825 3 stars in last 4 years in SEC

[EZE]

S&C should have never stopped.

Mind boggling lack of foresight by Butch.

Butch screwed the pooch last season. On a lot of levels. There is no denying it. It doesn't mean I'm calling for his head. But, he needs to improve, too.

 

[NashVol11]

They see them contributing much earlier in their college career. Most 5 stars are already strong with good weight/size. There are 3 stars with 4.4 speed but need to grow and gain weight. I'm just saying that 5 stars are more ready to play early and that doesn't mean 3 stars will never be as good.

If they see them contributing earlier, it's because they see them as especially talented players, not because they're more fully developed. It's a projection of how good you'll be by the time you leave school, not how developed you are coming out of HS.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

If any of our rivals had the class we're assembling everyone here would be laughing at their class calling it mediocre etc but since it's our class they're all diamonds and 3 star recruits are OK. How about we just call it what it is, a mediocre class. Sure there will be a few good players even a few guys imo are underrated with solid offer lists but if you think this class is championship level, you're lying to yourself.

 

[Roustabout]

3 stars if you can red shirt them all and save them for a run one or 2 years then sit back and repeat. That's a process for some. James Franklin was successful at Vandy thanks to tons of redshirt juniors and seniors thanks to all redshirting by his predecessor. Most 4 and 5 stars walk in on campus and are best players. I feel if you get the higher rated players you can consistently compete. With the 3s ever so often will cycle up for a season or 2.

That's great if you aren't having the attrition Butch has had. That has to stop
At most, Butch should be signing a 19-22 person class. He's losing more to attrition than to graduation and early NFL entry.

There is certainly enough 4 and 5 star talent to make noise. The d line, LB Corp and DBs still have 4 star talent.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

They see them contributing much earlier in their college career. Most 5 stars are already strong with good weight/size. There are 3 stars with 4.4 speed but need to grow and gain weight. I'm just saying that 5 stars are more ready to play early and that doesn't mean 3 stars will never be as good.

This doesn't make any sense. If the 3 star players can get better then why can't the 5 stars? The 5 stars let's assume have a higher ceiling, so if they're developed properly they'll always be better right? Sure there's busts I'm just thinking hypothetically

 

[QuickSmurf]

It's not a measure of "readiness."

But every person is different. Some develope later than others. Let me ask you this. If a player hasn't developed fully out of high school how can the rating be anything but just a rating based on present development. I don't believe in once a 3 star always a 3 star.

 

[NashVol11]

But every person is different. Some develope later than others. Let me ask you this. If a player hasn't developed fully out of high school how can the rating be anything but just a rating based on present development. I don't believe in once a 3 star always a 3 star.

It can be based on the fluidity of your movement, the way that your frame suggests that your body will eventually look, your instincts, your attention to detail, and a whole host of other things. Plenty of "undeveloped" players have been rated 4-5 stars. Tyler Bray was a 4* in HS and was barely 200 pounds at 6'6

 

[NashVol11]

There are also plenty of 3*s that are fully physically developed. Obviously 3*s can develop further, but so can 5*s. So can anyone. The biggest difference isn't development, but projected talent level. Some combination of projected ceiling and likelihood of reaching it.

 

[Coachmike17]

I think Heart is more important than stars. Sure stars show what a lot of ppl know kids are supposed to do but lots of times all a lot of kids need is a chance to showcase what they can do. But a lot of times the big stars are a bust!

I heard on a local sports talk radio show that the New England Patriots total team averaged 2.85 stars coming out of high school into college. Atlanta wasn't much higher.

 

[QuickSmurf]

This doesn't make any sense. If the 3 star players can get better then why can't the 5 stars? The 5 stars let's assume have a higher ceiling, so if they're developed properly they'll always be better right? Sure there's busts I'm just thinking hypothetically

Of course 5 star player's can and do get better. You're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that the star ratings aren't set in stone. 3 stars turn into as good or better players than guys, coming out of high school, were rated higher. I think some believe that because someone is rated a 3 star means that they will always be one. That doesn't make sense to me. 2 or 3 years of high school football tape of kids isn't by any means a final inducement.

 

[QuickSmurf]

I heard on a local sports talk radio show that the New England Patriots total team averaged 2.85 stars coming out of high school into college. Atlanta wasn't much higher.

I don't think it's because there are more 3 stars and less 5 stars. I think that it's because kids in high school are growing. Those ratings aren't as accurate as some would like to think.

 

[NashVol11]

Of course 5 star player's can and do get better. You're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that the star ratings aren't set in stone. 3 stars turn into as good or better players than guys, coming out of high school, were rated higher. I think some believe that because someone is rated a 3 star means that they will always be one. That doesn't make sense to me. 2 or 3 years of high school football tape of kids isn't by any means a final inducement.

Yeah, the rankings are wrong about individual players all the time. But on a macro level, teams built on 4*s tend to be better than teams built on 3*s. A program might find a few underrated 3*s, but not a whole team of them.

 

[NashVol11]

I don't think it's because there are more 3 stars and less 5 stars. I think that it's because kids in high school are growing. Those ratings aren't as accurate as some would like to think.

There are like 500+ 3*s, probably thousands of 2*s, and 25 5*s per class, and you don't think that's why NFL teams are mostly not 5*s? Okay haha

 

[NashVol11]

Using 247Sports’ composite rankings — which combine all the major recruiting sites to derive a consensus evaluation of the nation’s recruits — here’s how the 32 members of the 2015 NFL first round broke down by star-rankings.

Five stars: eight (25 percent)

Four stars: seven (21.9 percent)

Three stars: 15 (47.8 percent)

Two stars or lower: two (6.2 percent)

A ha! More than half of last year’s first rounders were no better than three-star recruits. Definitive proof that those stars don’t matter, right?

Well … not if you consider the broader dispersal of those stars. Compare those percentages above to the percentage of five-stars among all 2011 recruits (the class that produced the majority of those draft picks.)

Five stars: 26 (0.7 percent)

Four stars: 336 (8.9 percent)

Three stars: 971 (25.7 percent)

Two stars or lower: 2,441 (64.7 percent)

So despite comprising less than 1 percent of all recruits, five-stars accounted for a quarter of 2015 first-rounders. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of all recruits are designated as being three stars or less, yet their representation in the first round is nearly half that.

Put it this way: About one in four five-star recruits like No. 1 pick Jameis Winston goes on to become a first-rounder, but only about one in 64 three-star recruits like No. 2 Marcus Mariota does. Any generalizations about star-ratings that use NFL rosters as justification are giving disproportionate weight to the outliers.

3 debunked recruiting myths that prove Signing Day is crucial | FOX Sports

 

[NashVol11]

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

Recruiting by the numbers: Why the sites get the rankings right - CBSSports.com

 

[NashVol11]

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be a top pick, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance (59.2%) of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A four-star had a one-in-five chance (19.5%) (77 of 395).
A three-star had a one-in-18 chance (5.6%) (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance (2.9%) (71 of 2,434).

How sleeper recruits still make the NFL, despite blue-chip dominance - SBNation.com

 

[QuickSmurf]

Yeah, the rankings are wrong about individual players all the time. But on a macro level, teams built on 4*s tend to be better than teams built on 3*s. A program might find a few underrated 3*s, but not a whole team of them.

I know what I'm saying isn't popular on here. I agree Bama, OSU etc have many 4 and 5 star player's. Clemson not nearly as many.

 

[QuickSmurf]

There are like 500+ 3*s, probably thousands of 2*s, and 25 5*s per class, and you don't think that's why NFL teams are mostly not 5*s? Okay haha

Yeah I know there are more 3 stars than 5's. I don't think that numbers is the only reason though.

 

[hmhawk]

This is just dumb...

I reckon it is. I reckon I'm gettin' old. Just that I've learned that being a 3* doesn't guarantee a bust no more than a 5* is a guaranteed home run. They start playing the game on the field instead of paper this season so I believe I'll just sit back and watch.

 

[bktennbear]

I reckon it is. I reckon I'm gettin' old. Just that I've learned that being a 3* doesn't guarantee a bust no more than a 5* is a guaranteed home run. They start playing the game on the field instead of paper this season so I believe I'll just sit back and watch.

Couldn't agree more. The way i gauge player is not the bogus star rating coming out of HS I say you're a 5* if you're drafted in the first 3 rounds and a 4* if your drafted in 4-7. NFL teams are putting big $$$ on these guys and they have proved they can play on a big stage against the best talent, but as we have seen all of them can't make it to that next level and stay but to get drafted you are big time. HS players rarely go against that kind of talent so I say your earn your stars in college not in HS!

 

[NashVol11]

I reckon it is. I reckon I'm gettin' old. Just that I've learned that being a 3* doesn't guarantee a bust no more than a 5* is a guaranteed home run. They start playing the game on the field instead of paper this season so I believe I'll just sit back and watch.

It's never a guarantee and no one is saying it is.

The problem is that people use the lack of a guarantee to say, "Oh well, they're all the same, stars don't matter," which is proven false.

 

[CA_Vol]

History shows national titles without elite recruiting over 4 years is rare


Put this baby to bed.

Higher stars matter.

Why this was/is ever a debate is ludicrous.

It's only a debate because we have a deluded portion of the fan base that will defend anything Butch does. Reality isn't always enjoyable, but denying it begets more of the same.

 

[MWAVolfan]

Look at the 5*s we signed over the past 10 years. We have had a ton not pan out, most times they were either overrated or headcases. Seems like our best players were 4*s with a few 3*s mixed in. I think too with our offensive scheme fit plays a huge factor especially with our O line (mobile/athletic) QB(same as OL)and style of back(shifty, one cut and take it to the house)

I also think coaching as a ton to do with the top talent not working out.

 

[QuickSmurf]

I reckon it is. I reckon I'm gettin' old. Just that I've learned that being a 3* doesn't guarantee a bust no more than a 5* is a guaranteed home run. They start playing the game on the field instead of paper this season so I believe I'll just sit back and watch.

Wisdom

 

[livefaith]

Interesting stat, but I would not read too much into it. I agree that lower teams rack them up. The truth is if you want to be competitive and win in the SEC you need to recruit a high number of 4 and 5 star kids. I know there are a lot of solid 3* and some turn into studs, but the odds are better with higher ranked guys.

Alabama has had 40 5 stars since 2007 alone. And it would be interesting to see where Alabama, Georgia, LSU, and Florida have been the last couple of years. Ironically, UGA has always seemed to recruit well, but can never put it all together.

3 stars from 2013-2017 (247 composite)
Alabama 28
LSU 42
UGA 54
UF 70
UT 82

You might get lucky on a few 3*, but it's difficult to win in the SEC when the majority of your roster consist of them.

You should probably show total # of recruits over the period as well. Or use % of 3* over the period.