Do stars matter??

#1
B

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
60,885
Likes
28,913
#1
Alot of conversation about our recruiting lately has been centered around the lack of 4 and 5 star commitments. I have seen countless post stating that kids can and do develop into huge successful players that were 3star or even lower.

I would love to see if there is some data out there that gives the percent of success for kids and what their rankings were out of hs. If that data is out there someone please link it.

My assumption is that the success rate is greatly effected by a kids ranking. Sure some 5 star kids fail and some 2 star kids become great but the stars do matter IMO.

I posted this in another thread but would love to see what percentages you guys think the different ratings might show if there was a study done.

My guesses are::


5star players succeed at a 75per rate
4star players succeed at a 50per rate
3star players succeed at a 33per rate
2star players succeed at a 10per rate

What percentages would you guys guess as being correct??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
I didn't expect this thread from you Bruin... It's that time of year for Football forum dwellers to wander over and start saying,

"Robert nkemdiche... Any shot here? Supposed to be a five star, says interest in Vols. butch better not waste this!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
nicksjuzunk said:
I didn't expect this thread from you Bruin... It's that time of year for Football forum dwellers to wander over and start saying,

"Robert nkemdiche... Any shot here? Supposed to be a five star, says interest in Vols. butch better not waste this!
Click to expand...

I am not intending this thread to be one that bashes our staff right now and I hope that doesn't happen. I just would love to see real data regarding this along with opinions like mine of the percentages.


Hopefully posters will give their percentages here.
 
#7
#7
The Orange Pants said:
Yes. One in particular. It gives us warmth and light.
Click to expand...

watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png
 
#8
#8
Larry's Locker is a great reference for past recruiting analysis.

Of course stars matter. Anyone who says they don't is kidding themselves. But IMO stringing consecutive classes is more important.

Then you also have to factor in keeping those 4*-5* kids in school.
 
#11
#11
Oh boy. This should be good.



Rankings are a subjective way to attempt to judge how one team is doing relative to another in recruiting. Nothing more.

They don't take into account coaching or style/scheme of play.

Most often they are based on the only physical attributes that can be measured such as height, weight and speed.
 
#14
#14
Stars are an evaluation but are anything but a sure thing. Although, more stars are more of a sure thing than lesser stars.
 
#15
#15
I'd rather sign a 4 or 5 star and hope he's not a bust, rather than sign a 1 or 2 and hope he surprises
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
I imagine that LWS would have as authoritative an answer to this question as anyone. I have only two thoughts on the matter: (1) Yes, stars matter, but recruiting rankings are more of an art than a science. Kids can, and still do, wind up being undervalued due to lack of exposure or the caliber of competition that they play locally. (2) Like everybody else, I want as many 5-star blue chip athletes as we can possibly sign. However, they often come with a price tag, in terms of ego. We have had particularly bad luck, in terms of retention, in recent years with elite prospects. My memory is a little foggy, with respect to whether the following players were rated high 4-star or 5-star prospects, but Bryce Brown, David Oku, Janzen Jackson and Da’rick Rogers all failed to have the kind of long-term impact as star players that we would have hoped to experience. And, no, I don’t consider one All-SEC caliber season, in Rogers’ case, as “long-term.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
FearlessFreep said:
Oh boy. This should be good.



Rankings are a subjective way to attempt to judge how one team is doing relative to another in recruiting. Nothing more.

They don't take into account coaching or style/scheme of play.

Most often they are based on the only physical attributes that can be measured such as height, weight and speed.
Click to expand...

Not talking about team rankings.

Maybe a select few such as the dual threat QB's, but if a kid is rated as the #1 MLB he has a great shot to be successful in a 4-3 or a 3-4.

So what your saying here is that the fastest kids in the nation are ranked accordingly? If thats the case than the LB that was like 6'3" 225 and had the 2nd fastest time at the opening would be #1 on Rivals.
 
#19
#19
BruinVol said:
I am not intending this thread to be one that bashes our staff right now and I hope that doesn't happen. I just would love to see real data regarding this along with opinions like mine of the percentages.


Hopefully posters will give their percentages here.
Click to expand...

Here you go Bruin, this was from July but it might be what you are looking for:
College Football Recruiting Rankings: Do They Matter? | AthlonSports.com

Athlon Sports said:
It’s just a small anecdote, but consider how some future Associated Press All-Americans have been evaluated before college. Thirty-six percent of the 2009 first-team All-Americans (not including kickers) were rated by Rivals among the top 10 at their positions entering college. Last year, that figure increased to 48 percent.
Click to expand...

Athlon Sports said:
There is no team sport for which it’s as difficult to evaluate prospects at such a young age as football. The nature of the sport provides so many unknowns. Will the player put on weight or lose it? Will he stay healthy? And when times are tough, will he respond with the competitiveness and heart a coach hopes to see?

Nonetheless, fans must find immediate recruiting winners and losers. Coaches know deep down there are recruiting winners and losers. And the recruiting services make money off telling fans who the winners and losers are before the players even step on campus.
Click to expand...
 
#21
#21
I bet the teams who's recruiting classes are ranked in the top 10 are not asking if stars really matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
Section N Row 5 said:
Here is another one from Rivals:

Star Power: Be they ever so humble, recruiting rankings still do the job - Dr. Saturday - NCAAF*Blog - Yahoo! Sports
Click to expand...

This one was the best info I have seen.

It stated that a 5star has just slightly under a 10per chance of becoming an AA.

While a 4star had around a 3per chance of being an AA

While a 3star has less than 1per chance.


Those number were based on a 5 year study.

Very damning info for those that don't care about stars.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top