Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
5 star guys versus 0 star guys
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 274564" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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*.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 274564, member: 2426"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
5 star guys versus 0 star guys
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top