77% of the starters for NFL Championships weren't 4 or 5 Stars

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Seventy seven percent (77%) of the starters for the AFC and NFC Championships were rated 2 or 3 Stars, or not rated at all.

68 of the 88 starters NOT being 4 or 5 Star recruits seems pretty substantial.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ionship-games-nfl-recruit-star-rating-ranking
I read a piece on some aggregator site a couple of days ago that, depending on which scouting site one believed, if one believed in star ratings at all, there are only 33 five-star players in the entire country this year, most of them in the SE and almost none in the Midwest or NE. So if one expects a bonanza of five-star recruits, then think again. It did not enumerate the four stars, but it certainly -- to me -- highlights that being a three star is not small potatoes, because there can't be all that many. Tech has been roping those in for years, some better than others, but to red the board sometimes you would think we are recruiting circus midgets. A little proportion is in order.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
I have noticed some recruits are all state, all classification, and all this, but still a one or two star. Are you kidding me?
In their defense, and I do not claim to be a purist, but it is not the role of HS coaches to produce college or NFL players but to coach high school players playing high school football. If they think their late-rated "2 star" is all state or region that season, good for the kid. It is that part of the Heisman or Lombardi hype that irks me, the claim that a college player might be really good in college but is not a pro prospect. That has nothing to do with his college play. I know, it is a losing cause. But keep in mind Clemson's Renfrow was a 2-star and in two NC games had what, 18 catches and four TDs? Good lord, that is a career.
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,605
The recruiting rankings of players definitely predict talent, but the rankings of teams by them is silly. The problem with ranking schools by the number of four and five star guys is that the stars are assigned based on the schools recruiting them. So you can't rank the players based on the schools and then turn around and rank the schools based on the players...that's just stupid.

The part where it raves about Georgia's recruiting class is funny....like it's that much different than it's been in the last 10 years. Just a quick look at Rivals shows they've had somewhere between 12 and 17 4* + 5* guys pretty much every year...yet THIS class is the one that's incredible. Whatever...
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,694
Location
Georgia
4-5 star recruits are less than 23percent of the incoming freshman classes. Its like 10 percent of the recruits are 4-5 stars. 2-3 stars is 90 percent. This means that this should be the same number in the Nfl if u assume a pure one for one in kids panning out.

But its not. 4-5 stars in this example is 23 percent. Which means that 4-5 stars are outperforming their statistical load by 2-3x any given year. There are only 300 or so 4-5 star recruits a year.

So basically what this says, and there are other stats for the greater nfl that back it up, is of course 4-5 star players will be less since pure numbers volume suggest that and no analysis is perfect. But the percentage of 4-5 star players in the nfl is higher than the percentage of 4-5 star players in the Ncaa. The ncaa is 90/10. The nfl its higher.

In the nfl overall in many drafts the numbers show around a 45 percent translation. That is HUGE. if you were a 5 star guy your nfl draft status is 45 percent chance to be drafted.

This means there is a better correlation to being 4-5 stars and making the nfl than not; by a wide margin.

So for me, the stats do bear out on a percentage basis that being a 4-5 star ranked recruit is better than not by a wide margin. But its a human thing. B
No ranking is perfect. You can have a team of mature 3 star guys be better than one with 4 star guys of course. We are talking general statistics
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,241
4-5 star recruits are less than 23percent of the incoming freshman classes. Its like 10 percent of the recruits are 4-5 stars. 2-3 stars is 90 percent. This means that this should be the same number in the Nfl if u assume a pure one for one in kids panning out.

But its not. 4-5 stars in this example is 23 percent. Which means that 4-5 stars are outperforming their statistical load by 2-3x any given year. There are only 300 or so 4-5 star recruits a year.

So basically what this says, and there are other stats for the greater nfl that back it up, is of course 4-5 star players will be less since pure numbers volume suggest that and no analysis is perfect. But the percentage of 4-5 star players in the nfl is higher than the percentage of 4-5 star players in the Ncaa. The ncaa is 90/10. The nfl its higher.

In the nfl overall in many drafts the numbers show around a 45 percent translation. That is HUGE. if you were a 5 star guy your nfl draft status is 45 percent chance to be drafted.

This means there is a better correlation to being 4-5 stars and making the nfl than not; by a wide margin.

So for me, the stats do bear out on a percentage basis that being a 4-5 star ranked recruit is better than not by a wide margin. But its a human thing. B
No ranking is perfect. You can have a team of mature 3 star guys be better than one with 4 star guys of course. We are talking general statistics
1.6% of college players make the NFL.
In the materials distributed to college athletes and coaches, the league noted that for players who do make an NFL roster, an average playing career lasts 4.74 years, and that only 1.6 percent of college football players make it to the pros.
According to you, 22% of college players were rated 4 and 5 stars.
You'd think the top 1.6 of college players, based on who the NFL takes, would come from the top 22% of ranked players. At least most of them should. Not even close to most of 'em.
 

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
There is such a small amount of 4 and 5 star players compared to 3 stars and below so this shouldn't really surprise anyone. Add this in with such a low percent that even makes the NFL and we see why, it makes perfect sense to me.
 

ChasonBaller

on Pastner Polo watch
Messages
3,534
Think about it...only 1 of the teams top/elite WR's was ranked high(Julio). Antonio Brown, Jordy, and Edelman were way under the radar....thats crazy
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,284
What this tells me, most assuredly, is that it is perfectly possible to build a championship team at any level (cfb or nfl) with a majority of 3 star type players. I have always felt this way and nothing in that report urges me to change my mindset. Any person with eyeballs and a certain level of interest in their sport can pick out the kids with the greatest potential in terms of physical tools. There aren't many of those types but, unfortunately, a certain number of them crash and burn when forced to improve or adapt, while still many others become cancers on their respective teams due to attitudes etc.

I will never argue that having more talent is worse than having less talent. That analysis, however is only applicable when all other factors are equal. In the long term, especially in the NFL but also in the CFB world as well, the best strategy is to draft or recruit character, brains and work ethic first from the pool of players that can help you in terms of physical talent. The number of kids ready for the professional ranks right out of HS is exceedingly rare. They do exist, but to build a plan around them for your future is not a good strategy. The rest of the prospects have to continue to grow, and the factors that affect growth are mentioned above.

If push comes to shove and you were choosing the player to put on your roster, would you go with the guy who was .05 faster in the 40, vertical leap 3" higher, and had 5 more reps with 225 over the guy you fully expected to make great decisions on and off the field, learn your scheme backwards and forwards, play with a high sports IQ and great sense of anticipation, use great technique, and be a rallying force for his teammates? I know what direction I would go. A lifetime of playing and coaching sports has taught me that summation of the collective efforts of a cohesive group of players with chemistry and ability is what wins, not a bunch of talented individuals.
 

mmbt0ne

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
168
1.6% of college players make the NFL.

According to you, 22% of college players were rated 4 and 5 stars.
You'd think the top 1.6 of college players, based on who the NFL takes, would come from the top 22% of ranked players. At least most of them should. Not even close to most of 'em.

You two are comparing different numbers with different denominators.

He is saying < 10% of recruits are 4 and 5*, and 23% of NFL starts are 4 and 5*. You're saying that 1.6% of all college players make the NFL.

If we're going to take all college players, then the numbers work out about like so:

FBS: 130 teams
FCS: 125 teams
DII: 170 teams
DIII: 248 teams
NAIA: 86 teams
NJCAA: 66 teams
CCCAA: 105 teams

Assuming every team is taking 16 players per year that works out to 14,880 players. 253 players got drafted last year, 253/14,880 = 1.70% so those numbers feel reasonable.

Meanwhile, about 300 players each year are 4 and 5* and 300/14880 = 2.02% of all recruits

So 2.02% of all recruits turn in to 23% of all NFL starters. Sign me up for those kind of odds!
 

InsideLB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,908
33 nailed it. mmbt also.

For college fit is important too....to the scheme, the school, the team culture, etc.
 

ChasonBaller

on Pastner Polo watch
Messages
3,534
only 1 of the teams top/elite WR's was ranked high(Julio). Antonio Brown, Jordy, and Edelman were way under the radar.....incredible
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,694
Location
Georgia
1.6% of college players make the NFL.

According to you, 22% of college players were rated 4 and 5 stars.
You'd think the top 1.6 of college players, based on who the NFL takes, would come from the top 22% of ranked players. At least most of them should. Not even close to most of 'em.

No because stars are not perfect evaluations. But of the 1.6 percent 40 percent are 4 or 5 stars. Not 22 percent. The 23 percent was just the 4 teams this weekend. The rolling avg in drafts is 40 percent.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,694
Location
Georgia
You two are comparing different numbers with different denominators.

He is saying < 10% of recruits are 4 and 5*, and 23% of NFL starts are 4 and 5*. You're saying that 1.6% of all college players make the NFL.

If we're going to take all college players, then the numbers work out about like so:

FBS: 130 teams
FCS: 125 teams
DII: 170 teams
DIII: 248 teams
NAIA: 86 teams
NJCAA: 66 teams
CCCAA: 105 teams

Assuming every team is taking 16 players per year that works out to 14,880 players. 253 players got drafted last year, 253/14,880 = 1.70% so those numbers feel reasonable.

Meanwhile, about 300 players each year are 4 and 5* and 300/14880 = 2.02% of all recruits

So 2.02% of all recruits turn in to 23% of all NFL starters. Sign me up for those kind of odds!


Boom. Thx
 

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
No because stars are not perfect evaluations. But of the 1.6 percent 40 percent are 4 or 5 stars. Not 22 percent. The 23 percent was just the 4 teams this weekend. The rolling avg in drafts is 40 percent.
You need to calm down with all this logic/facts, someone just might disagree with you.
 

TheSilasSonRising

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,729
NFL concerns me not one bit during Saturdays in the fall.

What % of Clemson & bama players were 4 / 5 * who played in the championship game?
 

GlennW

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,189
I posted this because my understand is that the "rational" for the highest ranked players is their Pro-Football "potential," NOT their College "potential," and if that is, indeed, the case, this means that the so called "recruiting experts" just missed out on 77% of their projections of the "top-ranked" players in the country coming out of high school at the time.

This is why none of us should be so enomored with how our recruits may be ranked but how they may fit in to our particular schemes and whether they'll be good fits for GA Tech student athletes.
 

cuttysark

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
580
"Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." Despite all of the top recruiting classes the Mutts have had since CPJ has been coaching at GT, we have won several COFH and been competitive in the rest.

What happened to that UGA "Dream Team" Recruiting Class from a few years ago? No National Championships, No SEC Championships, probably not even a World's Largest Cocktail Party Championship!

Recruiting is an art form, not a science. More importantly it's about relationships: Gotsis; and History: Swillings!
 
Top