5* recruiting (debunked)

[MWAVolfan]

37 pro bowlers from last yr were 3* or worse. Im already over half way to a full roster. Still like your chances over mine?

Who cares if they are pro bowlers in the NFL? How many of them were on contending teams in college? Isn't that all that matters? How they played in college and how they helped their teams win championships?

Most championship college teams are full of 4 and 5 star players. That is ALL you should concern yourself with. what happens to them once they get to the NFL is frickin irrelevant.

 

[TDawg]

37 pro bowlers from last yr were 3* or worse. Im already over half way to a full roster. Still like your chances over mine?

That means the majority for 4*s or better considering there are 44 players on each roster not including alternates. Sooo, yeah, I'll play the field if we are matching these guys based on their college abilities ..

 

[MWAVolfan]

The thread was posted a few days ago suggesting we don't have a chance without 5* recruits. So I took to google to find out how right he could be and decided, instead of debating a percentage of what I learned based on a comment here and there, why not put it all on here? So here we go.

Let's see how we would feel about this hypothetical roster at UT back in the day.

Qb1 Arron Rodgers
Qb2 Matt Ryan
Rb1 Levion Bell
Wr. Mike Evans
OL Travis Frederick
OL. Trent Williams
TE. Travis Kelsey

C. Richard Sherman
DL Von Miller
DL Arron Donald
DL Cliff Avril
All 3* recruits and that's just the probowl.

According to 247 we shouldnt be talking about 2* talent such as Aquib Talib or Kalil Mack because they are less likely to go pro.

Even less talk is deserved for the bottom feeders (unranked) such as Tony Romo and Tom Brady.

Ive never been a believer in the recruiting services for reasons unimportant (although one reason should already be clear). But if you choose to believe a panel full of guys that went to school to learn how to do this from a book, be my guest. I'll trust my own eyes and experience along with the coaching staff that trust the same things over what some pencil pusher says they are.

Most 3* players never sniff an NFL team. you have to be damn lucky to get a 3* on your team that turns into an all-american and then an NFL superstar.

Much easier for that to happen to a 5*

 

[bamawriter]

That means the majority for 4*s or better considering there are 44 players on each roster not including alternates. Sooo, yeah, I'll play the field if we are matching these guys based on their college abilities ..

I was thinking the same thing. How does more than half of Pro Bowlers being 4 or 5 stars prove his point?

 

[MWAVolfan]

The thread was posted a few days ago suggesting we don't have a chance without 5* recruits. So I took to google to find out how right he could be and decided, instead of debating a percentage of what I learned based on a comment here and there, why not put it all on here? So here we go.

Let's see how we would feel about this hypothetical roster at UT back in the day.

Qb1 Arron Rodgers
Qb2 Matt Ryan
Rb1 Levion Bell
Wr. Mike Evans
OL Travis Frederick
OL. Trent Williams
TE. Travis Kelsey

C. Richard Sherman
DL Von Miller
DL Arron Donald
DL Cliff Avril
All 3* recruits and that's just the probowl.

According to 247 we shouldnt be talking about 2* talent such as Aquib Talib or Kalil Mack because they are less likely to go pro.

Even less talk is deserved for the bottom feeders (unranked) such as Tony Romo and Tom Brady.

Ive never been a believer in the recruiting services for reasons unimportant (although one reason should already be clear). But if you choose to believe a panel full of guys that went to school to learn how to do this from a book, be my guest. I'll trust my own eyes and experience along with the coaching staff that trust the same things over what some pencil pusher says they are.

Hey I bet Alabama fans are glad that Nick Saban doesn't share your recruiting philosophy.

 

[MWAVolfan]

I was thinking the same thing. How does more than half of Pro Bowlers being 4 or 5 stars prove his point?

Who the hell cares if they are pro-bowlers in the NFL anyway? Tell me what each of those 2 and 3 star pro bowlers did while at their respective college teams. How many conference championships? How many titles? How many new years day bowl games?

Why should I care that they eventually got good enough to be pro-bowlers in the NFL? all that matters is what happens in the 3 to 4 years they are on a college roster.

 

[TDawg]

I was thinking the same thing. How does more than half of Pro Bowlers being 4 or 5 stars prove his point?

especially when there are about 10x as many 3*s and below as 4* and above

 

[1vol8]

Hey, just ignore the 4 and 5 star talent that pours out of Bama, Clemson and OSU every year into the NFL and talk about the 1:10,000 chance that a 2 oe 3 star player actually turns into an all-american in college. I could care less how they play in the pros. I only care about how good they are while at UT.

These arguments over stars are dumb. they are 5 star for a reason. Get as many as you can and worry about everything else later.

You're missing the point. The debate is about the ACCURACY of ranked recruits. Not weather or not a team needs 5*. And btw 1: 10,000 is the ratio of any hs player to go pro.

 

[1vol8]

Who cares if they are pro bowlers in the NFL? How many of them were on contending teams in college? Isn't that all that matters? How they played in college and how they helped their teams win championships?

Most championship college teams are full of 4 and 5 star players. That is ALL you should concern yourself with. what happens to them once they get to the NFL is frickin irrelevant.

Do you even know what a recruits "star" rating represents? Its their likelyhood of going PRO. Not what they are projected to do in college.

 

[MWAVolfan]

You're missing the point. The debate is about the ACCURACY of ranked recruits. Not weather or not a team needs 5*. And btw 1: 10,000 is the ratio of any hs player to go pro.

I'm not missing the point when you are taking something completely irrelevant and using it for the basis of an argument. Being a pro-bowler in the NFL says nothing about what the player did while in college and how good they were when they were recruited. there are a lot of instances of players that were pedestrian at best who went undrafted and eventually became good NFL players. there are also lots of examples of players that tore it up in college and went on to get drafted and suck in the NFL.

All we should care about is how the players contributed to their college team's success. How they got to be NFL pro-bowlers is utterly irrelevant.

 

[MWAVolfan]

Do you even know what a recruits "star" rating represents? Its their likelyhood of going PRO. Not what they are projected to do in college.

Star rankings represent HOW FAST a player can make an immediate impact to your team. In other words, how developed and ready to be a contributor at the highest level on a college teams they are at the time of the ranking. That's all college football teams care about. Again I say, lots of players were considered "busts" in college that went on to have good NFL careers because they developed later. That means nothing at all to the college team that drafted them and got nothing out of it.

 

[1vol8]

I'm not missing the point when you are taking something completely irrelevant and using it for the basis of an argument. Being a pro-bowler in the NFL says nothing about what the player did while in college and how good they were when they were recruited. there are a lot of instances of players that were pedestrian at best who went undrafted and eventually became good NFL players. there are also lots of examples of players that tore it up in college and went on to get drafted and suck in the NFL.

All we should care about is how the players contributed to their college team's success. How they got to be NFL pro-bowlers is utterly irrelevant.

Once again. You have to pay attention to the meat of the debate. It's about the recruiting services accuracy of ALL players. If 37 pro bowlers were 3* or worse that's nearly 50% of the players to begin with. Now if you take into consideration that the recruiting services attached a 2 or 3* rating on them (which is their likelihood of going pro) it nearly coincides with the 70% miss rate and speaks LOUDLY to their overall abilty to evaluate.

 

[TDawg]

You're missing the point. The debate is about the ACCURACY of ranked recruits. Not weather or not a team needs 5*. And btw 1: 10,000 is the ratio of any hs player to go pro.

The point you ORIGINALLY started with was more about how the recruiters should be trusted more than the services .. yet the recruiters are almost ALWAYS more after the 4 and 5* kids than 3* and below. AJ Epenesa is a lot more of an exception than the norm staying for the in state Iowa Hawkeyes. Most of these kids that are highly rated are going to the schools chasing them the most.

 

[1vol8]

Star rankings represent HOW FAST a player can make an immediate impact to your team. In other words, how developed and ready to be a contributor at the highest level on a college teams they are at the time of the ranking. That's all college football teams care about. Again I say, lots of players were considered "busts" in college that went on to have good NFL careers because they developed later. That means nothing at all to the college team that drafted them and got nothing out of it.

That's not what the stars are about man. Im telling you it's there only as a measureing stick of what they think his chances are of making an NFL roster. The evidence of my claim is the reasoning behind why the are only 32 5* players each year. Because there are only 32 teams.

 

[bamawriter]

Once again. You have to pay attention to the meat of the debate. It's about the recruiting services accuracy of ALL players. If 37 pro bowlers were 3* or worse that's nearly 50% of the players to begin with. Now if you take into consideration that the recruiting services attached a 2 or 3* rating on them (which is their likelihood of going pro) it nearly coincides with the 70% miss rate and speaks LOUDLY to their overall abilty to evaluate.

You keep pointing to this "70 % miss rate" as if it's actually a thing.

 

[MWAVolfan]

Once again. You have to pay attention to the meat of the debate. It's about the recruiting services accuracy of ALL players. If 37 pro bowlers were 3* or worse that's nearly 50% of the players to begin with. Now if you take into consideration that the recruiting services attached a 2 or 3* rating on them (which is their likelihood of going pro) it nearly coincides with the 70% miss rate and speaks LOUDLY to their overall abilty to evaluate.

I don't agree with your assessment of the situation AT ALL. As far as college recruiters are concerned, a star rating is a measure of how this player can help me RIGHT NOW. It cannot possibly take into account the fact that many players don't develop into NFL stars until AFTER they become pros. the meaning/significance that you are trying to attach to star ratings is not within the spirit of what they mean to represent to college recruiters.

the other thing you have to do is look at the percentages. How many players that were ranked 2 or 3 star became pro bowlers AS A PERCENT OF ALL 2 AND 3 STAR PLAYERS? It's probably infinitesimal.

And now tell me as a percent of all 4 and 5 star recruits, how many of them become pros or pro-bowlers EVENTUALLY? Probably 1000X more likely.

 

[1vol8]

The point you ORIGINALLY started with was more about how the recruiters should be trusted more than the services .. yet the recruiters are almost ALWAYS more after the 4 and 5* kids than 3* and below. AJ Epenesa is a lot more of an exception than the norm staying for the in state Iowa Hawkeyes. Most of these kids that are highly rated are going to the schools chasing them the most.

That's not always true. In the begining of a cycle you are correct. They do want the 4/5* guys. But it's the beginning of a cycle. The 3* guys haven't been as commercialized as the 4/5* guys so it would only make sense. Mid to late cycle the 3* guys begin to emerge through other avenues and that's where the "diamonds in the rough" are found.

 

[TDawg]

Once again. You have to pay attention to the meat of the debate. It's about the recruiting services accuracy of ALL players. If 37 pro bowlers were 3* or worse that's nearly 50% of the players to begin with. Now if you take into consideration that the recruiting services attached a 2 or 3* rating on them (which is their likelihood of going pro) it nearly coincides with the 70% miss rate and speaks LOUDLY to their overall abilty to evaluate.

No it does not .. there are a ton of players at 4 and 5* that have solid college careers and will never be in a pro-bowl. Not to mention, if out of 88 pro-bowl players 37 are 3*, 2* or unrated and the other 47 are 4 or 5*, it sounds to me like the services are doing it right. Not to mention, if you have ever talked to some of the writers on these services, quite a few of them that assist in assigning rankings (the Luginboobs at ESPN not withstanding), a lot of them get info from the coaches at the college programs they cover in order to create their rankings. It isn't like that many are calling themselves top notch talent evaluators.

But check this out ... the top programs in the country seem to be at the top of this list on a regular basis .. the outliers like FSU are just that .. outliers.
2018 College Football Team Talent Composite

 

[1vol8]

You keep pointing to this "70 % miss rate" as if it's actually a thing.

Evidently it is if there was an artical written about it. Is it 100% accurate. Idk but I would certainly trust it being closer than a pencil pushers evaluation of a kid.

 

[bamawriter]

That's not what the stars are about man. Im telling you it's there only as a measureing stick of what they think his chances are of making an NFL roster. The evidence of my claim is the reasoning behind why the are only 32 5* players each year. Because there are only 32 teams.

They aren't projecting those 32 guys to be first round picks. They are saying "if this class were draft eligible today, here's the order in which they'd go." Trying to project the draft order of guys coming straight out of high school would be absurd. No one is ready to play in the NFL at age 18. 3-to-5 years worth of development means the world.

Think of it like this: if instead of recruiting, college teams go to draft high school players, here's the order in which we would expect them to go.

 

[bamawriter]

Evidently it is if there was an artical written about it. Is it 100% accurate. Idk but I would certainly trust it being closer than a pencil pushers evaluation of a kid.

It was a blog.

 

[MWAVolfan]

That's not always true. In the begining of a cycle you are correct. They do want the 4/5* guys. But it's the beginning of a cycle. The 3* guys haven't been as commercialized as the 4/5* guys so it would only make sense. Mid to late cycle the 3* guys begin to emerge through other avenues and that's where the "diamonds in the rough" are found.

3 star players arent just 3 stars because they failed to get publicity. Most of the time, they are 3 star players because at the time they were evaluated they weren't that good.

It's literally impossible to evaluate a guy you see right now at age 17 or 18 and say that 10 years from now he might be a pro-bowler. There is simply too much development that can happen to any player in 10 years. Also, what if some of these 4 and 5 star players were good enough to be pro-bowlers but got injured at some point and never recovered fully. Since the likelihood that 4 and 5 star players are going to start more minutes on college football teams they are more susceptible to injuries or just general wear and tear on their bodies. Many big time running backs have this happen to them.


These guys produce these star ratings for the college recruiting. You get a higher star if you are a player who is more ready to contribute at a high level RIGHT NOW. That's all anybody can realistically project and the only thing a college recruiter would ever care about.

 

[1vol8]

They aren't projecting those 32 guys to be first round picks. They are saying "if this class were draft eligible today, here's the order in which they'd go." Trying to project the draft order of guys coming straight out of high school would be absurd. No one is ready to play in the NFL at age 18. 3-to-5 years worth of development means the world.

Point in case is the star rankings are the likelihood of a player going pro. Not how they will effect a college program. Otherwise they wouldn't run the rankings to coincide with the NFL draft.

 

[TDawg]

That's not what the stars are about man. Im telling you it's there only as a measureing stick of what they think his chances are of making an NFL roster. The evidence of my claim is the reasoning behind why the are only 32 5* players each year. Because there are only 32 teams.

Still doesn't make sense .. as if only 32 players are going to make an NFL roster and they are trying to guess which ones do .. a lot of players in each draft make rosters. Some end up on practice squads after but they still made a roster. But again, some of the writers I have interacted with have stated they are ranking them based on who makes an impact in college football. No one has the ability to completely project a guys stardom in the NFL years in advance, sometimes multiple years before leaving HS.

 

[TDawg]

Evidently it is if there was an artical written about it. Is it 100% accurate. Idk but I would certainly trust it being closer than a pencil pushers evaluation of a kid.

So we trust the writers in that article but not the ones who write for recruiting services?