily recruit well in terms of stars/rankings, but perform well on the field. Stanford, Baylor, Wisconsin are a few off top of my head that stand out. Coaching/scheme and getting players that fit and buy in are part of the equation. However, for teams like us that are trying to rebuild and establish national credentials...getting highly rated players helps immensely.
 
#14
#14
skasper06 said:
Whether you want to admit it or not, stars mean a lot. They don't mean everything, but statistically there is a higher chance of them being good. Otherwise why do scouts who give ratings exist at all?

I'm not a "star counter" as much ad I am a realist. And realistically, more stars produce talent more often than fewer stars. Just look at Bama for example. First in recruiting combined with good coaching has equaled national titles. Even if Coach Jones is a great coach, he needs great players too. And for those too naive to admit it, 5* recruits are usually better than lower ranked recruits.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say better...just more likely to contribute immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
UTChicagoV said:
I wouldn't say better...just more likely to contribute immediately.
Click to expand...

That's how I look at the star ratings. A 5 star should be able to come in and contribute and do pretty well. A 4 star may contribute immediately but will probably have some growing pains. 2's and 3 stars are good players but need to be developed in some way.
This is how teams that don't recruit to well can compete with the big time recruiting schools. By taking the 2 and 3 star guys they like and can see promise in after some development and letting them sit back a couple years.
JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
would be cool if Gibson shocks everyone and announces with McKenzie-- we would get an instant surge from others.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#17
#17
VOLinNC said:
That's how I look at the star ratings. A 5 star should be able to come in and contribute and do pretty well. A 4 star may contribute immediately but will probably have some growing pains. 2's and 3 stars are good players but need to be developed in some way.
This is how teams that don't recruit to well can compete with the big time recruiting schools. By taking the 2 and 3 star guys they like and can see promise in after some development and letting them sit back a couple years.
JMO
Click to expand...

Yep. This is exactly how the Recruiting Sites tell readers to interpret the rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#18
#18
like i said.....yawn.....another star counting thread.....this dead and rotting horse has been kicked ad nauseam. maybe we should think about agree to disagree. But that will not happen 'cause we like to argue on VN. sheesh
 
#20
#20
UTChicagoV said:
I wouldn't say better...just more likely to contribute immediately.
Click to expand...

So you're saying after 2-3 years, the average 2-3 star is as good as the average 5 star? I think the facts would disagree on the whole. Certainly some do.
 
#21
#21
sanefan said:
So you're saying after 2-3 years, the average 2-3 star is as good as the average 5 star? I think the facts would disagree on the whole. Certainly some do.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just that the 2-3 star would be able to contribute and earn a starting spot. 5 star guys are usually athletic freaks of nature and can start from the get-go while 2-3 stars need time to get acclimated to the college game from either a physical or mental aspect.

For reference: https://www.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1

The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
My prior post was Rivals. 247 is slightly different but overall the same.

110-101 = A player ranked in this range is a "franchise player." He is one of the best to come along in years - if not decades (LeBron James, Adrian Peterson). Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can't miss" talent.

100-98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 25 or so prospects in the nation. Player has excellent pro potential, and should emerge as one of the best players in the country before his college career ends.

97-90 = Four-star prospect. Prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. All-America candidate who displays pro potential. Typically one of the top 300 players in the nation.

89-80 = Three-star prospect. These are the players who will develop into reliable starters for the college teams. They are among the best players in their region of the country, and are generally among the top 750 players in the nation.

79-below = Two-star prospect. These players make up the bulk of Division I rosters. They may have little pro potential, are likely to become role players for their respective schools or not enough is known about the prospect to rank them accurately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
UTChicagoV said:
Nope. Just that the 2-3 star would be able to contribute and earn a starting spot. 5 star guys are usually athletic freaks of nature and can start from the get-go while 2-3 stars need time to get acclimated to the college game from either a physical or mental aspect.

For reference: https://www.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1

The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about
Click to expand...

You said they weren't better, just would contribute earlier. If they aren't any better, then once they are both contributing, you are saying they are equal in talent. That is not factual on the whole.

The truth is that more 4-5 star players are contributing than 3 star players, in general, on teams that actually have a representative number of each, regardless of the years on the team.

No ratings are perfect, and coaches know what they are looking for regardless of recruiting ratings. 5 stars bust and 3 stars become HOF players. However, to say 5 star players are no better than 3 star players, in general, is just silly.
 
#24
#24
dick tugnuts said:
For fun on 24/7...I added Gibson, McKenzie, Richmond, Settle, Tuttle, Jefferson, Ordway, and Sapp...and we were STILL behind Alabama in the rankings!
Click to expand...
Bama has 5*'s willing to warm the bench, before they ever see the field. We aren't even on the same planet and won't be for at two more years, but are finally heading that way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top