5 star guys versus 0 star guys

[RonJohn]

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.

I was going by what they say the ratings mean. If they say that the 4* and 5* guys are the ones with potential to be great players and the others are not, then it is definitely fair to assess if the guys they say are the ones with potential are the ones that succeed. It is also fair to assess if the ones that they say don't have a chance do succeed. 21 of the Pro-Bowl players are guys who ESPN said "These players are overmatched versus the better players in the nation. Their weaknesses will be exposed against top competition, but have the ability to develop into solid contributors at the non-BCS FBS level and could be a quality fit for the FCS level of play." In other words, they have ZERO chance to make the NFL, much less be an all-star player at the NFL level. That is what ESPN said about those guys. It was unequivocally wrong.

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

The full quote for 3* is "These players show flashes of dominance, but not on a consistent basis -- especially when matched up against the top players in the country. Players closer to a 79 rating possess BCS-caliber ability and the potential to be a quality starter or all-conference player. Players closer to a 70 rating are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects." The quote comes directly from 3*, not from 60-69. ESPN says a 3* could "potentially" be a quality starter, or "are likely non-BCS caliber prospects." 3* not lower. That is directly from ESPN, not some misrepresentation on my part. I actually lumped all of the zero star and 2* players in ESPN's description of 3*.

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.

I am not looking at statistics. I am looking at what ESPN says their rankings do. A 5* is an immediate impact player as a freshman and highly likely to leave school early. 10 years would have about 250-300 of them. 12 made the Pro-Bowl. A 4* will be an All-American candidate and a real "difference-maker". 24 of 2700 or so made it to the Pro-Bowl. A 3* could either not have P5 talent or might end up being considered for all-conference. 7 guys who ESPN said would be quality fits for FCS made the Pro-Bowl. 14 guys who ESPN didn't even think deserved to be on FCS teams made the Pro-Bowl. Look at statistics all you want. If a guy who ESPN said doesn't even qualify to play for an FCS team is on the Pro-Bowl, they were absolutely wrong in their assessment.

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.

I don't think the ratings systems are "bad". However, they don't do what fans believe they do, and they do not do what the ratings services themselves say they do. When they first make predictions, fans go crazy over who signed with who and who had the highest rated class. When a highly regarded recruit doesn't work out, or when a lowly regarded recruit turns into a super star, the same fans ignore the errors.

 

[AE 87]

I was going by what they say the ratings mean. If they say that the 4* and 5* guys are the ones with potential to be great players and the others are not, then it is definitely fair to assess if the guys they say are the ones with potential are the ones that succeed. It is also fair to assess if the ones that they say don't have a chance do succeed. 21 of the Pro-Bowl players are guys who ESPN said "These players are overmatched versus the better players in the nation. Their weaknesses will be exposed against top competition, but have the ability to develop into solid contributors at the non-BCS FBS level and could be a quality fit for the FCS level of play." In other words, they have ZERO chance to make the NFL, much less be an all-star player at the NFL level. That is what ESPN said about those guys. It was unequivocally wrong.




The full quote for 3* is "These players show flashes of dominance, but not on a consistent basis -- especially when matched up against the top players in the country. Players closer to a 79 rating possess BCS-caliber ability and the potential to be a quality starter or all-conference player. Players closer to a 70 rating are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects." The quote comes directly from 3*, not from 60-69. ESPN says a 3* could "potentially" be a quality starter, or "are likely non-BCS caliber prospects." 3* not lower. That is directly from ESPN, not some misrepresentation on my part. I actually lumped all of the zero star and 2* players in ESPN's description of 3*.




I am not looking at statistics. I am looking at what ESPN says their rankings do. A 5* is an immediate impact player as a freshman and highly likely to leave school early. 10 years would have about 250-300 of them. 12 made the Pro-Bowl. A 4* will be an All-American candidate and a real "difference-maker". 24 of 2700 or so made it to the Pro-Bowl. A 3* could either not have P5 talent or might end up being considered for all-conference. 7 guys who ESPN said would be quality fits for FCS made the Pro-Bowl. 14 guys who ESPN didn't even think deserved to be on FCS teams made the Pro-Bowl. Look at statistics all you want. If a guy who ESPN said doesn't even qualify to play for an FCS team is on the Pro-Bowl, they were absolutely wrong in their assessment.




I don't think the ratings systems are "bad". However, they don't do what fans believe they do, and they do not do what the ratings services themselves say they do. When they first make predictions, fans go crazy over who signed with who and who had the highest rated class. When a highly regarded recruit doesn't work out, or when a lowly regarded recruit turns into a super star, the same fans ignore the errors.

Fair enough. Fwiw, I think that you need to look at statistics in order to look at the data correctly. I agree that you are not looking at the statistics.

 

[RonJohn]

Fair enough. Fwiw, I think that you need to look at statistics in order to look at the data correctly. I agree that you are not looking at the statistics.

IF the services said that they were rating based on who is bigger, stronger, and faster and they said that with 3* and below that they didn't have enough information to make accurate predictions, then I would support using statistics. As long as they continue to profess that they are predicting the guys who are going to make it, they should be held to the standards of their own statements. The big problem for them is that if they were to tell the subscribers that they do the best they can with the data they have and provide somewhat credible ratings for at least the top 50 players, they could not continue earning money at the rate they do now. They need for people to believe their hype in order to make money.

 

[AE 87]

IF the services said that they were rating based on who is bigger, stronger, and faster and they said that with 3* and below that they didn't have enough information to make accurate predictions, then I would support using statistics. As long as they continue to profess that they are predicting the guys who are going to make it, they should be held to the standards of their own statements. The big problem for them is that if they were to tell the subscribers that they do the best they can with the data they have and provide somewhat credible ratings for at least the top 50 players, they could not continue earning money at the rate they do now. They need for people to believe their hype in order to make money.

Again, fair enough. Mark Bradley makes big money using the same sort of logic and without what I would consider the necessary and proper use of statistics. I'm not sure that I've made myself clear (or can at this point) regarding what I mean by statistics in determining success rate of rankings. So, I guess we'll just disagree.

 

[RonJohn]

Again, fair enough. Mark Bradley makes big money using the same sort of logic and without what I would consider the necessary and proper use of statistics. I'm not sure that I've made myself clear (or can at this point) regarding what I mean by statistics in determining success rate of rankings. So, I guess we'll just disagree.

MB says things solely to get people excited and read/respond to his posts. I am no MB. I understand you perfectly. IF the services stated that they placed players in groups that they believe are similar in talent, then statistics could determine how accurate those groupings are. However, since the services make specific claims about their ratings, they should be held to those specific claims.

 

[AE 87]

MB says things solely to get people excited and read/respond to his posts. I am no MB. I understand you perfectly. IF the services stated that they placed players in groups that they believe are similar in talent, then statistics could determine how accurate those groupings are. However, since the services make specific claims about their ratings, they should be held to those specific claims.

When you repeat the same thing that you said right before I told you that I didn't make myself clear, then that's a clue that you don't understand me perfectly. It's cool. We're talking past each other.

 

[RonJohn]

When you repeat the same thing that you said right before I told you that I didn't make myself clear, then that's a clue that you don't understand me perfectly. It's cool. We're talking past each other.

You did make yourself perfectly clear. I did understand EXACTLY what you are saying. You however, are ignoring what I am saying. If a person picks a game each week, you can use statistics to determine how accurate his picks are. If a person picks a game each week but states unequivocally that his pick will definitely win the game, then the accuracy of his statements can be decided without using statistics. In my opinion, the hype around the ratings services are much closer to the latter than the former. I will not give them the benefit of being "close" when they try to project that they are perfect.

 

[Sideways]

Math? Im a UGA grad...

Yes you are a UGA graduate. That makes a lot of difference compared to some of the "UGA fans" I have seen.

 

[AE 87]

You did make yourself perfectly clear. I did understand EXACTLY what you are saying. You however, are ignoring what I am saying. If a person picks a game each week, you can use statistics to determine how accurate his picks are. If a person picks a game each week but states unequivocally that his pick will definitely win the game, then the accuracy of his statements can be decided without using statistics. In my opinion, the hype around the ratings services are much closer to the latter than the former. I will not give them the benefit of being "close" when they try to project that they are perfect.

I disagree that any recruiting ranking service claims to be perfect. Their description of what their rankings mean is just that -- a description of what their rankings mean.

So, let's use your example of picking winners of games. Let's say that you see a service that picks Tech -7 and TCU - 14. You then look at explanations of these picks, and they explain that these picks mean that Tech will win by 7+ and TCU will win by 14+.

In order to assess how well the service picks games, you don't say, well their explanations claim wins by certain margins, perfectly so if they are ever wrong, they're worthless. You look at how often they hit compared to how often they miss. That comparison is a statistical measure.

I think the proper way to judge recruiting services is the same sort of deal. You look at how often they hit to how often they miss, which is a statistical measure.

 

[RonJohn]

In order to assess how well the service picks games, you don't say, well their explanations claim wins by certain margins, perfectly so if they are ever wrong, they're worthless. You look at how often they hit compared to how often they miss. That comparison is a statistical measure.

I think the proper way to judge recruiting services is the same sort of deal. You look at how often they hit to how often they miss, which is a statistical measure.

That is where we actually disagree. I am not some nutter with no understanding of statistics. A mutt fan at Christmas dinner told me that they are MNC contenders next year because they just got a commitment from the top rated ILB in the nation. That is the kind of insane hype that the recruiting services intentionally project. They make money because people want to hear what "will" happen next year. They won't pay for someone to give them actual analysis. They don't want to hear something with decent statistical accuracy, they want to hear the reasons that their team "will" win next year. The whole business is much more similar to the "never missed on his Monday Night lock of the year" commercials than actual analysis. Commentators who pick games usually keep stats as to which of the commentators picks the best, which indicates that they know they are not perfect. The ratings services depend on some mythical misunderstanding of what they actually do to keep their subscriber base high. If a ratings service publicly accurately described their process and how limited their information is, I would have more respect for them. However, I would still not subscribe and many of their current subscribers would move to another service that still projected mythology.

 

[Vespidae]

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.

In full disclosure, I support Alabama (home state and team) and Tech (alum).

I am immensely proud that we can field an FBS competitive team in this day and age, with the kids we recruit. It is truly amazing.

Re the factory schools, I think they should be required to raise their standards. I'd rather see the standards raised for everyone than everyone lower theirs.

 

[AE 87]

In full disclosure, I support Alabama (home state and team) and Tech (alum).

I am immensely proud that we can field an FBS competitive team in this day and age, with the kids we recruit. It is truly amazing.

Re the factory schools, I think they should be required to raise their standards. I'd rather see the standards raised for everyone than everyone lower theirs.

So, what you're saying is that we need a "common core" for universities?

 

[tech_wreck47]

I was going by what they say the ratings mean. If they say that the 4* and 5* guys are the ones with potential to be great players and the others are not, then it is definitely fair to assess if the guys they say are the ones with potential are the ones that succeed. It is also fair to assess if the ones that they say don't have a chance do succeed. 21 of the Pro-Bowl players are guys who ESPN said "These players are overmatched versus the better players in the nation. Their weaknesses will be exposed against top competition, but have the ability to develop into solid contributors at the non-BCS FBS level and could be a quality fit for the FCS level of play." In other words, they have ZERO chance to make the NFL, much less be an all-star player at the NFL level. That is what ESPN said about those guys. It was unequivocally wrong.




The full quote for 3* is "These players show flashes of dominance, but not on a consistent basis -- especially when matched up against the top players in the country. Players closer to a 79 rating possess BCS-caliber ability and the potential to be a quality starter or all-conference player. Players closer to a 70 rating are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects." The quote comes directly from 3*, not from 60-69. ESPN says a 3* could "potentially" be a quality starter, or "are likely non-BCS caliber prospects." 3* not lower. That is directly from ESPN, not some misrepresentation on my part. I actually lumped all of the zero star and 2* players in ESPN's description of 3*.




I am not looking at statistics. I am looking at what ESPN says their rankings do. A 5* is an immediate impact player as a freshman and highly likely to leave school early. 10 years would have about 250-300 of them. 12 made the Pro-Bowl. A 4* will be an All-American candidate and a real "difference-maker". 24 of 2700 or so made it to the Pro-Bowl. A 3* could either not have P5 talent or might end up being considered for all-conference. 7 guys who ESPN said would be quality fits for FCS made the Pro-Bowl. 14 guys who ESPN didn't even think deserved to be on FCS teams made the Pro-Bowl. Look at statistics all you want. If a guy who ESPN said doesn't even qualify to play for an FCS team is on the Pro-Bowl, they were absolutely wrong in their assessment.




I don't think the ratings systems are "bad". However, they don't do what fans believe they do, and they do not do what the ratings services themselves say they do. When they first make predictions, fans go crazy over who signed with who and who had the highest rated class. When a highly regarded recruit doesn't work out, or when a lowly regarded recruit turns into a super star, the same fans ignore the errors.

Just because a guy makes the pro bowl that espn said didn't have a chance doesn't mean they were straight up wrong at THAT time. Kids get better, so maybe coming out of highschool a kid wasn't that good and it took him 3-4 years to get stronger and understand the game better or they hit a growth spurt. Sometimes the guys are wrong, but sometimes they are right at that time because of how the kid was playing and with weight training, coaching ect in college they turn into that all star.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Is it just me or has this board pretty much hashed, and rehashed, and rehashed the services / star rating systems value / viability? Carry on tho

 

[awbuzz]

Is it just me or has this board pretty much hashed, and rehashed, and rehashed the services / star rating systems value / viability? Carry on tho

Bob asks Fred a question..."If Pete and Repeat were on a bridge and Pete fell off, who was left?"

Fred responds, "Repeat"

Bob replies, "Okay I will... If Pete and Repeat were on a bridge and Pete fell off, who was left?"

... And on the story went...

 

[GTNavyNuke]

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.

Damned socialist.

(tic)

 

[a5ehren]

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!

Tape, for one. There's a lot more that goes into being a FBS lineman than just "being big". Agility to get to the 2nd level and get a hat on a LB or Safety, not making mistakes, etc.

The slightly bigger guy also projects to gain more in a college S&C program.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Tape, for one. There's a lot more that goes into being a FBS lineman than just "being big". Agility to get to the 2nd level and get a hat on a LB or Safety, not making mistakes, etc.

The slightly bigger guy also projects to gain more in a college S&C program.

This, but I'll add technique as the main thing. People don't understand at times every position is an "art" now days. It's not just about hitting the guy in front of you. Are you good with your hands, how's your pad level, do you have long arm and are able to not allow the DL to get into your body, how's your first step. There are even different way to get to the second levels, you can bump your guy on the DL or rip which a lot of people think is just a D move. Football is more technical now than ever before. Some guys just don't do these thing or they are not very good at them.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Tape, for one. There's a lot more that goes into being a FBS lineman than just "being big". Agility to get to the 2nd level and get a hat on a LB or Safety, not making mistakes, etc.

The slightly bigger guy also projects to gain more in a college S&C program.

Read a little deeper into what I wrote " the only difference in measureables ". I guarantee you I can select 2 O linemen, let you or any layperson look at the video/attend games/practice and I defy you to tell me without looking at the "recruiting sites" which it the higher rated prospect. I've seen kids at 280 of good weight in HS and 315 in bad weight in HS and had the 315 bad weight prospect rated "higher". When you realize there is not a recruiting "guru" out there who's livelihood is tied so directly to player evaluation/selection as the coaches are then you understand how much B.S. exist in the rating game. Let me out it another way, looks at the misses in the NFL and tell me some guy on a web site has a clue who the better player is.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Read a little deeper into what I wrote " the only difference in measureables ". I guarantee you I can select 2 O linemen, let you or any layperson look at the video/attend games/practice and I defy you to tell me without looking at the "recruiting sites" which it the higher rated prospect. I've seen kids at 280 of good weight in HS and 315 in bad weight in HS and had the 315 bad weight prospect rated "higher". When you realize there is not a recruiting "guru" out there who's livelihood is tied so directly to player evaluation/selection as the coaches are then you understand how much B.S. exist in the rating game. Let me out it another way, looks at the misses in the NFL and tell me some guy on a web site has a clue who the better player is.

I see what you are saying now, I didn't get that from your first comment. But imo the guys rating players miss but they are right on just as much if not more than they are wrong. Prof is in the pudding, Alabama, Ohio state, Michigan, FSU, Clemson ect. And a lot of the times we see a guy that was a 2 or 3 star turn into a all star and we take that as the services being wrong, but at the time they could have been right and that kid might have hit a growth spurt, got stronger and better coaching ect but it still took them to their 3rd or 4th year to get to that all star level. I don't take that as the recruiting services being wrong. GT is a prime example, we get kids that take 3 and 4 years to get consistently good and end up being 4 or 5 star talent but at the time in highschool they were just that 2 or 3 star, difference is they trained hard, but most of all the coaching was way better.