PLAYER RANKINGS (do they matter?). Let the debate!

Do you favor consolidating player rating talk into one place? And out of the player threads?

  • Yes

    Votes: 106 67.9%
  • No

    Votes: 50 32.1%

  • Total voters
    156

BigOrangeTrain

Morior Invictus
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
59,716
Likes
60,890
The issue with you using those stats and trying to make a point is fairly obvious.

LSU lost their coach due to issues
Florida gave up on coach mullen
TAM had injuries
Auburn thought they had a good QB but fact is they didn't
USC played 5 different QBs and had a new coach
Ole Miss has a superior head coach
Arky has a dang good head coach who knows how to get the best of his players
Kentucky has a decent coach who only came in second place in the east bc of the issues mentioned above.

You and others will probably say these are excuses yet that doesn't take away from the fact that everything mentioned above is just facts of what was going on. Context matters
Kentucky came in second in the East because they don’t have the talent to beat UGA. They don’t have the star talent. They don’t have the stable of 4 and 5* players. I personally think just pure coaching goes, Mark Stoops is better than Kirby. But is he a better recruiter? No. Does he get the studs Kirby does every year? No.

Pittman and Kiffin? Both good coaches. But neither will win anything of significance. Why? Saban. He gets the best players year after year. Do you think Saban steamrolls Pittman and Kiffin with a roster comprised more of lower ranked players? Think he has 6 NCs without what 8 or 9 #1 recruiting classes since 2009? No he doesn’t. Why? Because stars matter.
 
Likes: norrislakevol

GUNTERSVOL

VOL FROM BIRTH
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,918
Likes
3,272
Kentucky came in second in the East because they don’t have the talent to beat UGA. They don’t have the star talent. They don’t have the stable of 4 and 5* players. I personally think just pure coaching goes, Mark Stoops is better than Kirby. But is he a better recruiter? No. Does he get the studs Kirby does every year? No.

Pittman and Kiffin? Both good coaches. But neither will win anything of significance. Why? Saban. He gets the best players year after year. Do you think Saban steamrolls Pittman and Kiffin with a roster comprised more of lower ranked players? Think he has 6 NCs without what 8 or 9 #1 recruiting classes since 2009? No he doesn’t. Why? Because stars matter.
Nobody is arguing that the top Dog’s load up on 4&5 stars and win. But that they are loading up on the upper upper tier of 4 stars that pan out and drafted, get UFA deals or are close. Heck our national champs even had a 3 star go in the first round. They sign enough each year to cover their misses in their net 85.

I do believe if we averaged signing 3 4 Stars and a proper mix of 22 3 stars out of the hundreds that get drafted every year we could be pushing for titles. Probably outdistancing schools loading up on a mix heavy on a mix of those 80% of 4 stars that don’t get drafted each year and a few that do. Pretty confident actually.

Talent is talent whether properly prognosticated by the services or not.
 

CAVPUT

1979/2022
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
11,035
Likes
18,607
Everyone who loves to talk about the theory, practice, competence, manipulation, and effect of the star system and player rankings should have a special place to devoted to this interest imo.

Also, the RF would benefit -- not only by having all the opinions and information on this subject in one place -- but the individual individual player thread would benefit because news specific to recruits would not be overwhelmed by posts about rankings in general.

If someone quoted your post in a player thread and posted and replied to it here, do you think it would help to have everything in one place?

Would some people knowledgeable on and interested in player rankings be willing to take the lead here and explain why how much rankings matter? Ot how they don't?
This debate/argument has been ongoing since they started ranking kids and classes with no end in sight. Groundhog Day, The Series.
 

norrislakevol

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
4,813
Likes
6,707
Kentucky came in second in the East because they don’t have the talent to beat UGA. They don’t have the star talent. They don’t have the stable of 4 and 5* players. I personally think just pure coaching goes, Mark Stoops is better than Kirby. But is he a better recruiter? No. Does he get the studs Kirby does every year? No.

Pittman and Kiffin? Both good coaches. But neither will win anything of significance. Why? Saban. He gets the best players year after year. Do you think Saban steamrolls Pittman and Kiffin with a roster comprised more of lower ranked players? Think he has 6 NCs without what 8 or 9 #1 recruiting classes since 2009? No he doesn’t. Why? Because stars matter.
Well, you can argue this to the crowd that thinks that the schools that have bunch of 3 stars can be coached up to win a title, but in the end they are wrong and they know it because the proof is in the pudding. The more 4 and 5 stars you have, the better your chances of winning a title. I seriously do not under stand what is so hard to understand here, but they will continue on their fruitless banter.
 

norrislakevol

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
4,813
Likes
6,707
Nobody is arguing that the top Dog’s load up on 4&5 stars and win. But that they are loading up on the upper upper tier of 4 stars that pan out and drafted, get UFA deals or are close. Heck our national champs even had a 3 star go in the first round. They sign enough each year to cover their misses in their net 85.

I do believe if we averaged signing 3 4 Stars and a proper mix of 22 3 stars out of the hundreds that get drafted every year we could be pushing for titles. Probably outdistancing schools loading up on a mix heavy on a mix of those 80% of 4 stars that don’t get drafted each year and a few that do. Pretty confident actually.

Talent is talent whether properly prognosticated by the services or not.
Look, teams full of 3 star talent don't win national titles. 3 stars are ranked that way because they are deficient in something. The need a year in the gym to gain weight, or they need a year of coaching to gain fundamentals.....what ever. 4 and 5 stars are more ready to contribute sooner....that's the difference. Quality depth.
 

Devo182

"Well Known Member" TWSS
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
26,693
Likes
77,724
Oh so this is gonna be the thread that settles it?
This is as much of a "debate" as the "flat earth debate".

Just as soon as the flat earthers give us real evidence, we'll see a team of mostly 3*s win it all in CFB (despite them being the vast majority of teams) lolol.

No one hold your breath...
 

9876543vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
159
Likes
313
Talent is talent whether properly prognosticated by the services or not.
This is the main thing that your critics don't get.

It is impossible to properly evaluate the thousands of recruits available every year, because of this , a Good coach can go and find very talented kids that have not yet been heavily recruited and or evaluated by the "big teams" , this is what Clemson did during their rise to the top.
 
Likes: Orange_Crush

9876543vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
159
Likes
313
This is the main thing that your critics don't get.

It is impossible to properly evaluate the thousands of recruits available every year, because of this , a Good coach can go and find very talented kids that have not yet been heavily recruited and or evaluated by the "big teams" , this is what Clemson did during their rise to the top.
And of course you still try to get the high profile recruits, but we all know that is very difficult at the moment due to the situation of our program. You get the ones you can, and, at the same time, load your team with lower profile recruits that your own evaluation has shown to be just as talented as the higher profile ones.
 

Vfl2407

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
8,373
Likes
13,450
I think they are a guide.
A starting point.
And, just like polling companies, some recruiting services are better than others.
They may have better sources, harder working scouts And employees, and more football wise and experienced people than their competitors.
And some may be more in tune in different parts of the country.
I’d rather look at a players composite score average from all sources than to just cherry pick their best one.
 
Likes: hooter vol

Volmac2022

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
181
Likes
141
Kentucky came in second in the East because they don’t have the talent to beat UGA. They don’t have the star talent. They don’t have the stable of 4 and 5* players. I personally think just pure coaching goes, Mark Stoops is better than Kirby. But is he a better recruiter? No. Does he get the studs Kirby does every year? No.

Pittman and Kiffin? Both good coaches. But neither will win anything of significance. Why? Saban. He gets the best players year after year. Do you think Saban steamrolls Pittman and Kiffin with a roster comprised more of lower ranked players? Think he has 6 NCs without what 8 or 9 #1 recruiting classes since 2009? No he doesn’t. Why? Because stars matter.
That's one way to look at it for sure.
 

GUNTERSVOL

VOL FROM BIRTH
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,918
Likes
3,272
Kentucky came in second in the East because they don’t have the talent to beat UGA. They don’t have the star talent. They don’t have the stable of 4 and 5* players. I personally think just pure coaching goes, Mark Stoops is better than Kirby. But is he a better recruiter? No. Does he get the studs Kirby does every year? No.

Pittman and Kiffin? Both good coaches. But neither will win anything of significance. Why? Saban. He gets the best players year after year. Do you think Saban steamrolls Pittman and Kiffin with a roster comprised more of lower ranked players? Think he has 6 NCs without what 8 or 9 #1 recruiting classes since 2009? No he doesn’t. Why? Because stars matter.
I bet his first question to his staff when he is added to the war room wall is“how many stars does this kid have?” Do they invite any kids to camps before they get their 4th star? Do they only offer the guys with the highest composite service ratings?

Let our staff replace position for position, star for star their class and I like our chances to gain ground. When you limit 5 stars to 30 or so and lump the next 3-400 in the next category every year regardless of standards, those down the star pool in talent don’t matter as much as the 3 stars that out produce them in the following years. Capabilities matter, physical and some intangibles and the composite is hard to project in HS. Big and fast is not hard to spot early but between 17 and 22 others get bigger and faster. Intelligence, determination, luck and character are among the elements that rerank them before draft day when the lower the number the better.
 

BlinghamptonVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
988
Likes
1,860
I do believe if we averaged signing 3 4 Stars and a proper mix of 22 3 stars out of the hundreds that get drafted every year we could be pushing for titles. Probably outdistancing schools loading up on a mix heavy on a mix of those 80% of 4 stars that don’t get drafted each year and a few that do. Pretty confident actually.
Ummm, there’s only a little more than 250 players drafted in a year. ‘Hundreds’ means 200 or more. There have never been 200 3 stars taken in a draft. There have never been 200 non 4 and 5 stars taken in a draft.

There’s about 100 3 stars taken each draft. That’s out of 2,000 3 star players each year, or 5%. I think you are overestimating how easy it would be for our coaches to find the proper mix of 3 stars. You’re pretty much searching for 1% out of 2000 to get your 22 a year. And of course, even if they were the ‘undiscovered talent’, not all of them would get drafted because some would never start, some would get injured, some would have grades, etc.

Here’s an article I found covering 5 v 4 v 3 stars:
Do stars predict a recruit’s success?
It’s pretty interested and shows why we shouldn’t be hoping for 3 star players over 4 star players.
 

GUNTERSVOL

VOL FROM BIRTH
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,918
Likes
3,272
Ummm, there’s only a little more than 250 players drafted in a year. ‘Hundreds’ means 200 or more. There have never been 200 3 stars taken in a draft. There have never been 200 non 4 and 5 stars taken in a draft.

There’s about 100 3 stars taken each draft. That’s out of 2,000 3 star players each year, or 5%. I think you are overestimating how easy it would be for our coaches to find the proper mix of 3 stars. You’re pretty much searching for 1% out of 2000 to get your 22 a year. And of course, even if they were the ‘undiscovered talent’, not all of them would get drafted because some would never start, some would get injured, some would have grades, etc.

Here’s an article I found covering 5 v 4 v 3 stars:
Do stars predict a recruit’s success?
It’s pretty interested and shows why we shouldn’t be hoping for 3 star players over 4 star players.
Anyway you want to display the ON3 three year data 450 of 775 draftees we’re not 4&5 stars but 2&3 stars while 1000 4 stars did not get a call. Just not an exact science. So by volume there are more 3 stars than 4 stars.

Like I have stated before, need to see how many of those low star draftees had 2 or more visits to p5 or Top 30 schools and calculate the percentages with that as the denominator. Using every breathing default 3 star is a worthless number.
 

Devo182

"Well Known Member" TWSS
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
26,693
Likes
77,724
I do believe if we averaged signing 3 4 Stars and a proper mix of 22 3 stars out of the hundreds that get drafted every year we could be pushing for titles. Probably outdistancing schools loading up on a mix heavy on a mix of those 80% of 4 stars that don’t get drafted each year and a few that do. Pretty confident actually.
You're talking about an evaluator that is many multiples better than anyone else in existence. No such human or staff exists.

Even Saban himself (who has been shown to be either a great evalauator or developer....probably both) isn't THAT far ahead of others. Iirc his percentage drafted were maybe 10% above others. So a 5* goes from 50% to 55%. 4 star goes from 20% to 22%. 3 stars go from 5% to 5.5%. But mostly he just recruits the most 5* and 4*s.

What you're talking about is taking 3*s from an 8% draft-rate to much much higher. Even if you think we could take every 3* to 4* status via elite evaluation...you're talking going from 8% to 20%. A 150% increase. No coach has ever come anywhere cloooose to that.


Talent is talent whether properly prognosticated by the services or not.
That's like hoping to win the lottery. It's still a bad bet however you chop it up.

It's like saying a winning hand in poker was the best hand. 2/7 beats AA 5% of the time. But give me AA all day and you'll end up broke over time. Until our coach is a soothsayer, it's a moot point.
 
Last edited:

Devo182

"Well Known Member" TWSS
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
26,693
Likes
77,724
Like I have stated before, need to see how many of those low star draftees had 2 or more visits to p5 or Top 30 schools and calculate the percentages with that as the denominator. Using every breathing default 3 star is a worthless number.
So narrow down the 3*s to the top ones? Of course it is going to be a spectrum. And high 4*s will be better than low 4*s. And top-5 guys will be higher than top-32 guys.

For instance, top-half of 5*s (top 16):
Drafted 62% of the time

Bottom-half (#17-#32)
Drafted 43% of the time

It's all a spectrum, not sure anyone would debate that. It is also perfectly inline with our argument, though not the opposite.

If I had to estimate, without getting too granular, it might look something like:

Top 16 players 62%
17-32 43%
33-180 26%
181-330 14%
331-1300 7%
1331-2300 3%
2300-6000 1.5%
6001+ .5%
 
Likes: norrislakevol

GUNTERSVOL

VOL FROM BIRTH
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,918
Likes
3,272
So narrow down the 3*s to the top ones? Of course it is going to be a spectrum. And high 4*s will be better than low 4*s. And top-5 guys will be higher than top-32 guys.

For instance, top-half of 5*s (top 16):
Drafted 62% of the time

Bottom-half (#17-#32)
Drafted 43% of the time

It's all a spectrum, not sure anyone would debate that. It is also perfectly inline with our argument, though not the opposite.

If I had to estimate, without getting too granular, it might look something like:

Top 16 players 62%
17-32 43%
33-180 26%
181-330 14%
331-1300 7%
1331-2300 3%
2300-6000 1.5%
6001+ .5%
I find the 5 star draft hit rate terrible. Your top 30 can’t get in the top 250 on draft day!!!! I can accept a few anomalies but still.

4’s @ a 20% rate too. And that category are often referenced as EARNED as they say after camps and analysis. 3 stars not so much but they make up over half the draft. Not like a few just slip by all those 4 stars on the last day.

Every kid gets to prove their real value. Cannot be assessed on signing days for the non no-brainers that don’t have all the fanfare and high octane visit lists. When you are fighting p5 contenders you can get a little cocky. Bemoaning individual 3 stars before they get on the field is a bit much if they were EARLY targets by a staff.
 

BigOrangeTrain

Morior Invictus
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
59,716
Likes
60,890
This is the main thing that your critics don't get.

It is impossible to properly evaluate the thousands of recruits available every year, because of this , a Good coach can go and find very talented kids that have not yet been heavily recruited and or evaluated by the "big teams" , this is what Clemson did during their rise to the top.
Yet it’s the only system we have. So we have to use that system. And yes there are a ton of college football players. Many more 2 and 3* guys. So by the law of averages there are going to be more successful 2 and 3* because of numbers. Do recruiting services miss every single year? Absolutely. And again, using where a kid gets drafted as a Jr or Sr in college is irrelevant to his ranking coming out of HS.

But yet again here are some things you are missing. Clemson. So they are kind of anomaly. While it’s legit to use them, you can’t name another team that’s done that. And by that, I mean build a college football powerhouse that wins national championships.

Bottom line, the teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the teams that win the most.
 

BigOrangeTrain

Morior Invictus
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
59,716
Likes
60,890
I find the 5 star draft hit rate terrible. Your top 30 can’t get in the top 250 on draft day!!!! I can accept a few anomalies but still.

4’s @ a 20% rate too. And that category are often referenced as EARNED as they say after camps and analysis. 3 stars not so much but they make up over half the draft. Not like a few just slip by all those 4 stars on the last day.

Every kid gets to prove their real value. Cannot be assessed on signing days for the non no-brainers that don’t have all the fanfare and high octane visit lists. When you are fighting p5 contenders you can get a little cocky. Bemoaning individual 3 stars before they get on the field is a bit much if they were EARLY targets by a staff.
Why do you keep bringing up the draft? How is that comparable to what a kids rating is coming out of HS?
 

GUNTERSVOL

VOL FROM BIRTH
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,918
Likes
3,272
Why do you keep bringing up the draft? How is that comparable to what a kids rating is coming out of HS?
What better documented analysis of the accuracy of the star projections exists?

I grow weary of the stars have significance crowd based on the cherry picking of 4 stars by the recruiting elite carrying the argument. The accurately tagged 4 stars matter, but so do the majority of the draftees which are comprised of 2&3 stars and the high percentage of the 4 stars they pass. Just like signing day the draft sequence is validated by roster composition at a low level and All Pro selections for the elite. The obsession with declaring winners on signing and draft day is what it is. Real winners are defined down the road on the field. Dynasties in pro ball are harder to sustain because cherry picking is regulated by the draft sequence. Good teams can still have better success with better evaluations but unlikely 31 other teams miss on the truly elite players in the early rounds and talent distribution is more equal. Imagine if Vandy got to pick ahead of Bama.
 

allvolrecruiting

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2021
Messages
3,333
Likes
14,516
Ratings do matter. Just not as much as some make it out to be and vice versa. It's not the recruiting services's faults that players don't get developed at some places. They are usually pretty solid. It's really just a reference to give fans an idea of what to expect. The teams that are the top every year show that landing highly ranked is very important to that level of success. Still have to develop the players
 

Winchester73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
139
Likes
236
I’m sure we will never know, but what if Saban was given all 3* kids and tasked with developing them ? How would that team perform ? On the other hand, how many 3* players from these top classes and “top teams” pan out ? Do the 3* players develop “better” under these coaches? I think this could a huge insight into this “debate”.
 

VN Store




Top