Do the Recruiting Stars Matter, 2023 Draft

[Vol8188]

“Great product”. The crux of our hopeless impasse. We’re just not into what gets you excited.

Having a statistically higher probability of success doesn’t excite you?

 

[Devo182]

All the things you mentioned only make what the recruiting services do, even more impressive. It’s hard to predict things like growth, weight gain, coaching, etc.

And honestly, that's not the concern either.

The concern is getting players that are good in college (for your team). The draft isn't a perfect correlation to that (no such thing when dealing with human athletes), but it's the closest thing there is, as people are putting their money where their mouths are (The Vegas Factor).

 

[Dansky]

If we develop our 3-4 stars better than the service favorites 4’s and 5’s and they produce more in the NFL? It’ll mean more. And that’s not an “attempt”. If they’re not “attempting” to predict the best players you can bring into your problem then I have been wrong. I’ve always felt they’re a useful tool. That would prove they’re USELESS.

Yep, if we sign 20 3 stars with our coaching and system we will be in playoffs every year. Blue font

 

[Devo182]

but if you are doing a blind pick it would still be better ODDS to pick 25 random 4 stars than 25 random 3 stars.

Give me 25 5*s

And I'll show you trophies. Yes, me. A dimwit could do it.

But 25 3*s takes a herculean effort. TCU is the closest thing to that and it took a decade since Mich St did the most similar thing. And yet both still we're completely embarrassed once facing the most 5*s they had all season. Not even close.

 

[Devo182]

If it is arbitrary as you’re claiming, why’s it so successful? You couldn’t randomly draw names and have the level of success the services had this year.

If services were handing out ranking based on who went after them, Bama and Georgia wouldn’t sign 3* players annually. Do services evaluate guys after they get offers? Of course. If a player has an offer Bama and Georgia and 247 hasn’t evaluated, they’re not doing their job

If Bama and UGA were getting boosted player rankings, then (AOTBE) we would expect them to underperform relative. And yet they don't. At all.

If anyone has it was the USC from the past 15 years minus maybe a couple seasons. And OSU. Yes, OSU for sure.

 

[butchna]

Having a statistically higher probability of success doesn’t excite you?

Different stroke…bruh.

 

[butchna]

Yep, if we sign 20 3 stars with our coaching and system we will be in playoffs every year. Blue font

Cuz that’s wut I said…fuschia.

 

[butchna]

And honestly, that's not the concern either.

The concern is getting players that are good in college (for your team). The draft isn't a perfect correlation to that (no such thing when dealing with human athletes), but it's the closest thing there is, as people are putting their money where their mouths are (The Vegas Factor).

And spitting it out when the recipe doesn’t work out. Lot of foundational players that set the edge of better players didn’t get invited to nerd camp…much less get a golden star. End result of this endless debate is one camp will see possibilities with a 3 star that is heavily pursued by this staff. The other will view that player as proof we’ll never stack up. Won’t end even after a track record is established.

 

[butchna]

 

[SweetasSoda]

If Bama and UGA were getting boosted player rankings, then (AOTBE) we would expect them to underperform relative. And yet they don't. At all.

If anyone has it was the USC from the past 15 years minus maybe a couple seasons. And OSU. Yes, OSU for sure.

AL is not unbeatable which has been proven the last couple of years. So maybe not all their 5*s were actually worthy of the first round ranking.

 

[SweetasSoda]

So glad there’s a separate thread for this this year.

 

[StoVol]

 

[woodpusher]

.

I had tracked it one time a few years ago - I think out of ~256 players, 248 were FBS (I-A), 4 were FCS (I-AA) and 4 were Div II or III - no JUCOs at all that year.
There's a nonzero chance of a player not having played college football getting drafted too.

 

[peaygolf]

I had tracked it one time a few years ago - I think out of ~256 players, 248 were FBS (I-A), 4 were FCS (I-AA) and 4 were Div II or III - no JUCOs at all that year.
There's a nonzero chance of a player not having played college football getting drafted too.

.00000000001%
Eric Swann never played college football and was a 1st round pick in 1991

 

[SockeyeVol]

Now we'll compare how successful they are afterwards. 5 star Alex Leatherwood gets drafted in the first round 17th overall and that's prolly the only thing that kept him in the league after the Raiders cut him after a year. Jason Kelce, no star walk-on also gets drafted...sixth round 191st overall and is a borderline HOF 12 years later.




HOW MUCH do those rankings REALLY matter?

This is a statistically illiterate way of looking at it. Also known as cherry picking.

 

[butchna]

This is a statistically illiterate way of looking at it. Also known as cherry picking.

Preening characterization of specific examples. Shouldn’t you be testifying about something or anything in Congressional hearings?

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

but if you are doing a blind pick it would still be better ODDS to pick 25 random 4 stars than 25 random 3 stars.

What D1 staff uses a dartboard instead of evaluations?

I think the services have to rate on demonstrated performance taking competition levels as a factor and colleges are projecting abilities ceilings. Early bloomers SOMETIMES are topped out and get passed by late bloomers with good weight rooms and training tables involved. Bama and GA are not blindly shopping the 4 star pool either.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If Bama and UGA were getting boosted player rankings, then (AOTBE) we would expect them to underperform relative. And yet they don't. At all.

If anyone has it was the USC from the past 15 years minus maybe a couple seasons. And OSU. Yes, OSU for sure.

There's a fatal flaw in your logic. It's begging the question that ranking services/sites were correct about their (lower) ranking, and boosted the ranking out of some sort of loyalty to bama/UGA. The argument per "boosting" is that the sites were wrong and bama/UGA were better at recognizing talent than the sites, so the sites upgraded to match reality.

Your assumptions about the validity of ranking sites is a blind spot for you, apparently.

 

[LouderVol]

What D1 staff uses a dartboard instead of evaluations?

I think the services have to rate on demonstrated performance taking competition levels as a factor and colleges are projecting abilities ceilings. Early bloomers SOMETIMES are topped out and get passed by late bloomers with good weight rooms and training tables involved. Bama and GA are not blindly shopping the 4 star pool either.

none of the D1 programs are, and neither are the recruiting services. doesn't mean either hits at anywhere close to 100%

 

[Devo182]

AL is not unbeatable which has been proven the last couple of years. So maybe not all their 5*s were actually worthy of the first round ranking.

Nobody is unbeatable, but they've clearly been the best program of the last 15 years and it's not close at all.

And now the one program eating their leftovers is the other top-2 recruiting program.

 

[Devo182]

There's a fatal flaw in your logic. It's begging the question that ranking services/sites were correct about their (lower) ranking, and boosted the ranking out of some sort of loyalty to bama/UGA. The argument per "boosting" is that the sites were wrong and bama/UGA were better at recognizing talent than the sites, so the sites upgraded to match reality.

Your assumptions about the validity of ranking sites is a blind spot for you, apparently.

You sort of lost me there as to whatever assumptions. Every "boost" theory has always been based on guys wrongly getting bumps merely because of where they committed. Favors, if you will. And not reflective of what was actually thought of the kid. Just to make that favored school look good.


But really all moot anyway, because:

As to the whole boosting thing to begin with - there is simply no proof of it. Just a theory people use to try and make sense why some teams tend to rank higher (and yet shockingly win tons of championships? Makes no sense).

The only evidence I ever saw of actual research of teams getting bumps or drops showed nothing for the usual suspects. The highest that year iirc were UT and Mizzou (one theory being 247 is in Nashville, so maybe some availability bias is there...but just an idea).



Or just do away with every team people "believe" gets boosts, despite the lack of actual evidence. Now take all the rest. Correlations abound. It's not like teams 3-10 are annual bums. And all the 4 star and 3 star correlations to being drafted, literally hundreds every year, exist even if 2 teams had boosts. It is what it is.

And none of this is to say they are anywhere near perfect, or we should decry a 3* croot (hate that FF behavior) or assume a 5* is a lock. But the odds are obvious.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You sort of lost me there as to whatever assumptions. Every "boost" theory has always been based on guys wrongly getting bumps merely because of where they committed. Favors, if you will. And not reflective of what was actually thought of the kid. Just to make that favored school look good.


But really all moot anyway, because:

As to the whole boosting thing to begin with - there is simply no proof of it. Just a theory people use to try and make sense why some teams tend to rank higher (and yet shockingly win tons of championships? Makes no sense).

The only evidence I ever saw of actual research of teams getting bumps or drops showed nothing for the usual suspects. The highest that year iirc were UT and Mizzou (one theory being 247 is in Nashville, so maybe some availability bias is there...but just an idea).



Or just do away with every team people "believe" gets boosts, despite the lack of actual evidence. Now take all the rest. Correlations abound. It's not like teams 3-10 are annual bums. And all the 4 star and 3 star correlations to being drafted, literally hundreds every year, exist even if 2 teams had boosts. It is what it is.

And none of this is to say they are anywhere near perfect, or we should decry a 3* croot (hate that FF behavior) or assume a 5* is a lock. But the odds are obvious.

The assumption is implicit in your argument. Your argument is:

The original services are correct. They bump an athlete (favor?). Thus, we should expect that the athlete will underperform the new ranking (again, b/c the original ranking was correct).

The actual argument that you are debating against is:

The original ranking was incorrect, and the athlete was actually more talented than they initially claimed. When Bama took an interest and ranked him high on their board, the services reranked in favor of Bama's opinion over their own original opinion. Thus, when the athlete doesn't underperform, it's proof that the services aren't as good as some claim, and it's more important for coaches to find talent than recruit to stars.

 

[overseasorange2]