Star Rankings - Not Fatally Flawed

[GTNavyNuke]

Not a lot here for those that say star rankings are useless. But Bill Connelly takes a good look at the limited, but valuable, input from recruiting rankings.
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...-football-recruiting-rankings-strengths-flaws

"There are, after all, three pieces to basically any team sport: talent acquisition, talent development, and talent deployment. The middle is the toughest to talk about because, among other things, it involves things we can't see."

"If I know Alabama (or Ohio State, or, yes, Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, etc.) has a great system for evaluating players, and I know that one or more of these systems determined Player A worthy of a scholarship offer, that is probably a data point worthy of consideration."

"Bud has done a strong job through the years of pointing out the teams who have "championship-grade recruiting", and as he has pointed out a few times, the list of "overachievers" in the 538 piece linked above -- Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Northwestern, TCU -- includes nobody who has won a national title in the span of the study (2005-14). In fact, since World War II, the teams on this list can claim two national titles, period: Georgia Tech in 1952 and 1990."

Yeah we've done more with less than most teams. But to realistically contend for and win a NC, we need the elite (4 and 5 stars) especially on D to increase the odds.

 

[collegeballfan]

Not a lot here for those that say star rankings are useless. But Bill Connelly takes a good look at the limited, but valuable, input from recruiting rankings.
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...-football-recruiting-rankings-strengths-flaws

"There are, after all, three pieces to basically any team sport: talent acquisition, talent development, and talent deployment. The middle is the toughest to talk about because, among other things, it involves things we can't see."

"If I know Alabama (or Ohio State, or, yes, Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, etc.) has a great system for evaluating players, and I know that one or more of these systems determined Player A worthy of a scholarship offer, that is probably a data point worthy of consideration."

"Bud has done a strong job through the years of pointing out the teams who have "championship-grade recruiting", and as he has pointed out a few times, the list of "overachievers" in the 538 piece linked above -- Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Northwestern, TCU -- includes nobody who has won a national title in the span of the study (2005-14). In fact, since World War II, the teams on this list can claim two national titles, period: Georgia Tech in 1952 and 1990."

Yeah we've done more with less than most teams. But to realistically contend for and win a NC, we need the elite (4 and 5 stars) especially on D to increase the odds.

OK, I will buy into that. But that means you need to sign to play, and get admitted to the institute, for GT those players who consider their college playing time only as an NFL day camp.
It appears that not many, any?, of those caliber players want to tackle the academics at GT. GT ain't no NFL day camp (pardon the English).

 

[ATL1]

I'm sure there's some merit to this but I just personally believe that getting the best players for your team can lead you to title regardless of the star rating.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Not a lot here for those that say star rankings are useless. But Bill Connelly takes a good look at the limited, but valuable, input from recruiting rankings.
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...-football-recruiting-rankings-strengths-flaws

"There are, after all, three pieces to basically any team sport: talent acquisition, talent development, and talent deployment. The middle is the toughest to talk about because, among other things, it involves things we can't see."

"If I know Alabama (or Ohio State, or, yes, Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, etc.) has a great system for evaluating players, and I know that one or more of these systems determined Player A worthy of a scholarship offer, that is probably a data point worthy of consideration."

"Bud has done a strong job through the years of pointing out the teams who have "championship-grade recruiting", and as he has pointed out a few times, the list of "overachievers" in the 538 piece linked above -- Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Northwestern, TCU -- includes nobody who has won a national title in the span of the study (2005-14). In fact, since World War II, the teams on this list can claim two national titles, period: Georgia Tech in 1952 and 1990."

Yeah we've done more with less than most teams. But to realistically contend for and win a NC, we need the elite (4 and 5 stars) especially on D to increase the odds.

We need elite players regardless of star rating. If we sign 27 underrated 3 stars, that's fine by me. Btw, there's plenty of them out there.

One truth that the services have never, ever come clean on is the tendency to rate kids high for the purpose of gaining subscriptions. We all know it happens, but I've never heard a service guru even admit it.

 

[Eric]

It's the off-season

 

[augustabuzz]

It's the off-season

It is what it is!

 

[FightWinDrink]

It is what it is!

only 62 days until spring game, about 200 days until kickoff :/

 

[4NatlChmps]

Fk Richt. THWG

 

[GTNavyNuke]

It's the off-season

Yeah, I was ing.

But even with a double negative (not fatally) some will bite.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I think the quote was misguided to imply that the 1952 GT team was an outlier with regards to recruiting ranking and performance. In 1952 GT was one of the best in the SEC with one of the best coaches in the country and one of the most respected programs. We probably got the best recruits too.

I do agree that the 1990 team was an outlier. Reading the book "Focused on the Top" there had even been considerations of getting rid of football at GT in the previous decade.

Quote: ""Bud has done a strong job through the years of pointing out the teams who have "championship-grade recruiting", and as he has pointed out a few times, the list of "overachievers" in the 538 piece linked above -- Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Northwestern, TCU -- includes nobody who has won a national title in the span of the study (2005-14). In fact, since World War II, the teams on this list can claim two national titles, period: Georgia Tech in 1952 and 1990.""

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Now that there's a playoff and hopefully an expanded field to come, my guess is we'll begin to see teams outside the top 10, and possibly top 20, in recruiting ratings win it all. Up until last year, the championship was basically a popularity contest.

 

[ATL1]

Now that there's a playoff and hopefully an expanded field to come, my guess is we'll begin to see teams outside the top 10, and possibly top 20, in recruiting ratings win it all. Up until last year, the championship was basically a popularity contest.

+1
Exactly

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I think the quote was misguided to imply that the 1952 GT team was an outlier with regards to recruiting ranking and performance. In 1952 GT was one of the best in the SEC with one of the best coaches in the country and one of the most respected programs. We probably got the best recruits too.

I do agree that the 1990 team was an outlier. Reading the book "Focused on the Top" there had even been considerations of getting rid of football at GT in the previous decade.

Quote: ""Bud has done a strong job through the years of pointing out the teams who have "championship-grade recruiting", and as he has pointed out a few times, the list of "overachievers" in the 538 piece linked above -- Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Northwestern, TCU -- includes nobody who has won a national title in the span of the study (2005-14). In fact, since World War II, the teams on this list can claim two national titles, period: Georgia Tech in 1952 and 1990.""

You are correct. "Misguided" would be putting it mildly. Dodd had the biggest stadium in the South, could recruit virtually anyone, had the lure of a big city (which was a bigger deal back then), and one season even played 9 home games.

Heck, one year he had enough talent to have 6 A-A on the team.

No comparison.

 

[WreckinGT]

Considering that coaches don't use them, recruiting rankings are really just a form of entertainment for fans. How flawed a form of entertainment is really depends on how seriously you take them. I have always thought it is strange that there are people out there evaluating players and giving public ratings for each recruit when the only people who could possibly benefit from that work have no need for it.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Considering that coaches don't use them, recruiting rankings are really just a form of entertainment for fans. How flawed a form of entertainment is really depends on how seriously you take them. I have always thought it is strange that there are people out there evaluating players and giving public ratings for each recruit when the only people who could possibly benefit from that work have no need for it.

We only have games for about 4 months of the year. Need something else for the rest ... don't like recruiting rankingss? ... Beesball tonight at 6PM on ESPN3!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Considering that coaches don't use them, recruiting rankings are really just a form of entertainment for fans. How flawed a form of entertainment is really depends on how seriously you take them. I have always thought it is strange that there are people out there evaluating players and giving public ratings for each recruit when the only people who could possibly benefit from that work have no need for it.

So true!

 

[foggy]

Heck I'm old enough to have seen all the home games in 50, 51, 52 ,53, 54, and 55. I can tell you having seen those teams Tech did not want for talent. With the likes of Larry Morris, George Morris, Pepper, Flowers to name just a few, Tech was knee deep with the best talent not just in the south but in America, so this guy to say Tech won with inferior talent does not know what he's saying.