Stars

S

skersOVRsc

Starter
It really pisses me off to hear people punctificate about stars. They are nothing more than an evaluation of what you did in high school period. Stars dont represent talent, stars dont represent potential, and stars dont make one kid more valuable than the next. There were 3 kids drafted in the first round that were rated in the top 5 at thier position coming out of high school, 12 kids were unranked. What does that say. A 1 star can find a great coach and system and flourish, and a 5 star can fall flat on his a$$. Coaches must do thier homework, and kids must bust thier a$$. Nothing complicated or scientific, its about upside and coaching.

 
skersOVRsc said:
It really pisses me off to hear people punctificate about stars. They are nothing more than an evaluation of what you did in high school period. Stars dont represent talent, stars dont represent potential, and stars dont make one kid more valuable than the next. There were 3 kids drafted in the first round that were rated in the top 5 at thier position coming out of high school, 12 kids were unranked. What does that say. A 1 star can find a great coach and system and flourish, and a 5 star can fall flat on his a$$. Coaches must do thier homework, and kids must bust thier a$$. Nothing complicated or scientific, its about upside and coaching.
Click to expand...
our coaches do a hell of a lot better job evaluating talent than anyone at rivals.....and that is for sure

but it still is a good measuring stick

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The star system does not bother me a bit. I just take the stars for what they are worth, a way to somewhat size up accomplishments and potential. I do know that stars do not help them on the field, that they earn. I also know that it is a media popularity contest that overlooks a lot of talented kids.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like to look at what schools are recruiting the kid to measure his talent level rather than the star ratings. If USC, TX, UF, OSU, is recruiting the same kid, than he must be a stud.

 
westgatehusker said:
skersOVRsc said:
It really pisses me off to hear people punctificate about stars. They are nothing more than an evaluation of what you did in high school period. Stars dont represent talent, stars dont represent potential, and stars dont make one kid more valuable than the next. There were 3 kids drafted in the first round that were rated in the top 5 at thier position coming out of high school, 12 kids were unranked. What does that say. A 1 star can find a great coach and system and flourish, and a 5 star can fall flat on his a$$. Coaches must do thier homework, and kids must bust thier a$$. Nothing complicated or scientific, its about upside and coaching.
Click to expand...
our coaches do a hell of a lot better job evaluating talent than anyone at rivals.....and that is for sure

but it still is a good measuring stick
Click to expand...


That's because our coaches don't evaluate even close to the number of kids that rivals does..

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
westgatehusker said:
skersOVRsc said:
It really pisses me off to hear people punctificate about stars. They are nothing more than an evaluation of what you did in high school period. Stars dont represent talent, stars dont represent potential, and stars dont make one kid more valuable than the next. There were 3 kids drafted in the first round that were rated in the top 5 at thier position coming out of high school, 12 kids were unranked. What does that say. A 1 star can find a great coach and system and flourish, and a 5 star can fall flat on his a$$. Coaches must do thier homework, and kids must bust thier a$$. Nothing complicated or scientific, its about upside and coaching.
Click to expand...
our coaches do a hell of a lot better job evaluating talent than anyone at rivals.....and that is for sure

but it still is a good measuring stick
Click to expand...


That's because our coaches don't evaluate even close to the number of kids that rivals does..
Click to expand...
ya I know but I'm just saying I don't worry when we offer a 2 star :o :) anyways our coaches know best.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I bet the coaches check rivals star ratings, then check out this board to figure out who they should offer and how to get them here. :sarcasm

 
The only thing I have to say is that Matt Slauson wasn't rated by Rivals and now he's our best offensive lineman. Our staff knows what they are doing.

 
skersOVRsc said:
It really pisses me off to hear people punctificate about stars. They are nothing more than an evaluation of what you did in high school period. Stars dont represent talent, stars dont represent potential, and stars dont make one kid more valuable than the next. There were 3 kids drafted in the first round that were rated in the top 5 at thier position coming out of high school, 12 kids were unranked. What does that say. A 1 star can find a great coach and system and flourish, and a 5 star can fall flat on his a$$. Coaches must do thier homework, and kids must bust thier a$$. Nothing complicated or scientific, its about upside and coaching.
Click to expand...

Of course stars represent talent. Talent and performance. That's kind of the idea behind the whole stars rating system.

Now, is the system infallible? No. Sometimes good or even great college players slip through the cracks of the stars rating system.

But let me ask: Why, invariably, do the five-star players for both Scout and Rivals have offers from the top programs in the country? Is it coincidence? Do Pete Carrol, Urban Meyer, and Les Miles base their recruiting on Rivals and Scout? I say no to all three.

So while I agree that we need not put all of our hope into stars, it's wrong to say there is not at least a logical methodology behind the stars ranking system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to illustrate your point, here are the current recruiting rankings in the B12:

1) Texas

2) Oklahoma

3) Nebraska

4) Texas A&M

5) Oklahoma St

6) Baylor

7) Missouri

8) Tech

9) KSt.

10) Kansas

11) Iowa St.

12) can't bear to write them down.

There is clearly a relationship between recruiting, even with this very limited recruiting data, and success on the field. It's not 100%, but clearly significant. You can do the same thing by looking at the national top 10. Again, it's not absolute, but not totally bogus either.

 
Agreed that the stars is a measuring stick. The coaches have had their own grading system for recruits for years. I heard Milt Tenopir talk once and he said that they had a point system that took certain things into account and sometimes they just threw it out the window because the kid had heart and knew how to play.

 
sometimes people forget, There are a lot more 3, 2, and NR's out there than 4 or 5 stars. If 1 out of every 5 "Nr" player makes it, and 3 out of 5 "5 star" players make it in the NFL draft you will see more NR's being announced on draft day.

I look at the intangibles such as speed and size more than anything, not every player is blessed with a great position coach in high school, or lucky enough to avoid injuries, mono, etc, or have the opportunity to play against decent competition and get film of it. Nobody can truly tell how well a kid is going to do once he gets to college. That being said, I think the intangibles of our current recruiting class looks great, and the star power helps too(if not for our ego, it helps in recruiting because other high schoolers do look at stuff like that)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top