4 stars are better than 3 stars #fact

#103
#103
altidore17 said:
Wasn't a shot, just a factual statement. Hopefully their new staff can clean it up
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I would expect that to be the case. And that wasn't solely directed at you. And yes, the arrest record during the Meyer years was certainly striking. I just finally felt like it was time for someone to call for a bit of additional decorum. Really, that could be directed at the fans bickering with each other on the board. When I see that bickering, I can't help but think good points go unnoticed. Nothing personal.
 
#105
#105
altidore17 said:
Its not about getting a team full of 5* talent. Its about getting a team of 3/4* with a few 5* sprinkled in who will be able to get coached up and not get arrested or kicked out of school. But then again you guys don't know much about the latter portion of that statement.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It is about finding, signing, retaining, and developing talented players. IF the recruiting svcs give you props... then you are probably doing that. IF the recruiting svcs ARE NOT giving you props... then you still may be doing that. They do not come close to finding and promoting all the elite players across the country.
 
#107
#107
You can point out 4-5* players that do well, and live up to the hype. You can also point out 4-5* players that struggle in school, and don't live up to the hype. All in all, it's about the overall makeup of a class. Sure, those higher ranked players are talented, but at the end of the day, it's about those players that aren't necessarily ranked as high that makeup the majority of your team, and play at a higher level than certain higher ranked prospects.

The one thing that I have learned in all this, is when you break down a class, it's about where those players are when they leave, not where they were when they came in. Go back and look at the past classes of other schools, and you'll see that success isn't necessarily determined by stars, but keeping those players in your program and coaching them up. If you can't keep those high ranked kids on course, your going to struggle, which is very evident by our past recruiting classes, and the rather higher amount of busts you can look at.
 
#109
#109
kidbourbon said:
Poster 1: I"m a little worried that we haven't been landing more four star guys.
Poster 2 (response A): Trust the evaluations of our coaches.

Poster 2 (response B): Stars don't matter. [Insert good college player] was a 3-star. How'd that work out?

I would like to emphasize for the record that while Poster 1 may be annoying, Poster 2 is both annoying and RETARDED. Recruiting rankings do matter, and discussions about them are perfectly appropriate and constructive. So for those who wish to make mention of recruiting stars (or even offer list stature) a taboo subject: please stop your silly little crusade. It is going to be discussed, and it is probative.

Hug your friendly neighborhood recruiting rankings - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Mister Relevant: Why you shouldn't dismiss recruiting rankings - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Star Power: Recruiting gurus' All-American track record, by the numbers - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Star Power: Recruiting gurus' track record at the top of the polls, by the numbers - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Star Power: Judging the recruiting rankings, game by game - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports
Click to expand...


^^^Rankings slave
 
#110
#110
Fijivol72 said:
why some put the services down and put their faith in a coach who has shown us nothing yet. IMHO you need consensus studs to win not projects.
Click to expand...

:stop:The reason is the coaches are on the field with them and can see what they can do. They can get a better feel of their character and how they take coaching, how they pick things up. They get a better feel for what their physical potential is....what kind of frame they have, how big will they be...in other words their upside. As far as not showing us anything...that is a foolish thing to say and tells me a lot about you. Look where he came in and what he had to work with...2 inexperienced QBs, high school kids starting on the OL...had to recruit a juco to play center till Stone could develop some. He had to take a DE from USC and make him a DT and had to use a walkon for the DL and won 6 games and could have won more. He has recruited well before having time to develop relations with high school programs. He has a system, a process to put good solid players on all positions with depth and guys that will be around for awhile. Anybody should be able to listen to him and see what he is doing and realize he is a very smart fellow which is where I think you come up short.
 
#111
#111
webgent said:
:stop:The reason is the coaches are on the field with them and can see what they can do. They can get a better feel of their character and how they take coaching, how they pick things up. They get a better feel for what their physical potential is....what kind of frame they have, how big will they be...in other words their upside. As far as not showing us anything...that is a foolish thing to say and tells me a lot about you. Look where he came in and what he had to work with...2 inexperienced QBs, high school kids starting on the OL...had to recruit a juco to play center till Stone could develop some. He had to take a DE from USC and make him a DT and had to use a walkon for the DL and won 6 games and could have won more. He has recruited well before having time to develop relations with high school programs. He has a system, a process to put good solid players on all positions with depth and guys that will be around for awhile. Anybody should be able to listen to him and see what he is doing and realize he is a very smart fellow which is where I think you come up short.
Click to expand...

we would not be having this conversation, everyone would be pounding their chest. Ever ask yourself why? Let's look at SC as a prime example of how great recruiting can turn a program around. Jeffery, Lattimore, and now Clooney will make them contenders not pretenders. You think those three guys will not be and are difference makers??? Better think again. As to the comment about Dooley having shown nothing yet that is right on target. His recruiting plan is at this point subject to debate unless you consider 6-7 a good year. I understand what he was dealt but frankly he is getting paid to get us wins not funny quotes. We shall see.
 
#112
#112
kidbourbon said:
I disagree, and I think your conclusion is actually pretty silly. I don't know the specifics of the arrangement between Yahoo and Rivals. Perhaps yahoo is the parent company. Perhaps they have a different arrangement. I don't know. But Matt Hinton gets paid the same no matter what conclusion his articles tend to suggest on the subject.

And your logic is just silly. ESPN has a major stake in SEC football -- do you think they forbid their writers from being critical about the conference, and have editors who make sure that every story is spun to paint a rosy picture of the SEC. Of course not.

The bolded portion of your post gets the award for dumbest conclusion of the day. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

While your conclusion that stars matter may be true, you cannot be so naive as to believe that it does matter who pays the writer. If you believe that who pays does not matter, that would be the most naïve conclusion of the day.
 
#113
#113
Fijivol72 said:
we would not be having this conversation, everyone would be pounding their chest. Ever ask yourself why? Let's look at SC as a prime example of how great recruiting can turn a program around. Jeffery, Lattimore, and now Clooney will make them contenders not pretenders. You think those three guys will not be and are difference makers??? Better think again. As to the comment about Dooley having shown nothing yet that is right on target. His recruiting plan is at this point subject to debate unless you consider 6-7 a good year. I understand what he was dealt but frankly he is getting paid to get us wins not funny quotes. We shall see.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after Clooney...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
Fijivol72 said:
we would not be having this conversation, everyone would be pounding their chest. Ever ask yourself why? Let's look at SC as a prime example of how great recruiting can turn a program around. Jeffery, Lattimore, and now Clooney will make them contenders not pretenders. You think those three guys will not be and are difference makers??? Better think again. As to the comment about Dooley having shown nothing yet that is right on target. His recruiting plan is at this point subject to debate unless you consider 6-7 a good year. I understand what he was dealt but frankly he is getting paid to get us wins not funny quotes. We shall see.
Click to expand...

When did George Clooney start playing for the usce ?
 
#117
#117
Fijivol72 said:
magnet for two and three star recruits. He still thinks he is in the WAC competing against other two and maybe 3 star players. I am still perplexed where Wilcox fits into the recruiting equation? We need defensive help desperately and you just don't hear where he is involved. Now Chavis wasn't the greatest recruiter either but at least he could coach, not sure about Wilcox imho the jury is still out. Oh by the way recruiting IS the lifeblood of college football. You don't recruit well you lose.
Click to expand...

Stupid statement. You don't get a top 15 recruiting class 2 years in a row with 2 and 3 star players. Do the math. :no:
 
#118
#118
kidbourbon said:
Poster 1: I"m a little worried that we haven't been landing more four star guys.
Poster 2 (response A): Trust the evaluations of our coaches.

Poster 2 (response B): Stars don't matter. [Insert good college player] was a 3-star. How'd that work out?

I would like to emphasize for the record that while Poster 1 may be annoying, Poster 2 is both annoying and RETARDED. Recruiting rankings do matter, and discussions about them are perfectly appropriate and constructive. So for those who wish to make mention of recruiting stars (or even offer list stature) a taboo subject: please stop your silly little crusade. It is going to be discussed, and it is probative.

Hug your friendly neighborhood recruiting rankings - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Mister Relevant: Why you shouldn't dismiss recruiting rankings - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Star Power: Recruiting gurus' All-American track record, by the numbers - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Star Power: Recruiting gurus' track record at the top of the polls, by the numbers - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Star Power: Judging the recruiting rankings, game by game - Dr. Saturday - NCAAFBlog - Yahoo! Sports
Click to expand...

very well said kid, now pass the four roses.lol
 
#119
#119
Fijivol72 said:
magnet for two and three star recruits. He still thinks he is in the WAC competing against other two and maybe 3 star players. I am still perplexed where Wilcox fits into the recruiting equation? We need defensive help desperately and you just don't hear where he is involved. Now Chavis wasn't the greatest recruiter either but at least he could coach, not sure about Wilcox imho the jury is still out. Oh by the way recruiting IS the lifeblood of college football. You don't recruit well you lose.
Click to expand...

As of 7/21/11:

9 out of the 14 commits Alabama has are 3 stars (64%)
10 out of the 11 commits Arkansas has are 3 stars or not ranked
4 out of the 14 commits Florida has are 3 stars (28%) not counting kicker
7 out of the 11 commits Georgia has are 3 stars or not ranked (64%)

Looks like Saban, Petrino, and Richt are 3 star magnets as well.
 
#120
#120
I read recently where certain recruiting websites hype certain teams commits to keep said team paying monthly subscriptions. 90% of the 3 stars we take are borderline 4 stars. We get our fair share of 4 stars. A phenomenal class rarely has more than 2 five stars.

It really comes down to if you recruit good talent to your needs and can coach said talent. There isn't a ton of difference between 4-5 star talent anyhow.
 
#123
#123
kidbourbon said:
Wow, this poster is really really smart. No sarcasm.

The articles are from Doc Saturday, smart guy. He's a well respected college football writer who had another blog (sunday morning quarterback) for years before Yahoo snatched him up. Again, he writes for yahoo. Perhaps Yahoo owns Rivals, but isn't like I posted you a Volquest article. His opinion on this subject isn't biased.

You are the smartest man in the world.
Click to expand...

I suspect sarcasm here. Or maybe someone getting angry because he just can't seem to justify his subscription to a recruiting site.
 
#124
#124
Understand we aren't exactly at the top of a lot of big name recruits because, well, we aren't that good. The fact that we put together such a good class last year is amazing to me. And so far this year, the coaches are putting in some work. The 5*'s and 4*'s will come soon enough. Our program has been in a bad way for while now and didn't have the right people to bring us out of it. Soon though, our time is soon
 
#125
#125
UTGhostHunter said:
I would say that both sides have spent too much time trying to poke small holes in the others argument. Yes, three star recruits can and have turned into superstars. Yes, five stars have been busts. Yes, coaching is important. Yes, star systems are right much more than they are wrong. Of course a five star recruit will be worthless if he isn't coached up. The reason that coaches do independent analysis is because recruiting services miss sometimes, but they pay the services for some reason. And yes, Rivals, Scout, and ESPN are a bunch of sports writers and the content is for fans, but they have years of experience and know how to evaluate talent. The OP is trying to use articles to make the point that there is a correlation between the recruiting ratings and success, and he's correct, but even Saban and Meyer recruited three stars, which is the counterpoint I keep hearing, which is also true. Each coach uses recruiting services as tools, which is what we as fans use them for. Let's understand the value of the star system, but also not be blinded by those same stars. A fan isn't wrong to get excited about a recruit, but another fan with doubts isn't wrong or evil either. It's an opinion, just like the rankings. I'm done rambling, so attack if you want to attack or agree if that's your inclination.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I actually agree with a lot of what you said here. There is no doubt in my mind that Derek Dooley has better information on recruits than does Brent Hubbs. Zero doubt. With this information, Dooley and his staff are able to put together various lists and sub-lists that are more informed than the lists you see at Rivals. I agree with every bit of that.

But I'm also certain that if you were to take the Rivals list and put it up side by side next to Dooley's, there would be a pretty decent correlation between the two. I mean, it isn't *that* hard to evaluate talent. By extension, if you put Dooley's list side by side with Nick Saban's list, there would also be a pretty good correlation between the two. What I'm getting at here is that Derek can (and he probably actually does) know who the best players in the country are. But that doesn't mean that he's getting them. If he were getting them, I believe our recruiting classes would (a) look a lot more like Bama's than they presently do, and (b) this would also be reflected in the recruiting rankings.

Does this make sense? I fully concede that recruiting services have imperfect information, but the evidence suggests that it is good enough for us fans to use as a barometer to know whether we are keeping up with the Sabans and such. To state this slightly differently, I don't have any reason to believe that the lesser ranked players we are getting are "diamonds in the rough". I have no reason to believe that Dooley and Co. know something that the rest of the coaches in the SEC don't know. And so stargazing, while imperfect, is much more constructive than star ignoring.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top