5* recruiting (debunked)

[1vol8]

Bryce Brown, Khalil McKenzie, Slick Shelley, James Banks....I could make a list a mile long of 4 and 5 star players that were garbage either on the field or off the field.

Thank you

 

[bamawriter]

The word conjecture has been used several times throughout this debate by Bash. Not once has it been used correctly. Conjecture is an opinion based on no evidence. Given what I KNOW as a fact that makes it an educated opinion. I wouldn't call anything I know "unverifiable" when I'm just simply CHOOSING not to put the facts of what we were lied to about on a message board.

If you express opinions without presenting facts, that's conjecture. Saying that you have evidence that you cannot or will not share doesn't change the nature of that opinion. Maybe you have seen a lot of evidence. My general knowledge of the recruiting process doesn't fit with what you're arguing, so what you're arguing comes off as conjecture. When I've made a statement of fact, I've tried to point to something that backs it up. You're pointing to evidence that I can't see.

I'm not calling you a liar. I just want you to understand why I call your theories "conjecture."

 

[1vol8]

If you express opinions without presenting facts, that's conjecture. Saying that you have evidence that you cannot or will not share doesn't change the nature of that opinion. Maybe you have seen a lot of evidence. My general knowledge of the recruiting process doesn't fit with what you're arguing, so what you're arguing comes off as conjecture. When I've made a statement of fact, I've tried to point to something that backs it up. You're pointing to evidence that I can't see.

I'm not calling you a liar. I just want you to understand why I call your theories "conjecture."

I don't mean any disrespect. I see your point that it may "come off" as conjecture but I assure you it isn't. If there's one thing we can all agree on, no matter the side we take in this debate, (as far as major contributors in it anyway) it's that we may not all agree but we all certainly know this game and are well educated in the way in the inner workings of it.

 

[1vol8]

First, what a player turns out like in the NFL means nothing while in college. It’s simple, the more higher ranked players you have the more you win. When was the last time a team had more 2 and 3* diamond in the rough types and won a NC?

Everybody hopes for another Kahlil Mack or Antonio Brown. But they are kind of rare. If you don’t have the big time 4 and 5* guys, then you aren’t winning at a high rate. Certainly not winning titles.

Antonio Brown was a highly rated qb in HS iirc. I think he switched positions either senior yr of hs or freshman yr of college.

 

[1vol8]

There are a few misunderstandings regarding recruiting rankings in this post that make it pointless to discuss.

1) Stars are not indicative of professional careers. They are indicative of readiness to contribute as a starter and impact in a college program. 247Sports Rating Explanation

2) The Blue Chip ratio has proven that you need to recruit more 4 & 5 star players to have *regular* success as a college program. Blue-Chip Ratio 2018: 13 teams have title-worthy recruiting

3) Basic math shows that HS players have a better shot at the NFL if they are 4 or 5 star players versus a 3 star or lower (ie., a higher proportion of 4 and 5 star players are drafted versus 3 star or lower). The NFL draft proves that recruiting rankings matter.

Idk. When I read the rating explanation its clear to me that they are assigned based on likelihood of being drafted. And although it mentions the projected impact of said prospects on a college program the overall point was to explain the pro potential.

 

[TDawg]

The star system is BASED on the NFL draft dude. I really don't care if you believe that or not. If you don't I would suggest studying up on it. Now im not picking on you despite how it must seem. Im serious that you are wrong and need to do some research to learn why it's not worth arguing if you differ in opinion.

You are so far off base here it's hardly worth arguing over .. I presented facts that disproved what you are saying and yet you still want to push the narrative. Have you ever noticed that a kid may commit to a school like, let's say Ole Miss for example, but as soon as Bama offers or OSU offers or whatever, suddenly they go from a low end 3 star to high 4 star on the scale? Not only have I studied up on this, but I know people in the rankings game. But keep spinning it. The lack of evidence is entertaining.

 

[TDawg]

Isee your point but You're actually wrong on the numbers.
5*- 1-32
4*- 33-300
3*- 301-500
2*- 501- 750? (I think)

That's the way I read it a while back but things change just as fast as they assign stars or take them away.

Dude, there really is no "32" 5*s on a regular basis just because you want there to be to match the fact there are 32 NFL teams. I showed you that with multiple services. The guys at 247 will tell you they don't care how many NFL teams there are, it's just based on a number system and everyone with a certain number or higher is a 5* but they really want to make sure that they aren't all gushing over 60 different players and giving out 5*s like candy.

 

[TDawg]

Central point of the OP was that we needed to “start recruiting 5 stars” and we wouldn’t “start” our comeback until we were annually hauling in top 10 classes and having 5 stars backing up 5 stars...which is hogwash. No program is 3 deep at every position in 5 stars...not enough of them to go around. Alabama has a large number of 5 stars who SOMETIMES have a 5 star back them up for a season but more often have a 4 star back them up and surprisingly have a 3 star emerge as a first round draft pick like Josh Jacobs. During this unprecedented run what they HAVEN’T had is a 5 star QB run the season as a starter and win a NC. They’ve WON with two 3 stars and two 4 stars as the established season long starters. With an otherwise loaded (star ratings wise) roster, Bama has been taken to task 3/4 times by a Clemson program built on a different paradigm. At best top 11-12 class has more NC’s in this playoff era than tOSU who is like Bama an annual top 5 recruiting institution. Nothing changes that history even as capitalizing on their success Clemson joins that year in year out Top 5 club. That’s how we’re going to have to do it. We don’t have Dooley’s and Butch’s doing the evaluating so the mocking “trust the coaches” that our own miserables and paranoid rival fans like Bamawriters bleat out fall on deaf ears. We have to keep recruiting the service 5 stars but not disband the program when we accept the athletes that were downgraded when they played DT in high school when they’re natural edge rushers at the next level. Or explosive WR’s at a school with a veer running QB...or countless scenarios that even out. As is we’ll hope for the best that Toto and Crouch et al will work through the kiss of death that 33 year nerdy virgin eggheads puckered at them.

Actually, they are 2 for 2 over the last several years. Bama beat them once when they had Watson and lost to them the next year. Then with Kelly Bryant, Bama kicked their teeth in. Then last year with Sunshine, Clemson repaid the favor.

 

[butchna]

Actually, they are 2 for 2 over the last several years. Bama beat them once when they had Watson and lost to them the next year. Then with Kelly Bryant, Bama kicked their teeth in. Then last year with Sunshine, Clemson repaid the favor.

That first one with Watson it was last team with the ball wins...3 Star QB Coker won that head to head. I didn’t say Clemson BEAT them 3/4. They TOOK IT TO THEM. Pay tenchun Puppy!

 

[1vol8]

You are so far off base here it's hardly worth arguing over .. I presented facts that disproved what you are saying and yet you still want to push the narrative. Have you ever noticed that a kid may commit to a school like, let's say Ole Miss for example, but as soon as Bama offers or OSU offers or whatever, suddenly they go from a low end 3 star to high 4 star on the scale? Not only have I studied up on this, but I know people in the rankings game. But keep spinning it. The lack of evidence is entertaining.

UTchicagoV posted the explanation just a post or so ago. In the explanation it clearly suggests that it mirrors the NFL draft (which is why there are only 32 5* players each class, because there are ONLY 32 TEAMS) it tells you in plain English the likelihood of all prospects going pro based on their star rating. During the explanation it ALSO indicates for each level the impact they are projected to have on a college program. But it by no means indicates that the entire system is based off of a prospects possible impact in college. So before you allow my "lack of evidence" to be so "entertaining" You have to ask yourself why they only have 32 5* players a yr to match the number of NFL teams.That alone should tell you what it's based on BEFORE ever diving into the meat of the subject. Oh wait...... it must be because they MENTION possible college impact? If that's the case, you may have read it before but you didn't comprehend how it was created.
And yes I have noticed that a kid jumps in ranking depending on who offers him. Which only helps strengthen our point that these pencil pushers don't know what THEY are looking at and how politically currupt it has become.
Im happy you have friends in the ranking business. Tell them they should take a week off.... then quit. I also am in a field that requires paying close attention to it and how it works. I deal with it every year.

 

[TDawg]

That first one with Watson it was last team with the ball wins...3 Star QB Coker won that head to head. I didn’t say Clemson BEAT them 3/4. They TOOK IT TO THEM. Pay tenchun Puppy!

So you can take a team to task but not win? I guess there is a different definition for that phrase between the two of us .. moral victories I suppose

 

[1vol8]

So you can take a team to task but not win? I guess there is a different definition for that phrase between the two of us .. moral victories I suppose

You're trying way to hard to win this debate homeboy. A little lesson on debating.... once you have to dig that deep, you've probably already lost.

There's a difference in winning and getting all you can handle. You can win a game and leave the stadium thinking "Damn.... them boys beat me down like a baby back bit**!"

 

[sanefan]

Thanks everybody for the entertainment. It is pretty obvious many either think recruiting stars are based on who offers scholarships or coaches only offer based on recruiting rankings. The chicken or the egg story. If you believe one way the others are all wrong. There's not much constructive conversation here. There are always examples of 5* busts and 3* blooms that support the rankings don't matter group. The championship teams have very high recruiting rankings which support the rankings matter group.

The truth is that teams with high rankings can win championships. There are some that have high recruiting ranking that fail and the coach gets fired. The reason is generally that no matter how good your players are, if you cannot coach and develop them, they are not going to reach their potential. Saban could coach a team of only 3* players and beat many teams with players ranked higher. However, he is still not going to beat a Swinney team with 4-5* players because the two coaches are starting with players that have different POTENTIAL ceilings as a whole.

None of the best coaches look at recruiting rankings. However, they see the same talent that recruiting services see. The difference is they do their own evaluations not only on raw talent, but how they will fit into their program. History, attitude, work ethic, mental toughness, even location will play into who goes where AND who even gets offered. Some have the talent but not a winning attitude. Even Saban/Swinney cannot just offer the 25 players they want even though their track record proves they can get you to the NFL.

In this age of film and the internet, there are not many secrets. Everybody can get their tape out there and race is on for the best coaches to get the best players that fit their program. Rankings are close on raw talent, but the best coaches are better and matching talent and fit.

 

[TDawg]

[QUOTE
UTChicagoV said:
There are a few misunderstandings regarding recruiting rankings in this post that make it pointless to discuss.

1) Stars are not indicative of professional careers. They are indicative of readiness to contribute as a starter and impact in a college program. 247Sports Rating Explanation

2) The Blue Chip ratio has proven that you need to recruit more 4 & 5 star players to have *regular* success as a college program. Blue-Chip Ratio 2018: 13 teams have title-worthy recruiting

3) Basic math shows that HS players have a better shot at the NFL if they are 4 or 5 star players versus a 3 star or lower (ie., a higher proportion of 4 and 5 star players are drafted versus 3 star or lower). The NFL draft proves that recruiting rankings matter.[/QUOTE]

UTchicagoV posted the explanation just a post or so ago. In the explanation it clearly suggests that it mirrors the NFL draft (which is why there are only 32 5* players each class, because there are ONLY 32 TEAMS) it tells you in plain English the likelihood of all prospects going pro based on their star rating. During the explanation it ALSO indicates for each level the impact they are projected to have on a college program. But it by no means indicates that the entire system is based off of a prospects possible impact in college. So before you allow my "lack of evidence" to be so "entertaining" You have to ask yourself why they only have 32 5* players a yr to match the number of NFL teams.That alone should tell you what it's based on BEFORE ever diving into the meat of the subject. Oh wait...... it must be because they MENTION possible college impact? If that's the case, you may have read it before but you didn't comprehend how it was created.
And yes I have noticed that a kid jumps in ranking depending on who offers him. Which only helps strengthen our point that these pencil pushers don't know what THEY are looking at and how politically currupt it has become.
Im happy you have friends in the ranking business. Tell them they should take a week off.... then quit. I also am in a field that requires paying close attention to it and how it works. I deal with it every year.

Just posted UTChicagoVs post above and it CLEARLY does not say anything like that .. CLEARLY .. and I have CLEARLY pointed out that there are not a set number of 5*s in each class from 247 composite or from Rivals .. 247s internal comes in at 32 only. But I am still stuck on you point to UTChicagoV's post. The only thing related to the NFL i n there is that the rankings matter not that they mirror .. in fact, read point 1 again and read it and read it and read it.

And quit bashing the "pencil pushers" as they know, if you actually ever speak to one, that they aren't talent evaluators .. some have even said if they were that good at talent evals, they would probably be a scout for a team rather than a writer. They are trying to provide a service. Just know that no college team is sitting back reading 247 to figure out who to push for. That's silly. They communicate with HS coaches throughout the country on who's who and who to watch for and further evaluate. That's where having a LARGE off-field staff comes in.

 

[1vol8]

Thanks everybody for the entertainment. It is pretty obvious many either think recruiting stars are based on who offers scholarships or coaches only offer based on recruiting rankings. The chicken or the egg story. If you believe one way the others are all wrong. There's not much constructive conversation here. There are always examples of 5* busts and 3* blooms that support the rankings don't matter group. The championship teams have very high recruiting rankings which support the rankings matter group.

The truth is that teams with high rankings can win championships. There are some that have high recruiting ranking that fail and the coach gets fired. The reason is generally that no matter how good your players are, if you cannot coach and develop them, they are not going to reach their potential. Saban could coach a team of only 3* players and beat many teams with players ranked higher. However, he is still not going to beat a Swinney team with 4-5* players because the two coaches are starting with players that have different POTENTIAL ceilings as a whole.

None of the best coaches look at recruiting rankings. However, they see the same talent that recruiting services see. The difference is they do their own evaluations not only on raw talent, but how they will fit into their program. History, attitude, work ethic, mental toughness, even location will play into who goes where AND who even gets offered. Some have the talent but not a winning attitude. Even Saban/Swinney cannot just offer the 25 players they want even though their track record proves they can get you to the NFL.

In this age of film and the internet, there are not many secrets. Everybody can get their tape out there and race is on for the best coaches to get the best players that fit their program. Rankings are close on raw talent, but the best coaches are better and matching talent and fit.

I actually agree with you even though its partially against my argument. I don't think anyone is doubting that you need high ranking recruits though. I personally feel that if you look at the nations top 10 every yr you may not find a top 10 recruiting class in all of them but what you will find is a great coach and established culture.

 

[TDawg]

You're trying way to hard to win this debate homeboy. A little lesson on debating.... once you have to dig that deep, you've probably already lost.

There's a difference in winning and getting all you can handle. You can win a game and leave the stadium thinking "Damn.... them boys beat me down like a baby back bit**!"

THIS ISN'T EVEN THE SAME DEBATE LITTLE FELLA! You haven't won anything and you're pointing to quotes from people who completely dispute what you're saying .. you're making this laughable. Please, don't give anyone a "little lesson on debating" because you're just not good at it.

And winning a championship is still winning a championship. Georgia gave Bama "all they can handle" two years in a row but you can bet fewer talk about that than they do Bama still winning.

 

[Behr]

So you can take a team to task but not win?

I guess there is a different definition for that phrase between the two of us .. moral victories I suppose

Yes.

Obviously, and yours is wrong. Has nothing to do with moral victory.

What a maroon.

 

[1vol8]

[QUOTE
UTChicagoV said:
There are a few misunderstandings regarding recruiting rankings in this post that make it pointless to discuss.

1) Stars are not indicative of professional careers. They are indicative of readiness to contribute as a starter and impact in a college program. 247Sports Rating Explanation

2) The Blue Chip ratio has proven that you need to recruit more 4 & 5 star players to have *regular* success as a college program. Blue-Chip Ratio 2018: 13 teams have title-worthy recruiting

3) Basic math shows that HS players have a better shot at the NFL if they are 4 or 5 star players versus a 3 star or lower (ie., a higher proportion of 4 and 5 star players are drafted versus 3 star or lower). The NFL draft proves that recruiting rankings matter.

Just posted UTChicagoVs post above and it CLEARLY does not say anything like that .. CLEARLY .. and I have CLEARLY pointed out that there are not a set number of 5*s in each class from 247 composite or from Rivals .. 247s internal comes in at 32 only. But I am still stuck on you point to UTChicagoV's post. The only thing related to the NFL i n there is that the rankings matter not that they mirror .. in fact, read point 1 again and read it and read it and read it.

And quit bashing the "pencil pushers" as they know, if you actually ever speak to one, that they aren't talent evaluators .. some have even said if they were that good at talent evals, they would probably be a scout for a team rather than a writer. They are trying to provide a service. Just know that no college team is sitting back reading 247 to figure out who to push for. That's silly. They communicate with HS coaches throughout the country on who's who and who to watch for and further evaluate. That's where having a LARGE off-field staff comes in.[/QUOTE]

 

[TDawg]

Yes.

Obviously, and yours is wrong. Has nothing to do with moral victory.

What a maroon.

All about moral victory and if you DIDN'T win the game, it can't be anything more than a moral victory. Trust this, Clemson fans prior to actually winning the next year didn't feel like talking about the "taking them to task" the year they lost with Watson.

 

[Behr]

All about moral victory and if you DIDN'T win the game, it can't be anything more than a moral victory. Trust this, Clemson fans prior to actually winning the next year didn't feel like talking about the "taking them to task" the year they lost with Watson.

You're taking his comment out of context.

 

[TDawg]

Just posted UTChicagoVs post above and it CLEARLY does not say anything like that .. CLEARLY .. and I have CLEARLY pointed out that there are not a set number of 5*s in each class from 247 composite or from Rivals .. 247s internal comes in at 32 only. But I am still stuck on you point to UTChicagoV's post. The only thing related to the NFL i n there is that the rankings matter not that they mirror .. in fact, read point 1 again and read it and read it and read it.

And quit bashing the "pencil pushers" as they know, if you actually ever speak to one, that they aren't talent evaluators .. some have even said if they were that good at talent evals, they would probably be a scout for a team rather than a writer. They are trying to provide a service. Just know that no college team is sitting back reading 247 to figure out who to push for. That's silly. They communicate with HS coaches throughout the country on who's who and who to watch for and further evaluate. That's where having a LARGE off-field staff comes in.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, 247s own internal does that .. no one else does and they don't do that for the composite ranks as I pointed out in what you quoted above .. but the first lines in that are saying clearly that they are ranking them based on them possibly becoming one of the best in the country. It doesn't say this is where we think they will be drafted because if they were in that business, the 2015 cycle should have caused them to quit altogether.

 

[1vol8]

You're taking his comment out of context.

He knows. Hes reaching

 

[TDawg]

He knows. Hes reaching

LOL .. you do know that is a completely different discussion right?

I thought Buchna was pointing to the W/L record between Bama and Clemson over the years (which that combo of playing each other is getting a bit old). At the end of the day, it's just about wins and losses.

 

[1vol8]

Yes, 247s own internal does that .. no one else does and they don't do that for the composite ranks as I pointed out in what you quoted above .. but the first lines in that are saying clearly that they are ranking them based on them possibly becoming one of the best in the country. It doesn't say this is where we think they will be drafted because if they were in that business, the 2015 cycle should have caused them to quit altogether.[/QUOTE]
When did anyone say anything about it indicating WHERE they will be drafted? I said it gives rankings based on the LIKELIHOOD of being drafted by an NFL franchise and not possible college success. My point in a whole that YOU are arguing is that stars are given based on that alone despite them mentioning the impact they may have at the collegiate level.

And isn't 247 the #1 recruiting website and therefore the "go to" overall for stargazers? I think we can all agree on that.

 

[TDawg]

Yes, 247s own internal does that .. no one else does and they don't do that for the composite ranks as I pointed out in what you quoted above .. but the first lines in that are saying clearly that they are ranking them based on them possibly becoming one of the best in the country. It doesn't say this is where we think they will be drafted because if they were in that business, the 2015 cycle should have caused them to quit altogether.

When did anyone say anything about it indicating WHERE they will be drafted? I said it gives rankings based on the LIKELIHOOD of being drafted by an NFL franchise and not possible college success. My point in a whole that YOU are arguing is that stars are given based on that alone despite them mentioning the impact they may have at the collegiate level.

And isn't 247 the #1 recruiting website and therefore the "go to" overall for stargazers? I think we can all agree on that.[/QUOTE]
Yep, because of the composite .. that's what made them famous which is why it's the default when you click on Player Rankings People got tired of the horrendous job Luginbill and the clowns at ESPN were doing and the complete inconsistency at Rivals, sometimes they seemed spot on and other times they made you wonder and then the guys at Scout from a few years back were putting some odd names in the mix of the rest of the norm. So the composite comes out and it just takes the complete group and, well, I'll let them explain it ..

247Sports Composite Rating
The 247Sports Composite Rating is a proprietary algorithm that compiles prospect "rankings" and "ratings" listed in the public domain by the major media recruiting services. It converts average industry ranks and ratings into a linear composite index capping at 1.0000, which indicates a consensus No. 1 prospect across all services.
The 247Sports Composite Rating is the industry's most comprehensive and unbiased prospect ranking and is also used to generate 247Sports Team Recruiting Rankings.