Blue Chip Ratio

[stinger78]

The 5* guys are the “men among boys” in HS football. That shouldn’t be the criteria for quality assessment, IMPO. Most anyone can watch a HS football game and notice those players.

 

[bke1984]

"Only" 50-60% is an extremely high success rate compared to 3 stars. No one is expecting 100%.

I was disputing that the rating services project 5* to be first round draft picks. They’re missing that mark pretty heavily if only 50-60% of them even get drafted at all.

 

[roadkill]

I was disputing that the rating services project 5* to be first round draft picks. They’re missing that mark pretty heavily if only 50-60% of them even get drafted at all.

You don't have to take my word for it. https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-com-football-team-recruiting-rankings-formula

"6.1 = Five-star prospect"
"6.1 Franchise Player: considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 30-35 players overall, a potential first-team All American candidate and a player deemed to have first round NFL potential."

 

[stinger78]

You don't have to take my word for it. https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-com-football-team-recruiting-rankings-formula

"6.1 = Five-star prospect"
"6.1 Franchise Player: considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 30-35 players overall, a potential first-team All American candidate and a player deemed to have first round NFL potential."

Sorry, that definition is silly, IMPO, though I get your point that this is how it is defined by rivals.

No one knows how a HS player will pan out in college, much less the NFL draft, which is as much about team needs in a specific year and the players around you in that draft.

What you can know is what you observe about that player relative to the others on the HS playing field with him. Is he a “man among boys?” If so, he will likely do well in college ball. That’s about it really.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Five Stars And The NFL Draft

Breaking down the NFL Draft results for five-star recruits in recent years

www.si.com

 

[stinger78]

Five Stars And The NFL Draft

Breaking down the NFL Draft results for five-star recruits in recent years

www.si.com

So more 3* players are drafted in the first round than are 5* players. However, it is a lower percent to total. This is entirely intuitive to me.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So more 3* players are drafted in the first round than are 5* players. However, it is a lower percent to total. This is entirely intuitive to me.

Considering approximately .3% of FBS players are 5* players, 3% are 4 star recruits, and 20% are 3* it only makes sense.

 

[stinger78]

Considering approximately .3% of FBS players are 5* players, 3% are 4 star recruits, and 20% are 3* it only makes sense.

Yes, but I guess it’s not particularly profound. It’s pretty much exactly what I would expect.

 

[slugboy]

If you’re a 5*, you can blow out a knee in your freshman year. There are lots of obstacles between a sure fire recruit and getting drafted.

Saying a 5* recruit is a likely first-rounder is overselling on the part of the recruiting services. They should (reasonably) say “this athlete is more likely than not to eventually get drafted in the {NFL|NBA|etc}”. That’s not what fans or athletes want to hear, but it’s right. The recruiting services hyperbolize a lot.

I’ve also said that I’m not sure which is more true: “Whatsamatta U competes for championships because they have a good blue chip ratio” vs “Whatsamatta U has a good blue chip ratio because they’re competing for championships”. The correlation is there, though.

 

[jacketup]

Or is it that the blue bloods' recruits get the highest ratings from the services?

The disparity of ratings between the services is substantial. There are about 5 of our 2025 commits from Georgia that have a 50 position or more difference from one service to another in their state rankings. I'll do a post on that when I get time.

CBS owns 247. Is their commentary only for 247's rankings, or all of the services? I believe we had 7-4 stars last year if you count all 4 services, and that class was not a great class. Again, disparity in opinions--and that's all they are--opinions. They would have coaching jobs if they were that good.

 

[roadkill]

Profundity, or lack of it, isn’t the issue here. The results are only intuitive if you buy in at least partially to the rating process and its accuracy. Some folks dismiss the ratings as silly or bogus.

I look at the data in the linked article and see the nearly 40% hit rate for 1st or 2nd round picks of former 5-stars as a validation of the rating process, considering the significant attrition expected in college due to injuries and a host of other unpredictable factors. Others apparently see it as an indictment of the process because it's not perfect. Which would you rather have, 40% odds (5*) or 1% odds (3*)?

 

[roadkill]

If you’re a 5*, you can blow out a knee in your freshman year. There are lots of obstacles between a sure fire recruit and getting drafted.

Saying a 5* recruit is a likely first-rounder is overselling on the part of the recruiting services. They should (reasonably) say “this athlete is more likely than not to eventually get drafted in the {NFL|NBA|etc}”. That’s not what fans or athletes want to hear, but it’s right. The recruiting services hyperbolize a lot.

I’ve also said that I’m not sure which is more true: “Whatsamatta U competes for championships because they have a good blue chip ratio” vs “Whatsamatta U has a good blue chip ratio because they’re competing for championships”. The correlation is there, though.

But are they saying that? The Rival's definition I quoted uses the term "potential". That's hedging a bit more than "likely".

 

[57jacket]

Just get the highest rated 3 stars and we'll be fine. Is there some sort of numerical rating? As stupid as that is.

 

[slugboy]

But are they saying that? The Rival's definition I quoted uses the term "potential". That's hedging a bit more than "likely".

I would say “potential first rounder” and “50-60% chance of getting drafted” are different things. The former implies way too much.

While every high school player is a potential first round draft choice, how many high school players would you actually say that about?

 

[stinger78]

Profundity, or lack of it, isn’t the issue here. The results are only intuitive if you buy in at least partially to the rating process and its accuracy. Some folks dismiss the ratings as silly or bogus.

I look at the data in the linked article and see the nearly 40% hit rate for 1st or 2nd round picks of former 5-stars as a validation of the rating process, considering the significant attrition expected in college due to injuries and a host of other unpredictable factors. Others apparently see it as an indictment of the process because it's not perfect. Which would you rather have, 40% odds (5*) or 1% odds (3*)?

Yes, but those are the best of the best and they jump off the field into your face. Ever seen a "5-star" recruit on a HS field? You walk away thinking, "Wow! That young man has a bright future in football." It's just not a remarkable conclusion. Their 5-star rating is like loudly proclaiming that water is wet. They've accomplished nothing with that designation that's not already widely known. Now let those "experts" predict which late-blooming 2 or 3-star will get drafted 3/4-years alter and I'll be impressed. They can't.

 

[roadkill]

Yes, but those are the best of the best and they jump off the field into your face. Ever seen a "5-star" recruit on a HS field? You walk away thinking, "Wow! That young man has a bright future in football." It's just not a remarkable conclusion. Their 5-star rating is like loudly proclaiming that water is wet. They've accomplished nothing with that designation that's not already widely known. Now let those "experts" predict which late-blooming 2 or 3-star will get drafted 3/4-years alter and I'll be impressed. They can't.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the point of the ratings is to impress anyone with their awesome talent evaluation skills. And it's not just about the 5-stars. The services simply identify relative talent and potential from an extremely large pool of high school players, group it into tiers, and publish it for public consumption. I don't know if a John Doe running back from East Bumble High School is any good, because I don't watch high school football. Do you? But if he was highly ranked by the services, we could read about him, and by logic and correlation, assume that he would make a pretty good recruit for us.

Edit to add: Can you name all the 5-stars in this years recruiting class without looking at the rating services? If you can, you must watch a lot of high school football.

 

[stinger78]

I may be wrong, but I don't think the point of the ratings is to impress anyone with their awesome talent evaluation skills. And it's not just about the 5-stars. The services simply identify relative talent and potential from an extremely large pool of high school players, group it into tiers, and publish it for public consumption. I don't know if a John Doe running back from East Bumble High School is any good, because I don't watch high school football. Do you? But if he was highly ranked by the services, we could read about him, and by logic and correlation, assume that he would make a pretty good recruit for us.

Edit to add: Can you name all the 5-stars in this years recruiting class without looking at the rating services? If you can, you must watch a lot of high school football.

I think we're talking two different things. On the one hand, that the recruiting services are effective because they have a high predictive rate on the best talent. On the other hand, that the recruiting services do indeed do a service by hunting up and highlighting the best HS players. I am standing against the first statement, and you are affirming the second. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the second statement. However, I am saying that the metric for their effectiveness shouldn't be their prediction of an obvious result that most casual observers could predict. That is all.

 

[roadkill]

I think we're talking two different things. On the one hand, that the recruiting services are effective because they have a high predictive rate on the best talent. On the other hand, that the recruiting services do indeed do a service by hunting up and highlighting the best HS players. I am standing against the first statement, and you are affirming the second. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the second statement. However, I am saying that the metric for their effectiveness shouldn't be their prediction of an obvious result that most casual observers could predict. That is all.

That's fair and well-stated. I do think we were talking past each other.

 

[57jacket]

Yes, but those are the best of the best and they jump off the field into your face. Ever seen a "5-star" recruit on a HS field? You walk away thinking, "Wow! That young man has a bright future in football." It's just not a remarkable conclusion. Their 5-star rating is like loudly proclaiming that water is wet. They've accomplished nothing with that designation that's not already widely known. Now let those "experts" predict which late-blooming 2 or 3-star will get drafted 3/4-years alter and I'll be impressed. They can't.

Excellent post. Says it all. Kudos stinger.

 

[yeti92]

IMO recruit ratings should really be thought of more as how confident a rating service is that a player will be a significant contributer and not an actual talent rating. As we have seen time and time again, 2 star guys like Eric Singleton or Keion White can turn out to be really really good, but based on their HS stats/lack of camps/competition/etc it was hard to tell. Comparatively, the 5 star guys are usually known to be facing very good competition, they are showing up to the camps, and they are putting up big stats and dominating their opponents.