The Star System

[MikeJackets1967]

Stars are nice but the fact is if you can coach the players up you will be fine with 3 star players. If you can't I would be looking to get a new Occupation .

Lots of head coaches can sign the 4 and 5 star players and can't do shiite with them

 

[ilovetheoption]

There is 100% truth in the belief that stars matter. Are they the final say in who will be good and who won't? Of course not. But the statistics show that by far and away, the star ratings matter. For instance:

• 37% of all blue-chip recruits play in the SEC. The next highest conference, the Pac-12, has 22% of all blue-chip recruits. The other 3 Power 5 conferences don't even get 20% (it has absolutely nothing to do with there being any difference whatsoever in recruits from the North vs recruits from the South, let alone a "vast difference"; SEC teams just have more blue-chip recruits, and if players from the South were really that much better then the Big 10 wouldn't have gone 7-1 in bowl games and the SEC wouldn't have gone 4-5 in bowl games)
• The SEC is the conference with the most draft picks in the last five years, as well as the most national championships in the last 10 years, mostly due to their talent disparity
  
• Blue-chip recruits are almost 1,000% more likely to be drafted in the first round of the NFL draft
• 5-star recruits are about 33 times more likely to be All-Americans than 2-star recruits are
• Power 5 teams (of which there are 65) that consistently recruit Top 20 classes have a 60% chance of becoming a Top 20 program and a 35% chance of regularly inhabiting the Top 10
• By contrast, Power 5 teams that finish outside the Top 20 in recruiting have a lower than 18% chance of fielding Top 20 teams and just a 6.7% chance of even reaching the Top 10
• If we were to place a 50% threshold for blue-chips on a college roster, then only 13 teams have enough talent to win a national championship: Alabama, USC, Ohio State, LSU, Notre Dame, Florida State, Michigan, Auburn, UCLA, Texas A&M, Georgia, Clemson, and Texas
• Of the list above, 13 of the last 15 national championships (choosing 15 because that's about the start of the ratings era) were won by one of these schools (the other 2 years being Florida, when they did meet the 50% threshold, so technically, 15 of the last 15 national championships were won by teams that have at least 50% of their roster being blue-chip recruits)

Obviously, there are exceptions, just like in everything. However, statistic after statistic supports the fact that stars and ratings do in fact matter. It's remarkably simple, really: the most talented teams will win more games than the lesser talented teams. What Coach Paul Johnson has a problem with is not that stars don't matter (even he would admit that they do); what he says is he doesn't believe you can really differentiate, for example, between the number 12 and number 14 offensive tackle in the country. That's where his qualms come into play. But even he would say you absolutely can differentiate between the number 5 and number 30 offensive tackle in the country. To say stars don't matter is simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to listen to facts. By every metric they do matter, whether you like it or not

It blows my mind that anybody has push back on this. Obviously recruiting the most talented players matter, it's why everybody tries to do it. Just as obviously more often than not, the most talented players have the most stars, because the players with the most stars are the ones who coaches go after. Coaches are very very good at identifying talent.

 

[Milwaukee]

Do you even have one ounce of comprehension?

The reference is to, not who I want, but who the coaches are targeting and their ability to sign those guys regardless of who else they have an offer from.

We actually comprehended that same point from 2 other people's posts but not yours. So which sentence from your post are you now trying to reference out of convenience? Maybe re-read your first sentence, or delete it, and then the rest might make sense. Might.

 

[chewybaka]

Patriots only have 1 player that was rated over 4 stars on their first string offense. My favorite is starting right guard Shaq Mason (rated No 74 guard in the country in highschool). Yes, there is a correlation with stars and performance, but it is theoretically possible to have an elite college team of 2 and 3 stars. NFL level talent committed to non-factory teams are less likely to get the benefit of the doubt in the rankings. Hell, 5 time pro-bowl wide receiver Damaryius Thomas was 3 star.

WR Brandon Cooks 3 No. 371 No. 47 WR
LT Nate Solder 3 No. 884 No. 51 TE
LG Joe Thuney 2 Unranked No. 142 OT
C David Andrews 3 No. 523 No. 9 C
RG Shaquille Mason 3 No. 1,151 No. 74 G
RT Cameron Fleming 3 No. 516 No. 37 OT
TE Rob Gronkowski 4 No. 101 No. 4 TE
WR Chris Hogan 0 Unranked Unranked
QB Tom Brady NR Unranked Unranked
RB Dion Lewis 3 No. 528 No. 7 All-Purpose Back
RB James White 3 No. 551 No. 46 RB

The eagles had the most 4and 5 stars in the NFL and won the super bowl...

 

[jacobchbe]

The eagles had the most 4and 5 stars in the NFL and won the super bowl...

And about half their starters are 3 star or below. Alabama has more 5 stars than both combined. Maybe they should've played in the Super Bowl.

 

[RonJohn]

Obviously, there are exceptions, just like in everything. However, statistic after statistic supports the fact that stars and ratings do in fact matter. It's remarkably simple, really: the most talented teams will win more games than the lesser talented teams. What Coach Paul Johnson has a problem with is not that stars don't matter (even he would admit that they do); what he says is he doesn't believe you can really differentiate, for example, between the number 12 and number 14 offensive tackle in the country. That's where his qualms come into play. But even he would say you absolutely can differentiate between the number 5 and number 30 offensive tackle in the country. To say stars don't matter is simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to listen to facts. By every metric they do matter, whether you like it or not

I am not a fan of recruiting sites or start systems. However, I don't think that my opinion is very far away from yours. I believe on most of the sites 4-5 star players would be in the top 200-300 players in the country, which would be roughly the top 10-15 players per position in the country. It shouldn't be too hard to find 10-15 HS players at a position that are going to make a significant impact at the NCAA level. There are limitations on the rankings, such as players that don't go to combines or camps and don't distribute film are less likely to be in the top 200-300 regardless of their abilities. So the players have to play along with the system in order to get high rankings. I believe that most people associated with the sites would probably acknowledge that such limitations exist. My biggest issue with the sites and the system is what I consider over-hype and the fans reactions to the player and team rankings.

Sure, the averages of rankings of recruiting classes can indicate overall relative talent level on teams. However many fans look at individual classes and individual player rankings and engage in banter about it. There are mutt fans right now that are emphatic that the number 1 rated class and 7 5-stars is definite proof that they will win the natty next year. Some of those rabid fans don't even know who the players are, what positions they play, whether they will be eligible to enter school, or what the likely hood that they will remain at the school are. Some of those fans know every single measurement of every single player and have watched complete game film from many of them. But all of those guys talk trash about football at this time of year over 18 year old kids making decisions about where to go to school.

If the sites were simple places to organize data and make it accessible, I wouldn't have much of an issue with them. Getting information about the recruits is great. Getting to know about the kids and not just the athletes is great. However many, especially of the SEC fans that I know, approach the rankings and signing day as events as big as or even bigger than actual games. I get more than enough of the mutt fans barking during the season to hear it about kids deciding where to go to school.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

I am not a fan of recruiting sites or start systems. However, I don't think that my opinion is very far away from yours. I believe on most of the sites 4-5 star players would be in the top 200-300 players in the country, which would be roughly the top 10-15 players per position in the country. It shouldn't be too hard to find 10-15 HS players at a position that are going to make a significant impact at the NCAA level. There are limitations on the rankings, such as players that don't go to combines or camps and don't distribute film are less likely to be in the top 200-300 regardless of their abilities. So the players have to play along with the system in order to get high rankings. I believe that most people associated with the sites would probably acknowledge that such limitations exist. My biggest issue with the sites and the system is what I consider over-hype and the fans reactions to the player and team rankings.

Sure, the averages of rankings of recruiting classes can indicate overall relative talent level on teams. However many fans look at individual classes and individual player rankings and engage in banter about it. There are mutt fans right now that are emphatic that the number 1 rated class and 7 5-stars is definite proof that they will win the natty next year. Some of those rabid fans don't even know who the players are, what positions they play, whether they will be eligible to enter school, or what the likely hood that they will remain at the school are. Some of those fans know every single measurement of every single player and have watched complete game film from many of them. But all of those guys talk trash about football at this time of year over 18 year old kids making decisions about where to go to school.

If the sites were simple places to organize data and make it accessible, I wouldn't have much of an issue with them. Getting information about the recruits is great. Getting to know about the kids and not just the athletes is great. However many, especially of the SEC fans that I know, approach the rankings and signing day as events as big as or even bigger than actual games. I get more than enough of the mutt fans barking during the season to hear it about kids deciding where to go to school.

Yeah up here in Tennessee UT is having National Signing Day parties in Knoxville,Nashville and Memphis

 

[chewybaka]

And about half their starters are 3 star or below. Alabama has more 5 stars than both combined. Maybe they should've played in the Super Bowl.

Delightfully snarky...why don't we sign ONE five star and see what happens...

 

[croberts]

Stars matter. There is a massive amount of proof, but lets continue to beat this horse. Some 5 stars bust and some walk ons turn out to be All Americans, but look at the overall percentages.

I can't wait to hear what we say when we do snag a 5 star, and I believe we will. "Yes!!!" "Recruiting is really getting there!!!" etc etc. I doubt there will be one poster with a "Yea, stars don't really matter".

Well he better commit to us very late in the cycle or he will be dropped to a 3 star before signing day.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

So trying to get this thread back on track.

For how little it is worth, here is my opinion. I think there are two types of 3 star recruits.

• You have one group who has the same skill and athleticism as the 4 and 5 stars, but they are physically missing some metric that translates to the NFL.
  
• The other group is closer to the NFL physical metrics, but they are missing the athleticism

They are all three star recruits, but I would take the first group all day long.

 

[lv20gt]

Star ratings are like odds when playing poker. You may be holding a hand that has a 93% chance of winning. That doesn't guarantee a win. It means your hand is more likely to win.

Get more 4 and 5 stars and you're more likely to win.

Also, for the "they got interest from x and got automatically bumped up" argument, how doesn't that make sense? If suddenly a player is getting interest from the best coaches in the country don't you think that would warrant going back and looking at them again, and probably coming to a similar conclusion? People act like recruiting services have someone monitoring every player all the time.

 

[B Lifsey]

Star ratings are like odds when playing poker. You may be holding a hand that has a 93% chance of winning. That doesn't guarantee a win. It means your hand is more likely to win.

Get more 4 and 5 stars and you're more likely to win.

Also, for the "they got interest from x and got automatically bumped up" argument, how doesn't that make sense? If suddenly a player is getting interest from the best coaches in the country don't you think that would warrant going back and looking at them again, and probably coming to a similar conclusion? People act like recruiting services have someone monitoring every player all the time.

Then the star system should be marketed as a recruitment activity metric and not an athlete performance one.

Below is from the 247 site and indicates nothing related to how an athlete is recruited or who he is recruited by.
How 247Sports evaluates ...

Each recruit we evaluate is assigned a numerical rating as well as a star rating. Ratings are determined by our recruiting analysts after countless hours of personal observations, film evaluation, and input from our network of scouts.

 

[bravejason]

I do not know how the recruiting sites actually assign stars to players, but I suspect that fundamentally the idea is something like this:
Successful collegiate teams are successful due to coaching and acquiring good players.
Acquiring good players means being able to evaluate high school players and determine which ones will be successful at the collegiate level.
Ranking sites simply decide which teams are successful teams and then assign star rankings to players in proportion to amount of emphasis the players receive from successful teams.

 

[knoxjacket]

Reminder - we weren’t saying this in 2007 and the results spoke for themselves.

 

[lv20gt]

Then the star system should be marketed as a recruitment activity metric and not an athlete performance one.

Below is from the 247 site and indicates nothing related to how an athlete is recruited or who he is recruited by.
How 247Sports evaluates ...

Each recruit we evaluate is assigned a numerical rating as well as a star rating. Ratings are determined by our recruiting analysts after countless hours of personal observations, film evaluation, and input from our network of scouts.

You didn't bother to actually read what was posted.

it would warrant going back and looking at them again, and probably coming to a similar conclusion?

They don't just bump up guys because of who's looking. Who's looking is used as an indication that it may be time to go back and reevaluate a player who's evaluation might have been from the previous year or something, and some recent development has changed.

 

[Yomanser]

Star ratings are like odds when playing poker. You may be holding a hand that has a 93% chance of winning. That doesn't guarantee a win. It means your hand is more likely to win.

Get more 4 and 5 stars and you're more likely to win.

Also, for the "they got interest from x and got automatically bumped up" argument, how doesn't that make sense? If suddenly a player is getting interest from the best coaches in the country don't you think that would warrant going back and looking at them again, and probably coming to a similar conclusion? People act like recruiting services have someone monitoring every player all the time.

This is an excellent analogy. If you don't mind, I think I'll use this in the future when the topic inevitably comes up again

Just to further drive a point home, does anyone believe that Kirby Smart is a better coach than Paul Johnson? If not, then if stars don't matter how do you explain our result in the game against them? I think it's pretty evident that there was a measurable talent differential on that field, and the number of stars on each roster is a pretty good starting measuring stick. Stars matter

 

[B Lifsey]

You didn't bother to actually read what was posted.

I did bother to read it but evidently also misread it

 

[GTJake]

I think stars matter to a certain extent, keeping in mind the difference between a 4 and 5 star athlete may be immeasurable when it comes to game day performance.
I think there is a lot more to recruiting than the star system, but when I see a Top 50 recruiting class listing that we are not included on, that is concerning for me.

 

[RonJohn]

Just to further drive a point home, does anyone believe that Kirby Smart is a better coach than Paul Johnson? If not, then if stars don't matter how do you explain our result in the game against them? I think it's pretty evident that there was a measurable talent differential on that field, and the number of stars on each roster is a pretty good starting measuring stick. Stars matter

I think this debate/discussion is normally people arguing at the extremes. Having bigger, stronger, faster players does matter. NFL teams spend more money evaluating a much smaller subset of players and don't always get it right. It is pretty easy to see that the mutt class is better than the Tulsa signing class even without a star rating system. Many SEC fans that I know are rabid about the ratings of the players and the team ratings. I was told last year by a mutt fan that they had signed the #1 rated inside linebacker(I believe) in the country. With what confidence level can a recruiting site say that the #1 linebacker is better than the #4 linebacker? You can pick out the top linebackers that you are aware of in the country, but can you really put a number value to them to stack them in a rating? Those numbers are at least fuzzy. Expanding that, the team rankings are based on those fuzzy numbers. In this years team ratings, is the Texas class really better than Penn State? Is the Penn State class really better than Alabama's?

Once you get outside of the top 200-300 players, from what I have read the recruiting sites depend upon regional people to provide rating numbers for players in their area. Those ratings for the 2 and 3 star players are definitely fuzzier than the 4 and 5 star players. In the team rankings, once you get outside of the top 25 or so teams, the biggest difference between teams is the relative ratings of their 3 star recruits. Since the 3 star numbers are definitely fuzzy, how much belief should be put in the idea that the 30th rated team is better than the 60th rated team?

Bigger, stronger, and faster does matter. The recruiting rankings can provide some insight into finding good players to keep an eye on. The player rankings and team rankings gamification is what I have issues with. It isn't like listing the companies with the largest market cap. The recruiting sites ratings shouldn't be taken as definite declarative statements about players or teams. They should be looked at only as an information source.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Once you get outside of the top 200-300 players, from what I have read the recruiting sites depend upon regional people to provide rating numbers for players in their area. Those ratings for the 2 and 3 star players are definitely fuzzier than the 4 and 5 star players. In the team rankings, once you get outside of the top 25 or so teams, the biggest difference between teams is the relative ratings of their 3 star recruits. Since the 3 star numbers are definitely fuzzy, how much belief should be put in the idea that the 30th rated team is better than the 60th rated team?

I think this is a reasonable take.

I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I'm also not sure I don't agree 100%.