Stars matter, end of discussion

#1
V

volwarrior33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
3,854
Likes
0
#1
This year's Sporting News Freshman All American team included six 5*s, eight 4*s, six 3*s, and five 2*s.

Here is a look at how it breaks down with the total number of players ranked at that level by Rivals.

23% of Rivals' 5*s made Sporting News Frosh AA (6 out of 26 total 5*s)
2% of Rivals' 4*s made Sporting News Frosh AA (8 out of 330 total 4*s)
.09% of Rivals' 3*s made Sporting News Frosh AA (6 out of 660+ 3*s)

In conclusion, your chances of being an impact player are roughly 230x greater if you're a 5* than if you're a 3*, and 11x greater if you're a 5* than if you're a 4*.
 
#2
#2
there is a reason every school wants them


unless they get in trouble with the law or personal reasons..the reason they dont develop is coaching
 
#5
#5
volwarrior33 said:
This year's Sporting News Freshman All American team included six 5*s, eight 4*s, six 3*s, and five 2*s.

Here is a look at how it breaks down with the total number of players ranked at that level by Rivals.

23% of Rivals' 5*s made Sporting News Frosh AA (6 out of 26 total 5*s)
2% of Rivals' 4*s made Sporting News Frosh AA (8 out of 330 total 4*s)
.09% of Rivals' 3*s made Sporting News Frosh AA (6 out of 660+ 3*s)

In conclusion, your chances of being an impact player are roughly 230x greater if you're a 5* than if you're a 3*, and 11x greater if you're a 5* than if you're a 4*.
Click to expand...

Good info. Thanks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
volfan607 said:
Mark Ingram won the Heisman and was a 3* out of high school... Just saying.
Click to expand...

People keep claiming Ingram was a 3 star and in every thread people have to correct them. Mark Ingram was a 4 star player and in the rivals 250.
 
#8
#8
volfan607 said:
Mark Ingram won the Heisman and was a 3* out of high school... Just saying.
Click to expand...

not the discussion....
there were 2 million other 3 stars that didn't amount to much...

he point is, you have a better chance of being an elite D1 player the higher you're rated... people who say otherwise are just wrong...
 
#13
#13
IndianVol said:
People keep claiming Ingram was a 3 star and in every thread people have to correct them. Mark Ingram was a 4 star player and in the rivals 250.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. I have no idea why everyone thinks this. Do the commentators say he was a 3* every game or something?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
n_gerard07 said:
not the discussion....
there were 2 million other 3 stars that didn't amount to much...

he point is, you have a better chance of being an elite D1 player the higher you're rated... people who say otherwise are just wrong...
Click to expand...

Please see the 2007 recruiting class and all of the 4 and 5* guys there that didn't amount to s*it.
 
#15
#15
Thank you, volwarrior. Unfortunately, this will do little to end the discussion. The exceptions will continue to be brought up in every single recruiting thread ever started here.
 
#17
#17
They dont mean CRAP!!! College football has been around many more years than the "STAR" system. If the idiots at Rivals And Scout really knew how to evaluate tallent they would be coaches at top Universities instead of what they are doing. All they do is give idiots a huge "WOODY" when they see a bunch of "STARS" beside a players name.
 
#20
#20
I understand the percentages argument, but you also have to look at the fact that there were just as many 3 stars as 5 stars and there were two 2 stars that made it. Most people agree that the odds of a five star panning out are greater. The argument is usually that many 3 stars and, as we see here, two stars are good, too. The real challenge, it would seem, is learning to evaluate the talent that will help your team the most. One of the problems, I would imagine, is trying to get a bunch of 4 and 5 stars to play together as a team.
 
#21
#21
:glare:

I was trying very hard not to take the bait.

Listen. You can throw in whatever statistics you want, but the prevailing fact is that the reason those five-star, four-star, three-star, and two-star athletes succeed is because of great coaching and the desire to compete. Obviously, four-and five-star athletes have a leg up on the others, but never forget that not a single college football player made it through the respective systems without their coaches to guide them. Stars alone have nothing to do with their success.
 
#23
#23
ric1958 said:
They dont mean CRAP!!! College football has been around many more years than the "STAR" system. If the idiots at Rivals And Scout really knew how to evaluate tallent they would be coaches at top Universities instead of what they are doing. All they do is give idiots a huge "WOODY" when they see a bunch of "STARS" beside a players name.
Click to expand...

Stars aren't everything, but they have some merit. There's a reason why Nick Saban fills his classes with 4 and 5 star players. Saban is about to land his 3rd number 1 recruiting class at Bama.
 
#24
#24
IndianVol said:
People keep claiming Ingram was a 3 star and in every thread people have to correct them. Mark Ingram was a 4 star player and in the rivals 250.
Click to expand...

Apparently he was a three star on scout or something...

You can also look at the OP in a little different light. Obviously the percentage is going to be higher when the total number of five star prospects is significantly lower. I was always under the impression that a five star prospect should be able to step in at the college level and, at least somewhat, produce. The way I look at it is 20 5* prospects underachieved.

Obviously, I don't know if they were redshirted, hurt, etc. If they all played they should have all been AA if they were truly worthy of 5 *s. The actual number of AA per star rating is pretty even.

Honestly, I think the star system is a big guessing game. These evaluators are comparing players who are playing against entirely different competition.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top