Star ratings good and getting better.

[reaperkyle]

Hey Guys,

I've seen a lot of threads over the last few months about star ratings and thought I'd share some numbers I put together a few years back. Always such a hot topic on the boards and I wanted to see for myself what the facts were on the subject.

My assumptions are obviously debatable, but for this test, I had decided that using the 7 round NFL draft was the most accurate way to determine where a player stood after his college career. This seemed the only fair way to include guys that were grad transfers, and also guys who were red-shirted and took a year longer to develop.

I used the 247/Sports composite for the star ratings, seeing as how they are an average of theirs and the other well known rating systems, so it wasn't just one source's opinion.

% of players drafted from available recruiting cycle
(example: 2012 recuiting cycle for the 2016 NFL draft, also including 2011-2012 redshirt players and grad transfers who were required to sit a year, and 2013 recruits who opted for the draft as Juniors).

Year 5*% 4*% 3*% 2*-NR
2013 55% 29% 7% 4%
2014 57% 26% 8% 3%
2015 75% 21% 8% 1%
2016 77% 23% 6% 2%

Just for reference, during the 2008-2013 recruiting cycles, here's the average annual number of prospects at each star level:

5* - 31
4* - 273
3* - 1324
2*-NR - 972

First off, let me say that some of my favorite players have been lower rated guys that have exceeded their expectations. These numbers show that, although there are a ton of 3* guys in the NFL, only 6-8% of them, after being coached up and developed are good enough to be drafted.

The most significant thing I noticed, was that not only did an average of 67% of the 5 star guys eligible from their recruiting cycle get drafted, but that % increased every year, suggesting that the recruiting services have become more and more accurate with their talent assessments, especially when it comes to 5*'s.

Anyways, if anyone wants my full excel sheet, they can PM me. I'll be glad to share.

I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that assesses who does the most with their talent (average recruit ranking vs teams power ranking, maybe?). This would combine talent level/ability to develop/who finds overlooked talent.

Have a great night.

 

[orangemadam]

Stars do make a difference, at least with the good to excellent coaching staffs that know what to do with them.

 

[norrislakevol]

If a player has the measurables and play making ability that very few others have then not only does he have a better chance to make it in the NFL, but he also is awarded more stars coming out of high school. The formula is easy.....stockpile as many of these players on your team as possible and it becomes easier to win games.

 

[OrangeByBirth]

Stars are early guidelines. The real ratings come after 4 years. The results in recent years have been putrid. Time will tell about current recruits but I am optimistic.

 

[Vol49er]

This is exactly the right way to look at it, just looking at raw amount of players drafted of each rank has always been misguided. I’m not sure why some people are so suspicious of rankings. Thanks for putting together these numbers

 

[photovol]

Hey Guys,

I've seen a lot of threads over the last few months about star ratings and thought I'd share some numbers I put together a few years back. Always such a hot topic on the boards and I wanted to see for myself what the facts were on the subject.

My assumptions are obviously debatable, but for this test, I had decided that using the 7 round NFL draft was the most accurate way to determine where a player stood after his college career. This seemed the only fair way to include guys that were grad transfers, and also guys who were red-shirted and took a year longer to develop.

I used the 247/Sports composite for the star ratings, seeing as how they are an average of theirs and the other well known rating systems, so it wasn't just one source's opinion.

% of players drafted from available recruiting cycle
(example: 2012 recuiting cycle for the 2016 NFL draft, also including 2011-2012 redshirt players and grad transfers who were required to sit a year, and 2013 recruits who opted for the draft as Juniors).

Year 5*% 4*% 3*% 2*-NR
2013 55% 29% 7% 4%
2014 57% 26% 8% 3%
2015 75% 21% 8% 1%
2016 77% 23% 6% 2%

Just for reference, during the span of the 2008-2013 recruiting cycles, here's the average number of prospects at each star level:

5* - 31
4* - 273
3* - 1324
2*-NR - 972

First off, let me say that some of my favorite players have been lower rated guys that have exceeded their expectations. These numbers show that, although there are a ton of 3* guys in the NFL, only 6-8% of them, after being coached up and developed are good enough to be drafted.

The most significant thing I noticed, was that not only did an average of 67% of the 5 star guys eligible from their recruiting cycle get drafted, but that % increased every year, suggesting that the recruiting services have become more and more accurate with their talent assessments, especially when it comes to 5*'s.

Anyways, if anyone wants my full excel sheet, they can PM me. I'll be glad to share.

I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that assesses who does the most with their talent (average recruit ranking vs teams power ranking, maybe?). This would combine talent level and ability to develop.

Have a great night.

Now, find out how we can get more 5 * players, K

 

[jwilliams]

OP... very nice, thanks for posting! Having hung out on the RF for a while now, I think a lot of folks are confused as to why SOME people say that the ratings don't matter. When you follow the recruits and ratings closely you see that their ratings are heavily influenced by their offer lists and who they commit to. For example, it's a running joke in the RF that when a player commits to Tennessee their ranking will immediately drop. Conversely, if a player commits to Alabama or Clemson their ranking shoots up.

That rationale is pretty simple.. the recruiting services think "If the best team in the nation accepts a commitment from this guy, then their talent evaluators think he's one of the best in the country, so he probably is." In that way, the stars become a self fulfilling prophecy. The best teams in the country tend to have the highest ranked classes simply because they are the best in the country.

So, often (not always) when someone on here mentions that stars don't matter, it's because a 3-star committing to a "crappy-in-recent-history" program, like Tennessee, would probably be a 4 star commit for Clemson/Alabama. Likewise a well-rated 4 star might be a 5-star. Mind you, this is only if you believe our coaches are great talent evaluators and, given the NC rinks among them, I choose to assume they are. We'll find out soon.

With all that in mind, it would be kinda fun to do the same exercise as OP, but see what percentage of those drafted had offers from which schools.

 

[Jack Burton]

Stars definitely matter, but so does the development of them once they arrive. We didn’t have much of that under Butch.

Now I think we have enough knowledge on the staff to develop players to get the most out of them wherever they fall in the rankings.

 

[The Original Fade]

Hey Guys,

I've seen a lot of threads over the last few months about star ratings and thought I'd share some numbers I put together a few years back. Always such a hot topic on the boards and I wanted to see for myself what the facts were on the subject.

My assumptions are obviously debatable, but for this test, I had decided that using the 7 round NFL draft was the most accurate way to determine where a player stood after his college career. This seemed the only fair way to include guys that were grad transfers, and also guys who were red-shirted and took a year longer to develop.

I used the 247/Sports composite for the star ratings, seeing as how they are an average of theirs and the other well known rating systems, so it wasn't just one source's opinion.

% of players drafted from available recruiting cycle
(example: 2012 recuiting cycle for the 2016 NFL draft, also including 2011-2012 redshirt players and grad transfers who were required to sit a year, and 2013 recruits who opted for the draft as Juniors).

Year 5*% 4*% 3*% 2*-NR
2013 55% 29% 7% 4%
2014 57% 26% 8% 3%
2015 75% 21% 8% 1%
2016 77% 23% 6% 2%

Just for reference, during the span of the 2008-2013 recruiting cycles, here's the average number of prospects at each star level:

5* - 31
4* - 273
3* - 1324
2*-NR - 972

First off, let me say that some of my favorite players have been lower rated guys that have exceeded their expectations. These numbers show that, although there are a ton of 3* guys in the NFL, only 6-8% of them, after being coached up and developed are good enough to be drafted.

The most significant thing I noticed, was that not only did an average of 67% of the 5 star guys eligible from their recruiting cycle get drafted, but that % increased every year, suggesting that the recruiting services have become more and more accurate with their talent assessments, especially when it comes to 5*'s.

Anyways, if anyone wants my full excel sheet, they can PM me. I'll be glad to share.

I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that assesses who does the most with their talent (average recruit ranking vs teams power ranking, maybe?). This would combine talent level and ability to develop.

Have a great night.

You put a lot of time and effort into your project to discover what should be common knowledge: highly rated players help you win ball games.

 

[overseasorange2]

You put a lot of time and effort into your project to discover what should be common knowledge: highly rated players help you win ball games.

Who would have thunk it!

 

[sjt18]

Hey Guys,

I've seen a lot of threads over the last few months about star ratings and thought I'd share some numbers I put together a few years back. Always such a hot topic on the boards and I wanted to see for myself what the facts were on the subject.

My assumptions are obviously debatable, but for this test, I had decided that using the 7 round NFL draft was the most accurate way to determine where a player stood after his college career. This seemed the only fair way to include guys that were grad transfers, and also guys who were red-shirted and took a year longer to develop.

I used the 247/Sports composite for the star ratings, seeing as how they are an average of theirs and the other well known rating systems, so it wasn't just one source's opinion.

% of players drafted from available recruiting cycle
(example: 2012 recuiting cycle for the 2016 NFL draft, also including 2011-2012 redshirt players and grad transfers who were required to sit a year, and 2013 recruits who opted for the draft as Juniors).

Year 5*% 4*% 3*% 2*-NR
2013 55% 29% 7% 4%
2014 57% 26% 8% 3%
2015 75% 21% 8% 1%
2016 77% 23% 6% 2%

Just for reference, during the span of the 2008-2013 recruiting cycles, here's the average number of prospects at each star level:

5* - 31
4* - 273
3* - 1324
2*-NR - 972

First off, let me say that some of my favorite players have been lower rated guys that have exceeded their expectations. These numbers show that, although there are a ton of 3* guys in the NFL, only 6-8% of them, after being coached up and developed are good enough to be drafted.

The most significant thing I noticed, was that not only did an average of 67% of the 5 star guys eligible from their recruiting cycle get drafted, but that % increased every year, suggesting that the recruiting services have become more and more accurate with their talent assessments, especially when it comes to 5*'s.

Anyways, if anyone wants my full excel sheet, they can PM me. I'll be glad to share.

I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that assesses who does the most with their talent (average recruit ranking vs teams power ranking, maybe?). This would combine talent level and ability to develop.

Have a great night.

Good post. There's a chance that 247's averaging is helping the accuracy on 5* players. That said, here's the approximate number of guys drafted on average by grade:

5*- 20
4*- 68
3*- 96
2*/NR- 24

In the average year, 120 lower rated guys are drafted compared to 88 "blue chip" guys. The ratings do more to say a guy does have talent than to say a guy doesn't.

They still miss more than they find. It is still possible for a coach with unique ability to find and recognize talent to built a team of 3* players that are actually closer to one of the winners on NSD.

 

[overseasorange2]

Good post. There's a chance that 247's averaging is helping the accuracy on 5* players. That said, here's the approximate number of guys drafted on average by grade:

5*- 20
4*- 68
3*- 96
2*/NR- 24

In the average year, 120 lower rated guys are drafted compared to 88 "blue chip" guys. The ratings do more to say a guy does have talent than to say a guy doesn't.

They still miss more than they find. It is still possible for a coach with unique ability to find and recognize talent to built a team of 3* players that are actually closer to one of the winners on NSD.

That's because there are a lot fewer blue chip guys. I would think a higher percentage of the blue chip guys get drafted than the 3/4 *s.


20/31 5*s (65%), 68/273 4*s (25%), 96/1324 3*s (7%)

 

[bamawriter]

Good post. There's a chance that 247's averaging is helping the accuracy on 5* players. That said, here's the approximate number of guys drafted on average by grade:

5*- 20
4*- 68
3*- 96
2*/NR- 24

In the average year, 120 lower rated guys are drafted compared to 88 "blue chip" guys. The ratings do more to say a guy does have talent than to say a guy doesn't.

They still miss more than they find. It is still possible for a coach with unique ability to find and recognize talent to built a team of 3* players that are actually closer to one of the winners on NSD.

Load up with 3 stars, and you'd better be coaching in the MAC.

 

[sjt18]

That's because there are a lot fewer blue chip guys. I would think a higher percentage of the blue chip guys get drafted than the 3/4 *s.


20/31 5*s (65%), 68/273 4*s (25%), 96/1324 3*s (7%)

We don't disagree.

My point isn't really an argument against the OP but a variation on it. The ratings are largely correct for the guys who are rated highly but they still miss more than they find for various reasons.

That means if someone were really good in identifying talent... they could assemble a whole roster of championship caliber players and none of them have more than 3* from recruiting sites. Possible... does not mean likely. But chances get considerably better for those who average a top 15 class. Someone could more easily be finding 3* gems and blending with 4/5* known commodities.

I want to say that when Clemson played in their first Dabo NC game their previous 4 classes averaged outside the top 10. Now recruiting sites tend to like players that Dabo likes.

 

[sjt18]

Load up with 3 stars, and you'd better be coaching in the MAC.

Or... as I said plainly... you better have a uniquely elite ability to spot talent that others do not.

 

[bamawriter]

Or... as I said plainly... you better have a uniquely elite ability to spot talent that others do not.

I don't think that person exists, or had ever existed. You might be able to scheme your way to an above average record. You won't be winning any titles.

 

[sjt18]

I don't think that person exists, or had ever existed. You might be able to scheme your way to an above average record. You won't be winning any titles.

He won't exist long... because the recruiting services will notice like they have with Saban and a handful of others. I contend Bama doesn't have more talent because they get more highly rated players... but rather Bama gets more talent resulting in higher ratings from the recruiting sites.

I far more trust Saban to know what a top prospect looks like than any of the recruiting site guys... and apparently they do too.

 

[aaronvol]

oh...haven't you heard? Stars don't matter.

 

[Tumbleweedvol]

You might add who actually panned out in the NFL and who are currently on a team?

 

[Shades]

I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that assesses who does the most with their talent (average recruit ranking vs teams power ranking, maybe?). This would combine talent level/ability to develop/who finds overlooked talent.

Thanks for the post, OP.

With regard to your statement above, here are a couple posts that cover some info on that topic:
A look at team performance vs recruiting quality
Recruiting talent level comparison of the strongest P5 teams

 

[reaperkyle]

Thanks for the post, OP.

With regard to your statement above, here are a couple posts that cover some info on that topic:
A look at team performance vs recruiting quality
Recruiting talent level comparison of the strongest P5 teams

Thanks, Shades!

I was expecting to find Wisconsin and TCU as an over-performer, but some of the others were surprising.

 

[VolinDalton]

I love the work you put in here. I love breaking things down in this manner just to see. There is one thing that is missing from your equation that bothers me, though. In 2016 there were 480 1st and 2nd round draft players on nfl rosters. There were also 481 undrafted players on rosters the same year.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of star ratings or your analysis; I just think there may be more factors that could be looked at when presenting results.

When there are more undrafted players than 1st or 2nd round picks that leads me to believe that a player's recruiting rankings are not necessarily indicative of their NFL potential.

JMO.

 

[Boca Vol]

I love the work you put in here. I love breaking things down in this manner just to see. There is one thing that is missing from your equation that bothers me, though. In 2016 there were 480 1st and 2nd round draft players on nfl rosters. There were also 481 undrafted players on rosters the same year.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of star ratings or your analysis; I just think there may be more factors that could be looked at when presenting results.

When there are more undrafted players than 1st or 2nd round picks that leads me to believe that a player's recruiting rankings are not necessarily indicative of their NFL potential.

JMO.

IMO, a star rating from when a player was in HS is sort of irrelevant 4-5 years later when it comes time to go to the NFL. A lot goes on during that time.

 

[Rooster1]

Hey Guys,

I've seen a lot of threads over the last few months about star ratings and thought I'd share some numbers I put together a few years back. Always such a hot topic on the boards and I wanted to see for myself what the facts were on the subject.

My assumptions are obviously debatable, but for this test, I had decided that using the 7 round NFL draft was the most accurate way to determine where a player stood after his college career. This seemed the only fair way to include guys that were grad transfers, and also guys who were red-shirted and took a year longer to develop.

I used the 247/Sports composite for the star ratings, seeing as how they are an average of theirs and the other well known rating systems, so it wasn't just one source's opinion.

% of players drafted from available recruiting cycle
(example: 2012 recuiting cycle for the 2016 NFL draft, also including 2011-2012 redshirt players and grad transfers who were required to sit a year, and 2013 recruits who opted for the draft as Juniors).

Year 5*% 4*% 3*% 2*-NR
2013 55% 29% 7% 4%
2014 57% 26% 8% 3%
2015 75% 21% 8% 1%
2016 77% 23% 6% 2%

Just for reference, during the 2008-2013 recruiting cycles, here's the average annual number of prospects at each star level:

5* - 31
4* - 273
3* - 1324
2*-NR - 972

First off, let me say that some of my favorite players have been lower rated guys that have exceeded their expectations. These numbers show that, although there are a ton of 3* guys in the NFL, only 6-8% of them, after being coached up and developed are good enough to be drafted.

The most significant thing I noticed, was that not only did an average of 67% of the 5 star guys eligible from their recruiting cycle get drafted, but that % increased every year, suggesting that the recruiting services have become more and more accurate with their talent assessments, especially when it comes to 5*'s.

Anyways, if anyone wants my full excel sheet, they can PM me. I'll be glad to share.

I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that assesses who does the most with their talent (average recruit ranking vs teams power ranking, maybe?). This would combine talent level/ability to develop/who finds overlooked talent.

Have a great night.

You must be getting paid a lot of money for this.

 

[Rooster1]

He won't exist long... because the recruiting services will notice like they have with Saban and a handful of others. I contend Bama doesn't have more talent because they get more highly rated players... but rather Bama gets more talent resulting in higher ratings from the recruiting sites.


Where to begin?