Stars and Recruiting Ranking discussion

[Sudden Impact]

I mean, sure but Clemson essentially had 12 scrimmages and two NFL franchise caliber QBs.

I'll never underestimate this coaching staff, and I think we're about to be routinely landing elite QB's... but yeah, Clemson is kind of an outlier. I don't think the expanded playoffs are going to be like march madness where there are cindarella stories. I think there will be a lot of one sided games and generally speaking, the teams with the highest rated recruiting classes will have a direct correlation to who ultimately wins it all.

Fortunately for us, we're about to start recruiting at an elite level as well.

I agree, but Clemson does not make it to the CFP playing a SEC Schedule but once in a blue moon.
By virtue of winning the ACC they are for most cases vaulted into the CFP. Even this year, if they had won against USCe they would have been in the discussion and consideration.
So Clemson can accomplish more with lower recruiting rankings than a majority of SEC Schools.
For us the same because of fit and coaching and we can win the SEC. We are now building depth which is critical to our success.

 

[allvolrecruiting]

That's simply not true. They hand out around 30 5* ratings each year. Roughly 18-20 will be drafted. Around 60%. The draft isn't a perfect measure of recruiting site accuracy but it is the most objective we have. MANY 4*, 3*, 2*, and no stars will be taken in the draft. MANY will be taken well before some of the 5* guys.

So what you are saying is that in spite of ending up being one of the 30 best players according to NFL GMs... they weren't deserving of a 5* rating?

So the 30 best players according to GMs (after 3+ years of college development) are the ones who should be considered 5 stars but there are hundreds of players who are 5 star worthy?

 

[TMvol10]

That's always been my "expectation". That is the way the program at UT and its coach should be evaluated. Why would expecting to be a NC contender lead to disappointment every year unless you have set your bar way, way, way too low?

I can get behind being a “contender” but your original post said championships. That’s a bar that’s only achieved by one team a year and sadly it’s a lot of the same teams over and over. Being a contender year in and year out is not an unreasonable expectation though

 

[sjt18]

So the 30 best players according to GMs (after 3+ years of college development) are the ones who should be considered 5 stars but there are hundreds of players who are 5 star worthy?

Just demonstrating the inaccuracy of the recruiting sites. The supposed best 30 players according to them are NEVER the 30 best according to GMs when the draft comes around. There are occasions when a 3* has an unrecognized high ceiling and a 5* doesn't. But that is STILL inaccuracy in the ratings.

Yes. There are 100-200 guys with the talent that could merit a 5* rating as much as most of those who get 5*... and many have MORE than the 12 or so who don't pan out.

Think of it this way. Ace Hardware's "color" is Pantone 485 red. For printers and ink blenders it is a difficult color to match. So you have something called a PMS swatch that you try to match to a screen or print or paint or label or container...

For sake of the analogy, let's say there are 100 samples that are near 100% matches out of a group of 3000. You do not know it but the ink was mixed from ideal pigments and the media was selected correctly for those samples. But your task isn't to choose all 100- arbitrarily you are asked to choose just 30. And many think you've done a good job if only 18 of those 30 are actually among the 262 best matches. That is what recruiting sites do that so impresses here.

But it doesn't even stop there. I knew press operators who were almost perfect in their ability to match color coming off the press. Some predicted almost to perfection how the ink would look after curing. So if you were tasked with picking the 30 "best" samples out of 100 perfect samples in a lot of 3000... then you'd want to find out which ones came off of THOSE presses, right? Of course... and that's why it pays the recruiting sites to tip their hats to Smart, Saban, Swinney, et al who have established that they can find and develop talent.

So the logic becomes circular when they do that...

 

[sjt18]

I can get behind being a “contender” but your original post said championships. That’s a bar that’s only achieved by one team a year and sadly it’s a lot of the same teams over and over. Being a contender year in and year out is not an unreasonable expectation though

You aren't a contender if you never win it. And honestly, why do you think UT can't be one of those "same teams"? Bama wasn't for years. UGA's drought was longer than UT's current drought. OSU won it in 2002 and 2014. Prior to that you have to go back to 1970.

Clemson won it in 2016 and 2018 following a 35 year NC drought.

So why should we set a low bar? Michigan doesn't. USC isn't. Penn State isn't. OU doesn't. Why should UT have an inferiority complex?

 

[Orange_Crush]

4th
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
5th
1st
2nd

Can you guess what this is? Exceptions don’t prove the rule.

Exceptions disprove blanket claims that posture as rules--i.e. "We have to land top 5 classes to...".

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just stop, you can argue with me all you want about ratings because you don’t like what I post on here, but the simple fact is the teams that consistently finish in the top 5 in recruiting are usually the teams that finish in the top 5 on the field. Georgia, Bama, Ohio State, OU, Michigan, and Clemson rarely finish outside the top 10 and those first 3 usually sign top 5 classes and Bama and Georgia (who have been the most dominant teams the past 7-8 years) either finish 1-3. COULD we get there without cracking the top 5 on a consistent basis? Potentially, but signing the best players each year would make it a lot easier

Maybe you should stop waffling between:

"Have to":

You have to have top 5 classes if you want to win a NC. There is just way too much data that backs that up. The Clemson exception is rare. A complete outlier. You. Ring up the portal. Portal players don’t guarantee anything. They can be program changing or just decent.

"Highly unlinkely (in the same post, lol):

Now do I think we can win NY6 bowls without top 5 recruiting classes? Yes. Can we make the playoffs without top 5 classes? Yes. Win a NC? Highly unlikely.

"Could", "Potentially":
As above.

You don't even know what argument you're making. You're misusing statistical probabilities that don't apply to individual events to make absolute negating statements about the potential of individual events, while also claiming that they aren't absolutes.

You're all over the map here.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Did the recruiting sites whiff on

Tua
Hurts
May
Darnell Wright
Caleb Williams
Kyler Murray
Trevor Lawrence
Jalen Carter
Nolan Smith
Najee Harris
Derrick Henry
Jerry Jeudy
Devonte Smith
Jalen Waddle
Tee Higgins
Rashan Gary
Justin Fields

Just to name a small few?

You're doing it wrong.

The argument is: "Sure there are a lot of talented folks that the recruiting sites find and rate/get right, but there is also a lot of talent out there that they miss."

You: "You're wrong. Here are some examples of talent that they got right."

All you're doing is agreeing with the first half of the opposing argument while ignoring the second.

 

[OffTackleVol]

the recruiting sites flat out whiffed on him. Incredibly athletic for a OG and a nasty disposition

He's always reminded me of Harry Galbreath from back in the day.........

 

[Orange_Crush]

The "hits" really don't illustrate the point. They give out around 30 5* ratings per year. There are legitimately 100-200 guys who are just as equally deserving. About 60% or 18-20 of the ones they label 5* will eventually be drafted. Frankly, that's really not all that good even with the 5*. But it gives them enough correct ratings to be "credible"

The funny thing is that the "gotta have stars" argument is supported solely by (misuses) statistical reference. However, they don't want to do any sort of statistical analysis of whether there would be (a) only 30 5-star-quality talented players in the country on any given year, and (b) the statistical probability of there only being 30 EVERY year.

i.e. If the statistics indicate that there should be more players at that level quality, then it undermines the idea that you can only get talent via stars.

 

[Orange_Crush]

There are not 100-200 guys deserving of a 5 star ranking. There’s about 30-40. ...

I would challenge you to support that statement.

 

[Vol423]

Maybe you should stop waffling between:

"Have to":



"Highly unlinkely (in the same post, lol):


"Could", "Potentially":
As above.

You don't even know what argument you're making. You're misusing statistical probabilities that don't apply to individual events to make absolute negating statements about the potential of individual events, while also claiming that they aren't absolutes.

You're all over the map here.

Since you've quoted 2 different posters, it's not too surprising that "he's" all over the map. Perhaps you should concentrate on just one of them.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been merged into one of the 5,000 other threads in which recruiting rankings have been debated ad nauseam.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's not what successful recruiting is about. You recruit potential if you want to build a championship roster. Some things are really obvious. A few kids (and 100 out of several thousand HSFB players is a few) mature early and have high level physical ability. Some of those 5* guys are close to their ceiling. A lot of 3* guys are nowhere near theirs.

What BOT and you and a few others seem to think is that you cannot win championships with the latter.

You are being punked... but not by me.

Thought game to support your points...

Looks like over half of the NFL draft choices go to former 2-3 * players. Go back in time and put together a roster of just all the draft picks that would have become the previous four years' 2-3 * NFL draft picks. That's what you'd recruited from and built a roster on.

Would it be a strong team?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Since you've quoted 2 different posters, it's not too surprising that "he's" all over the map. Perhaps you should concentrate on just one of them.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been merged into one of the 5,000 other threads in which recruiting rankings have been debated ad nauseam.

My bad.

 

[lifeisdeep]

I didn’t say it proved the rule. I simply pointed out it can be done. The fact in can be done (and was in the last decade) + portal + unique offensive system + 12 team playoff = you don’t have to have top 5 classes every year.

Here’s a better way to look at this: list all the teams not named Clemson that have won a NC in the last 25 years without multiple top-five recruiting classes. One exception among dozens of instances following the rule is called an outlier. Also note it has been a few years since the outlier sniffed the playoff and they are fading fast.

 

[LittleVol]

Here’s a better way to look at this: list all the teams not named Clemson that have won a NC in the last 25 years without multiple top-five recruiting classes. One exception among dozens of instances following the rule is called an outlier. Also note it has been a few years since the outlier sniffed the playoff and they are fading fast.

NO

Because even then it's the PROGRAMS that should be of note.

Tell me what all those high ranked classes have done for Oklahoma and Texas lately.

It's a LAZY and incomplete viewpoint to sit there and say the most stars = Championships. Not bothering to take into account the programs the talent is going to, or the anticipation taken by recruiting services when said recruit commits there.

Bama should have stommped Tennessee last year on the field according to recruited talent.

 

[Fatman Photos]

Now with the transfer portal it throws a whole new item into the equation. You can have a lower recruiting class but bring in top needed players and witn.

 

[ArdentVol]

six of espn top 10 for 2023 are unsigned
all six have listed UT as schools they are considering

when did we last see something like this?

 

[tennrich1]

I could be wrong…but didn’t we beat this horse to death for the last 10 years?

 

[allvolrecruiting]

Just demonstrating the inaccuracy of the recruiting sites. The supposed best 30 players according to them are NEVER the 30 best according to GMs when the draft comes around. There are occasions when a 3* has an unrecognized high ceiling and a 5* doesn't. But that is STILL inaccuracy in the ratings.

Yes. There are 100-200 guys with the talent that could merit a 5* rating as much as most of those who get 5*... and many have MORE than the 12 or so who don't pan out.

Think of it this way. Ace Hardware's "color" is Pantone 485 red. For printers and ink blenders it is a difficult color to match. So you have something called a PMS swatch that you try to match to a screen or print or paint or label or container...

For sake of the analogy, let's say there are 100 samples that are near 100% matches out of a group of 3000. You do not know it but the ink was mixed from ideal pigments and the media was selected correctly for those samples. But your task isn't to choose all 100- arbitrarily you are asked to choose just 30. And many think you've done a good job if only 18 of those 30 are actually among the 262 best matches. That is what recruiting sites do that so impresses here.

But it doesn't even stop there. I knew press operators who were almost perfect in their ability to match color coming off the press. Some predicted almost to perfection how the ink would look after curing. So if you were tasked with picking the 30 "best" samples out of 100 perfect samples in a lot of 3000... then you'd want to find out which ones came off of THOSE presses, right? Of course... and that's why it pays the recruiting sites to tip their hats to Smart, Saban, Swinney, et al who have established that they can find and develop talent.

So the logic becomes circular when they do that...

Comparing how evaluators see players coming out of high school compared to how they are viewed coming out of college and placing it on the same level isn't fair at all. High school players are way more so wild cards. That's why you have to continue to stack high-profile recruits year after year. And there are several examples where NFL GMs take guys that were rated 5 stars that didn't do much production wise in college

 

[ScornedPapaVol]

Bama wasn't for years. UGA's drought was longer than UT's current drought. OSU won it in 2002 and 2014. Prior to that you have to go back to 1970.

Clemson won it in 2016 and 2018 following a 35 year NC drought.

The thing that brought UGA & UA back to the top of the SEC (and thus the nation), was excellent coaching and top-notch, upper level recruiting. Any other team from any other conference does not apply to what UT has to achieve, especially if they don't have to do't in conference against the Tide & Dawgs.

 

[utvolmaniac]

This thread is so innovative.





But hey, sparked another conversation……..

 

[Orange_Crush]

Comparing how evaluators see players coming out of high school compared to how they are viewed coming out of college and placing it on the same level isn't fair at all. High school players are way more so wild cards. That's why you have to continue to stack high-profile recruits year after year. And there are several examples where NFL GMs take guys that were rated 5 stars that didn't do much production wise in college

High school recruits are wildcards. Are you arguing for or against the trustworthiness of recruiting rankings?

So, if a school filled its roster, year after year, with nothing but the 2-3 star recruits that will end up as NFL draft picks, would it be a talented team that could challenge for the NC?

 

[LittleVol]

High school recruits are wildcards. Are you arguing for or against the trustworthiness of recruiting rankings?

So, if a school filled its roster, year after year, with nothing but the 2-3 star recruits that will end up as NFL draft picks, would it be a talented team that could challenge for the NC?

He work with Rivals.com

 

[allvolrecruiting]

High school recruits are wildcards. Are you arguing for or against the trustworthiness of recruiting rankings?

So, if a school filled its roster, year after year, with nothing but the 2-3 star recruits that will end up as NFL draft picks, would it be a talented team that could challenge for the NC?

My point was it's not fair to compare the smallest amount of inaccuracy with NFL GMs going off college film and recruiting rankings going off high school film. Obviously, the recruiting rankings are not going to be as accurate. I don't have the numbers or anything right in front of me but most players that get drafted in the first 4 rounds, IMO the rounds where you are expecting those picks to contribute in a role in some way, are usually 4/5 stars or high 3 stars with great coaching. Obviously there will be exceptions as there are to anything. He's using those exceptions to say the whole rankings system is off completely. The rankings system are nowhere near perfect but they are generally pretty solid by the end of each cycle. Note it is still up to the coaching staffs of each respective school and the player himself to develop the potential out of those recruits