I was curious tonight after reading a story about Johnny football and thought of something...
Do star ratings really matter all that much? Other then for class bragging rights.
Johnny Manziel was only a 3 star recruit (#14 QB in nation). And he has done pretty amazing things.
Collin Klein was a 2 star recruit (#108 QB in nation).
Past heisman winners:
2011- Robert Griffin III: 4 Stars (#14 QB)
2010- Cam Newton: 4 Stars (#14 QB)
2009- Mark Ingram: 3 Stars (#58 RB)
2008- Sam Bradford: 4 Stars (#17 QB)
2007- Tim Jesus Tebow: 5 Stars (#3 QB)
2006- Troy Smith: 4 Stars (#15 QB)
I think stars are something that we look too far into sometimes. We downplay some recruits just because of their star rating. What are y'alls opinions?
I couldnt agree more. I think star ratings have become alot like AAU Basketball. They put 3-4 studs on a team and fill the rest of the team out with very average Daddys boy type of players and because they win many on the team beyond the 3 studs are in a position to get recognized. Long winded answer to say I agree The recruiting sites are good at naming the no brainer type picks but lack credibility beyond that. Im just glad we have Coach Meyer he seems to be able to filter pretty well.
Except for Timmons
Pick up your feet, turn your corners square! And DRIVE DRIVE DRIVE!!!
These are the types of things I think about at 3am when I'm laying in bed and cant fall asleep lol
Star rating mean nothing . It seems when you have a 4 or 5 star player they are not first team all state.
Look at last 2011 all state players Kyle Kali's was not first team all state.
Stars are a ripoff! I'm definitely a 6 star!
Wherever you are, there you be!
Comparing stars with all state honors is like comparing heisman winners to nfl draft prospects.
I'll take Tommy Frazier in college but not in the NFL.
Yes, stars are garbage. But that's all we have to compare recruits across divisions, states, etc. so we're stuck using the garbage system. Because we (the fans) NEED to know how bright our future is, qualitatively, compared to everyone else's. We, the consumers of these ratings, are really to blame for this mess.
When told OSU set school record for 50+ games this year, UFM said "That's good. We're gonna break that next year."
Let's not get too carried away here, folks. Star ratings certainly do matter, if they didn't every collegiate program would be on the same level talent-wise. In fact, it's that access to top-tier talent that allows OSU to be juggernaut that it's long been (especially under Tressel, who used blue-chippers to completely overwhelm the Big Ten for the better part of a decade).
The key is that star rankings aren't necessarily a pinpoint predictor of talent. I see them more as an indicator of the relative likliehood of the athlete's success (5 stars = ~80%, 4 stars = ~65%, 3 stars = ~40%). There's no doubt that we've had our share of blue-chip bombs (as has every program); but that's not indicative that the system they come from is flawed, as well. Last time I checked, Noah Spence is looking as good as advertised, as is Adolphus Washington; true to the definition of a "5 Star", they were able to come in and contribute immediately.
Keep in mind, that whenever we discuss a 2 or 3 star recruit "making the big time", we're talking a bohemoth sample size. The bottom line is that there's always going to be some guys who get passed up by the rankings or undervalued, and they get left with the most common denominator. Consider guys like Manziel scenarios where the system missed a guy, and incorrectly labeled a kid. It happens. But remember, every time a 2 or 3 star guy has an unremarkable career, no one notices or cares--it's only when they succeed that we say "oh this whole system is wrong". They're the rare ones; and it's guys like Pantoni that get paid the big bucks to find those guys that the system may have missed.
Sure, we probably hit more on three-star guys (read: they have successful careers) than we do on the four-stars, but that's again because of sample size. We're simply not going to offer a 3 star unless we really see something, whereas 4 star recruits make up the bulk of our (and most other elite programs) classes; there's simply a bigger chance for them to fail, whereas you only need one out of your two three-star guys to be a beast, since 1/2 is still 50%.
Bottom line: give me a team full of blue chippers, and watch me trounce your team of two and three star guys nine times out of ten.
You have valid points but I disagree with one assessment. 5 Stars actually fail more than 4 stars for two reasons.
1. Fewer of them so statistically just one not making it drives down percentages adversely.
2. 5 Star is a Cant miss STAR. I would summize that less than 40% attain that level but instead they perform more like the wat a 3 Star athlete is expected to perform.
I will take this one step further and say more 3 and 4 star rated players move up on this evaluation scale systm and outnumber the 5 star rated players overall if you annually chose the All Americans by performance. Unfortunately though the media would still stand behind a Matt Barker if it even somewhat close over a Johnny M,
I think star rankings are a good gauge to go by but you never know how a young man is going to develop or how being away from home is going to affect him - Southward for example. But you need to spend your time recruiting the best players that fit your system and your team identity, and the best talent available. You aren't going to find that, in most cases, in 1 and 2 star players. Does a 3 star turn out to be a stud at times, sure. Does a 5 star turn out to be a dud, sure. But I would venture to say more 4 and 5 star players find success the 3 stars do. I wouldn't put everything into the rankings but it is a decent gauge. Let me know if you find a better method.
Stars and rankings matter, but they aren't the only thing that matters. They aren't the end all be all. Obviously you want to bring in the best players you possibly can. But a 2 or 3 star kid can end up outplaying or outshining a 5 star kid. There are complete studs who everyone will go after and there are diamonds in the rough to be found. Talent evaluation is certainly not an exact science. Nobody is completely sure what a kid is gonna do once they get to a campus.
That's why it's important to trust that the staff knows what they are doing and if they offer a kid and want him to be a Buckeye, regardless of what he is ranked, I trust their evaluation and their ability to bring the kid in and develop them.
I'd prefer a player that fits a system and is good over an elite talent that just doesn't have the school loyalty or a good fit. Plus I believe in college, can't measure team pride. Sometimes when a player has a ton of passion for the school he is at, he will exceed his limitations more than someone who is just passing through.
I like players who bleed scarlet and gray! I totally believe that Braxton is that type of player and that Pryor really wasn't. Pryor played hard to win, Braxton will die trying! I think that is why I am really a bigger Braxton fan!
I agree with this completely. Any kid that gets a Block O tattoo while he is still playing high school ball is going to bleed scarlet and gray. Pryor no matter where he went was always in it for himself. What can you do for me attitude, I want the Zach Boren's of the world who will do anything to help the team succeed.
Well said Plus I think Braxton is better.
Some of you have hit on it, but recruiting services only take into account measurables, and sometimes stats, to determine star rankings. As you should know, those two things are small contributors to future success at the college level. Once you get to that level, raw talent only takes you so far. Guys that succeed have a work ethic off the charts, and the desire to constantly get better. As coaches, you can get a sense of those characteristics during the recruiting process.
There other thing they take in is Money. If a kid pays he gets evaluated and quite often favored over those that did not pay for services along the way. This does not go toward the No Brainer anyone could pick that kid type but the ones that are in that 2- 3-4 rating level Many services are tied in to the pay for the camp systems that quite frankly many cannot afford.
I don't think people understand what start rankings are... these type of post show that. Because you can name exceptions to the rule it doesn't break the rule. Rankings are an attempt at recruiters (former or not) to judge who has the highest potential at the next leve of college football. Things to consider:
1) If they don't see you at camp or don't see your tape they can't rank you.
-> some kids don't go ot camps or show their skills to the people doing the rankings, therefore they don't get in front of the guys giving out stars.
2) If the talent level around you is low, typically your ranking will be lower.
-> sorry, but it is hard to judge your potential if yo don't show your stuff against top talent.
3) Measurables
-> some kids haven't blossomed yet, and no one can judge whether or not they willl. If a kid is 6'0" and 195 lbs but plays LB, who can say he will blossom iunto a 6'2" 245 tackling machine? it happens...
4) Offers... who is going after you
-> Your offer sheet will reflect your star ranking. It shows that not only are these freelance scouts feel you are good, but the people who matter, the coaches, feel the same way. Best example, Collin Klein, 2-3 stars depending on site, but his offer sheet was poor. Why? Because even the big schools didn't think he would be as good as he ahs become.
-------------------------
Star rankings are a representation of what most college football scouts (for teams or freelance) feel your potential is. TYPICALLY, the star rankings are pretty close. MOST of the elite talent are 4-5 recruits, MOST top programs have a very high star ranking. That means something... it means that in general it is a good way to judge the talent level of that school. Can a 2 star be the next Heisman? Sure, but MOST LIKELY it won't be. We should never discount a specific recruit for their star ranking if the staff feel they are a good fit... but we also should not discount the fact that someone like Jaylon Smith with his 5 star studdedness is clearly more likely to pan out than the 3 star Luke Roberts, does anyone disagree? no...
Star rankings represent the industries best guess at potential... and guess what... for that claim they do a pretty good job.
Very true. I don't know the actual stat but I believe there is a large percentage of 5 stars that do meet that potential and go into the NFL. Rankings do matter. Do they measure everything? no. As you said, its all about potential with the ranking system. That is all. I just think that it goes both ways. Don't overestimate the star ranking and don't underestimate it either. 5 stars are more likely to succeed but can't count out the lower stars either.
I ultimately think it has a lot to do with fit, passion and coaching whether or not they pan out. Just a better chance for the 5's than most of the 2,3 and 4s.
But we use to do just fine and in many cases better in years past without these recruiting services
In an attempt to quantify what is often subjective, the star system emphasizes measurable attributes of athleticism such as size and speed. Camp performances and 7 on 7 tournaments are also overly valued in the star system. Again, this is supposed to be a way of objectively evaluating top players against each other, but they don't really play football at these camps. One reason recruiting services emphasize measurables is that it is easier to do than evaluate film. Presumably, if they were better at evaluating film they'd be working for a D1 school rather than Rivals. The consequence of this is that stars will give you a pretty good idea of what kind of athlete you're getting, but a very incomplete idea of what kind of football player you're getting. If you want to know what the real pros think of a prospect, look at his offer sheet. Clearly, there will be plenty of overlap as most coaches believe they can coach up great athletes easier than they can "athlete up" a solid player. Still, there's really nothing on film or that you can find out in a camp that can tell you that a 16-year-old Zach Boren is going to grow into a locker room leader, or that John Simon is just the right kind of crazy to inspire an entire team to greatness. Stars are fun for us fans, and it gets us excited about the potential of future teams, but --for example-- when Mike Vrabel sees film on a 3* prospect like Tracy Sprinkel and gives him an offer nearly a year ahead of NLOID, you can be pretty sure the kid's gonna be a good one.