Why do "we" put so much emphasis on "star ratings?"
- Thread starter Bryo72
- Start date
Agree the star system shouldn't be used at all when the numerical system is available------usually a lot of difference in a 5.5 and a 5.7, but they are both three stars.
Hey, the star system has a lot of misses, both high and low, but in the overall picture it is quite useful. And it does factor in the offers recruits have, which is another good (or better) way to rate players. But some coaches have a great knack for finding underrated talent, and I think both Brooks and Stoops staffs have it.
Of course Saban doesn't have to worry about any of that stuff, he mostly signs four and five stars and enough of them live up to their rating to give him the best talent around. Then he also likes to grab off some of the underrated talent that other schools spotted early.
Hey, the star system has a lot of misses, both high and low, but in the overall picture it is quite useful. And it does factor in the offers recruits have, which is another good (or better) way to rate players. But some coaches have a great knack for finding underrated talent, and I think both Brooks and Stoops staffs have it.
Of course Saban doesn't have to worry about any of that stuff, he mostly signs four and five stars and enough of them live up to their rating to give him the best talent around. Then he also likes to grab off some of the underrated talent that other schools spotted early.
I completely agree and I'm also convinced that some coach's watch other coach's because some have a better feel for sleepers or underated players. I believe the cardinals have someone tailing Vince Marrow. Watch him offer a kid and they'll follow right behind him.I say this sorta tongue and cheek but this seems real.
You are stating the exceptions, not the norm. Alabama signs a bunch of 4 and 5 stars, Ky signs a bunch of 2 and low 3 stars, check out the difference in the 2 programs. Stars do not ALWAYS matter, but they matter
Bell curves have tails.
A couple of guidelines for recruiting rankings:
The difference between a 5 star and a 4 star is higher than between a 3 star and a 2 star. They're better predictors at the elite level than at the non-elite level.
Rankings within conference mean more than rankings between conferences. BCS Conferences seem to enjoy a collective star inflation compared to non-major conferences. It's why the best of the non BCS schools often beat the lower-tier major schools despite a star disparity.
The difference between a 5 star and a 4 star is higher than between a 3 star and a 2 star. They're better predictors at the elite level than at the non-elite level.
Rankings within conference mean more than rankings between conferences. BCS Conferences seem to enjoy a collective star inflation compared to non-major conferences. It's why the best of the non BCS schools often beat the lower-tier major schools despite a star disparity.
Because it is something rival schools can thump their chest about. There is a correlation between stars and talent/future performance but it is inexact.
Which schools usually sign top 10 classes? Alabama, Clemson (recently), Oklahoma, OSU, LSU, Georgia, Michigan, USC, Texas, FSU. These schools usually dominate the top 10 in the polls as well. Recruiting rankings are usually pretty accurate in the grand scheme.
If coaches can evaluate, you trust their evaluations despite star systems. We often see stars rise when tradional star power programs get involved with players. And, some players do not play the games to get higher rankings. It is a system. And we all want 4-5 star players, because they are often good players. But, the three star players can be just as good. If your coaches can evaluate, three is a good number.
It's not an exact science but it does have merit.
I look on it as "likelihood" measurements. The average 5* recruit is "more likely" to be better than the average 4* recruit. Doesn't mean that they will. A team full of 5* players is "more likely" to win a NC than a team full of 4* players.
I also don't look at star ratings only. It's only one piece of the puzzle.
-If ESPN, Scout, 247, Rivals, etc all rate a guy as a 4* player......and that player has 15 offers from big 5 conference programs......and the video looks good.......then I feel like I have a good idea of what kind of recruit the player is.
-If he's rated a 2* on one site, 3* on another, and 4* on another.....and offers are all over the board......and the video is so-so......then I scratch my head in wonder.
I look on it as "likelihood" measurements. The average 5* recruit is "more likely" to be better than the average 4* recruit. Doesn't mean that they will. A team full of 5* players is "more likely" to win a NC than a team full of 4* players.
I also don't look at star ratings only. It's only one piece of the puzzle.
-If ESPN, Scout, 247, Rivals, etc all rate a guy as a 4* player......and that player has 15 offers from big 5 conference programs......and the video looks good.......then I feel like I have a good idea of what kind of recruit the player is.
-If he's rated a 2* on one site, 3* on another, and 4* on another.....and offers are all over the board......and the video is so-so......then I scratch my head in wonder.
Last edited:
That is true. There are 5-stars who are busts and 2-stars who go on to shine. Rarely does a 5-star end up a bust because they didn't have the talent. It is usually off-field issues (Rhett Bomar, Mitch Mustain for example), or a lack of work ethic being so full of yourself. Chronic, lingering injuries also play a part (mostly with OL and DL). Rarely do you see a guy rated a 5-star and then when he gets to school he's 2 steps slower and considerably less athletic than advertised.
With 2-stars it's impossible to predict. Rivals rates them younger and younger these days. Most kids will finish their HS football season when they're 17. There's gonna be a lot of late bloomers out there. You can have a kid at 6'0 who is athletic and strong and goes into a growth spurt at late 17/18/19 and ends up at 6'5. Not the norm, but it does happen. Now that 6'5 player can make a good DE that he never would've been at 6'0.
Should we pin this thread? It's got to be the thousandth time to explain it.
"I trust Joker more than I trust Rivals"
- an argument against star ratings five years ago.
"I trust Joker more than I trust Rivals"
- an argument against star ratings five years ago.
I remember this. Poor soul. Sadly some UK fans blindly support whoever our HC is, even if it is obvious he is absolutely clueless.
The star system is useful, but not infallible. At the start of NFL camps this year, these are the star rankings of the defensive linemen on all NFL rosters:
5 star - 17
4 star - 101
3 star - 125
2 star - 113
Keep in mind these aren't the final rosters, but guys who are on rosters at the start of camp, meaning of course that to get to an NFL camp, they were pretty damn good in college.
BTW, JJ Watt was a 2 star.
https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/11356
5 star - 17
4 star - 101
3 star - 125
2 star - 113
Keep in mind these aren't the final rosters, but guys who are on rosters at the start of camp, meaning of course that to get to an NFL camp, they were pretty damn good in college.
BTW, JJ Watt was a 2 star.
https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/11356
True, at both the beginning and end, or in this case at the top end and the bottom end. Exceptions to the rule.. Fits this situation pretty well.
Last edited:
The bell curve is a great example to use when discussing star rankings. About 67% of players will perform somewhere close to their ranking, whereas the rest will vastly over or under achieve.
For those reasons and others, I don't put a lot of stock in star ratings. You can find a lot of headliner high school players who become good college players, but you can also find many who don't. If you look at the players with lots of stars, some of them are widely recruited by successful programs but others are not. Some 3 star players get offers from Alabama and Ohio State. I look at offer lists as the best indicator, because coaches at successful programs are better talent evaluators than people who make their living as bloggers.
When I worked on the space program long ago NASA had a bell curve for equipment reliability, started off low because of factory defects, rose for a long time as those got corrected, then declined again as parts started wearing out at the end. A similar curve for car reliability back when they had five day work weeks, lower reliability on Mondays that went up from getting over the weekend and then back down at the end of the week looking forward to the weekend, LOL. Of course that isn't so true any more with all kinds of shifts and with automation, machines don't have hangovers or days off..
Actually KY now signs a bunch of high 3 and 4 stars. May have one or two 2 star 'projects' in their classes now. You're thinking of Joker.
Yeah, and while a lot of fans give Joker hell for not even going after most four and five star recruits, the fact is that in most cases he would have been wasting his time, one look at the "recruiting room" told them all they needed to know about the "dedication" to football the UK administration had at the time. Of course Tee avoided showing it to them and said he lied about the rest. And those penny wise and pound foolish policies ended up costing UK millions------and still is, still 15% lower season ticket sales with UNDOUBTEDLY the best talent we have had in decades, if not ever.
A pretty sad state of affairs for a school trying to compete in the SEC and with much worse in state talent than we have now, just plain DUMB with the money football was still bringing in.
Now we are in another world in facilities and support (good coaches IMO making millions) but the big fly in the ointment is the COA-------and don't even try to tell me that it doesn't matter, it is a tremendous handicap IMO.. Penny wise and pound foolish AGAIN.
Last edited:
You didn't prove what you think you did. Compare the number of 4 and 5 star DL to the number of 2 and 3 and let me know which group is overwhelmingly more likely to make it.
Because we the masses as a whole listen to punk services like ESPN that looks at certain players at ever have a chance. But when it comes down to it the grand total of the draft is comprised of guys that were never heard of nationally before college
There are only like a couple 5* DL every year. They are probably at least 200-300 2* DL every year. Your reaching here.
Exactly. The better stat is the % of each group that makes an NFL roster.
Stars matter in aggregate. Teams who consistently recruit classes that average over 3 stars win more games.
There are outliers both with individual teams and players. Examples are Cobb and Boise St when they were relevant.
Give me 5 classes in a row that average 3.5 stars and I'll take my chances with any team in the country.
Well I am thinking historically, and yes Stoops does sign better recruits. Not as many 4 and 5 stars as Saban does though and therin lies the difference
I know we can point to exceptions, but I'll take a 4 or 5 star over 2 and 3's anytime.
OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!
OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!
There is one thing that is a certain, "If you don't try for a 4 or 5 star, you sure won't get them."
OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!
Recruiting ratings and rankings absolutely matter. No one has everyone won a national championship without 4 years of top 10 classes. So yes, stars, rankings and rating definitely matter.
Wonder if Stoops or any other coach of a mediocre program would want to trade their recruits with those that Saban gets each year?
I've never laughed so hard at a post in these boards. Yea this time is gonna be this good because they have this average player point star recruiting rating ranking system. You put way too much weight into point system the same way the OP was saying people put too much weight in star ratings when it comes to football. It's very easy to prove your point wrong to the point it just gets old. What about Muschamp in his average point player system ratings? Were those Florida teams any good? What about Rich Brooks and his average point system rating? Does that mean those teams were trash?
Moral to the story is point system doesn't mean a damn thing if your coach is terrible. Point blank period. Who cares if we get Elam who's a 5.9. Doesn't help our team none. What about Morgan Newton and his 5.9? Doesn't make him any good. Point is. Games are won on the field. And a numerical system in no way shape or form indicates who's going to when so and so game. I would take the Rich Brooks teams over this team every day of the week and twice on Sunday's. Simply because those teams were overwhelmingly better than our current team. But I'm sure you'd take this team over those team because of the average point system rating.
Point is you put way too much stock in point systems. The point system doesn't indicate how good our team will be. You need coaches that can develop talent. You need coaches that can prepare a team. You need coaches that can motivate a team. All of these factors are much more important that point system ratings. Especially when your team finishes 10-13 in the conference every year in these systems. When that's the case you need coaches to coach the lowly rated players up in order to be on par with the other teams. Something we are not. We get low end SEC recruits and have maybe the worst coach in the SEC to have coached a game. Surely you wouldn't think with these factors included that we're a good team regardless of point system. I'll take the Randall Cobb's, Derrick Locke's, Rafael Little's, Jacob Tamme's, Keenan Burton's, Cory Peter's, Myrin Pryor's, Wesley Woodyard's, Danny Trevathan's, Aveey Williamson's, Trevard Lindley's of the world over the Boom William's, Dorian Baker's, Matt Elam's, Blake Bone's, Ryan Timmon's if the world everyday of the week and anyone who wouldn't is just plain delusional.
These examples I gave you. Proves how worthless your point system is in comparison to the diamond in the rough low end recruits with coaches who know what they're doing and know how to develop goes. The players I mentioned are so much damn better than our 4 star recruits that it's not even funny. But according to you they're probably better players just because of a point rating am I right? This team is so much better than Brooks teams because of average point ratings right? You really think this team could beat Brooks' teams that played in a much tougher SEC East? Just please take your point system and shove it where the sun don't shine because coaches like stoops and Muschamp prove how worthless those numbers are with their inability to develop players and find players that fit the system. Player development is what matters. Not point system ratings. Good coaches is what wins game. Not point system ratings. It'd be different if we were Bama getting the top recruits that are obviously better than everyone else. But when it comes to 3/4 stars everyone is pretty much the same and all that matters at that point is the coach developing them.
Yup. Some will throw every UK coach under the bus. Think back to how many UK fans said Brooks would have no success at UK. They were the fools. So, if some were foolish under Joker, it balances out.
OLine and DLine are those areas where the five stars may be true fives stars, but there are plenty of 2 & 3 star recruits who end up five star players. Some kids just mature later to those positions.
Probably because the teams that sign the 4 and 5 stars generally win the most games. Just a thought OP.
Unlike basketball where 4 & 5 Star recruits are most always predictably successful in College, if not Professionally as well, football is much different. The big difference of course is physicality .........b-ball has become more physical over the years, but nothing remotely close to football. The kids graduating from High School have not matured the way they will after entering the S&C Programs that are in place at all colleges. Rating a HS kid from a Class II Corbin KY HS as compared to a 6A Class HS in Cincinnati Ohio is a difficult measurement and the camps are not always long enough to determine one recruit from another. There will always be a few true Freshmen who defy this generalization, but by and large the 4th & 5th year seniors who have stayed motivated and healthy enjoy a significant advantage over the incoming HS kids.
JD Hoss' contribution is an excellent indicator as to just how many 2 and 3 Star kids exceed the 4 & 5 Star recruits.
JD Hoss' contribution is an excellent indicator as to just how many 2 and 3 Star kids exceed the 4 & 5 Star recruits.