5 star guys versus 0 star guys

[TheSilasSonRising]

Too many rules that favor factories. When one school's team is made up of hired mercenaries while yours is made up of students, somethings not quite right. A level playing field is all I'm after.

What specific "rules" are you referring to?

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Are you saying, and I am not sure, that if a school is willing to sacrifice its academic integrity, it can do it too? I am not sure that is a good business model. For instance, I think Clemson runs an honest program and does it right. But when a player is playing and practicing football year round, and travels six to seven weekends a semester, and a good student can get enough credits to graduate in less than three years, then one should question the academic rigor for the athletes.

If they are majoring in something available to the entire student body, why would there be a need to question anything?

And pretty sure there are time limits these athletes can devote to practice, workout, team activities in and out of season. If anyone knows of someone breaking those rules, they have an obligation to make sure that program is turned in.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Everyone can do it....still not sure what the complaint is. If a school chooses not to thats on them. Or if their ex players dont want to then find ones who do.

I am sure there is a rule or two out there that big schools like factories can take advantage of more than the little ones. So that's probably true. But ultimately its the same rule.

At a school like gt a good 80 percent of our problem is ourself before ever having to worry about a rule.....just saying

Some schools have the funds to hire more staff than others, so by having a reasonable cap on staff members, and a resonable cap on recruiting funds a school is able to spend can help level the field. This isn't something every school is able to do. GT does not have the funds to recruit or field a staff like Bama, so by making a standard across the board on what you can do levels the playing field for every school. IMO you shouldn't be able to have your staff plus another 20 guys that aren't considered staff members but practically are with bogus titles for their jobs and other things like this. I think the NCAA needs to crack down and make some solid rules as far as recruiting and staff goes, it would drastically change college football imo.

 

[LibertyTurns]

There's an easy way to fix this. Just develop a freshman, sophomore, junior, senior & post-grad test. Administer that to every scholarship player every year & if you have guys that can't pass then you deduct a scholarship for every failing grade the next year. Other option is to administer it before the season & if the numbnuts can't pass he can take it again in the spring & maybe he can play next year if you decide to keep him on the roster. No calculus, just basic readin' writin' 'rithmatic along with a bit of history and a few science questions from high school thrown in. At least you can require scholarship athletes to have a high school education to compete. I'd start with that.

 

[Madison Grant]

I don't see how 40% is a particularly good rate for 4 and 5 stars, even with the 1-2% of recruits comparison. These are the guys you and I could pick out with no particular knowledge whatsoever. Larry Culpepper could browse through hudl and pick 40% of pro bowlers based on that criteria.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

That's true. Quite true. It is also true that there are a ton of GT fans who refuse to abandon the holier-than-thou approach to 'student-athletes" and continue to denounce the factories, just as there are those who'd defend the factory approach and want to pay the athletes and laugh at the academic indiscretions at places like UNC and most of the SEC and Big XII. Both sides in that debate stink, imho. GT could indeed choose to play semi-pro football just like the factories do. Or they could...what? Struggle along as a 7-5 team (on average) in semi-pro league, or drop down to the FCS division, which also plays semi-pro ball (just on a different scale) or ..join the Ivy League? No good answers. And that's just a shame.

I love this constant "7-5" crap, when we've won 11 games twice recently, and a chance to make it two 9-win seasons soon.

 

[MWBATL]

Yeah, I am so fricking unreasonable.....but, oh, wait, exactly how many regular season wins have we averaged the last 10 years......ummm, 7.5 wins. Yeah, the "constant" 7-5 crap is SUCH a gross exaggeration!!!!

And to think GT tries to teach people to deal with DATA, not emotions. I specifically said 7-5, not just 7 wins so it should be clear I am referring to regular season only. And averaging 7.5 wins vs 7 is not much of a distortion....I had a choice and suppose to be really accurate one could have said 7-5/8-4 because that is absolutely our average result. Does that make you feel better?

You might look up the data before you call someone's posting crap, else you will be posting your own crap!

 

[iceeater1969]

Yeah, I am so fricking unreasonable.....but, oh, wait, exactly how many regular season wins have we averaged the last 10 years......ummm, 7.5 wins. Yeah, the "constant" 7-5 crap is SUCH a gross exaggeration!!!!

And to think GT tries to teach people to deal with DATA, not emotions. I specifically said 7-5, not just 7 wins so it should be clear I am referring to regular season only. And averaging 7.5 wins vs 7 is not much of a distortion....I had a choice and suppose to be really accurate one could have said 7-5/8-4 because that is absolutely our average result. Does that make you feel better?

You might look up the data before you call someone's posting crap, else you will be posting your own crap!

To correct you when you cut about the two coach job saver games the average is 5-5/6-4. The key is we need to improve against the really better teams . A 7-3/8-2 season is great.

 

[33jacket]

Some schools have the funds to hire more staff than others, so by having a reasonable cap on staff members, and a resonable cap on recruiting funds a school is able to spend can help level the field. This isn't something every school is able to do. GT does not have the funds to recruit or field a staff like Bama, so by making a standard across the board on what you can do levels the playing field for every school. IMO you shouldn't be able to have your staff plus another 20 guys that aren't considered staff members but practically are with bogus titles for their jobs and other things like this. I think the NCAA needs to crack down and make some solid rules as far as recruiting and staff goes, it would drastically change college football imo.

I get that. Some schools that pull in a 250 million dollar fund raise last year dont let their AA suffer either. Gts enemy is gt first.

 

[a5ehren]

I don't see how 40% is a particularly good rate for 4 and 5 stars, even with the 1-2% of recruits comparison. These are the guys you and I could pick out with no particular knowledge whatsoever. Larry Culpepper could browse through hudl and pick 40% of pro bowlers based on that criteria.

This is just the Pro Bowl. And I don't think that kind of hit rate based on projecting 17 year-old kids is that bad.

If you had a 40% hit rate at 7+ years in the stock market, you wouldn't be posting on this board

If you look at other metrics like high draft picks (1st-2nd round) or guys in the NFL in general (not just Pro Bowl), the ratios are stacked even higher.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The star system isn't complete but it is certainly very flawed. I think most here can agree with this.

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

How has nobody yet brought up the fact that the Pro Bowl is a fan voted popularity contest and has little to do with actual talent?

 

[ATL1]

How has nobody yet brought up the fact that the Pro Bowl is a fan voted popularity contest and has little to do with actual talent?

Players & coaches vote too.

 

[GTJake]

IMO, the star system was created to promote the recruiting industry and sell recruiting magazines.
There is no doubt it has some merit, but I don't think it's an end-all system ... for example, see UGAG.
Also, I rather have a 3-star guy with a good attitude and tons of heart than a 5-star prima-donna any day of the week and twice on Sundays !

 

[OldJacketFan]

The only thing I have to say on the "star system" is I defy anyone to take 2 O linemen playing the same position, the only difference in measureables is 1 inch in height and 10 pounds and tell me what makes one a 5* and what makes the other a 4* or even one a 4* and the other a 3*. My first (and hopefully last bah humbug) of the holiday season!

 

[RonJohn]

I appreciate you, but I'm not sure my post was clear. @smathis30 makes my point. But let's look at just fbs recruits. If the 128 teams sign 15-16 a year (probably low), then we're talking 2000. Depending on service, 5* is top 25-50 and 4* top 250-300.

So, 5* are top 1-2.5% of FBS recruits and 4*&5* are top 12.5-15%. Again, these are probably high estimates. The 3* and below are more than 85% of FBS recruits.

Why don't you look at the numbers the other way around? Take say 10 years of players, that would be about 3,000 4*&5* players. 36 of those 3,000 made it to the Pro-Bowl. 36 of the 3,000 who are predicted to " contribute as a true freshmen and could end up as all-conference or All-America candidates during their college careers and develop into difference-makers over time" while 50 players who made the Pro-Bowl were predicted to "potentially" possess BCS caliber ability or who "are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects". More than 2,900 players who were "predicted" to be immediate impact players in college, didn't make it as great NFL players, while 50 players who were "predicted" as low level FBS, or even FCS did make it. Looking at it in that light, it does not look good. Those descriptions of the "star" ratings came directly from ESPN's description of their ratings.

 

[AE 87]

Why don't you look at the numbers the other way around? Take say 10 years of players, that would be about 3,000 4*&5* players. 36 of those 3,000 made it to the Pro-Bowl. 36 of the 3,000 who are predicted to " contribute as a true freshmen and could end up as all-conference or All-America candidates during their college careers and develop into difference-makers over time" while 50 players who made the Pro-Bowl were predicted to "potentially" possess BCS caliber ability or who "are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects". More than 2,900 players who were "predicted" to be immediate impact players in college, didn't make it as great NFL players, while 50 players who were "predicted" as low level FBS, or even FCS did make it. Looking at it in that light, it does not look good. Those descriptions of the "star" ratings came directly from ESPN's description of their ratings.

Not sure if serious

 

[RonJohn]

Not sure if serious

Serious

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[Madison Grant]

This is just the Pro Bowl. And I don't think that kind of hit rate based on projecting 17 year-old kids is that bad.

If you had a 40% hit rate at 7+ years in the stock market, you wouldn't be posting on this board

If you look at other metrics like high draft picks (1st-2nd round) or guys in the NFL in general (not just Pro Bowl), the ratios are stacked even higher.

You miss my point. This isn't at all like picking stocks. Picking a cheap startup stock and missing is not same as picking Jadaveon Clowney and missing. The recruiting sites are not screening for desire or character AT ALL. They simply pick the kids that are the physical beasts with exposure and early interests from factory schools. They also happen to wind up being 40% of future pro bowlers. This is almost coincidental.

 

[AE 87]

Serious

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

OK, then your analysis was incoherent. In discussing the 4* and 5* talent, you established a ratio of 36 of 3000. In discussing the 3* and below, you just used raw numbers. As a result, your argument ends up being an emotional appeal rather than a rational one.

Furthermore, you add to this emotional appeal by referring to "50 players who made the Pro-Bowl were predicted to 'potentially' possess BCS caliber ability or who 'are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects.' The last quote seems to come from ESPN's discussion of 60-69 (2* I think), but the first quote misrepresents what ESPN says regarding 70-79 (3* I think) which puts the weight on being BCS caliber with the potential of being "quality starter or all conference" at the high end and non-BCS at the low end. In other words, you rhetorically lumped all 50 into the very low 3* and below.

Anyway, if we look at your 10 year numbers with my low estimate of 2000/year, then the 3* and below would be 17,000 guys. In other words, the 36 of 3000 4* and 5* on which you focused is 1.2% and the 50 of 17,000 is 0.3%. A 4*/5* player is more than 4 times more likely to be a pro-bowler than a 3* and below who played FBS football.

Again, I'm not saying that the ratings systems are perfect or that they hit on every guy. I'm saying that across the board, generally speaking, they're not bad.