Stars

[kchusker_chris]

Would be cool to see someone start a site that rates kids after their freshmen year or after like EZ mentioned.

I was just thinking about the best way to do this. It would be a HUGE undertaking to say the least. The way I figure it, it would require going through the team rosters and their post season awards to compile a rating by player that you could correlate back to the Rivals and/or Scout Ratings. The only thing I am not sure on is how those sites do their points, are they linked to the number ratings, i.e. 5.6 vs. 5.7, or is it just based on the number of stars? If it is the stars, then this evaluation process is possible. If not, it would become MUCH more complicated.

With an accurate data feed of historical season statistics for all teams (or at least the top 50 or so - which rivals has) this could be partially accomplished programatically w/ an algorithm. If they wanted to undertake it they could (it's not hard, i could do it w/ the data)...only problem is that it will just open themselves up proving their rankings were wrong

As for measuring desire...to get a ranking you have to leave out some of those objective things...otherwise Crabtree might really hit it off w/ a recruit, whereas some other scout might think he's a egocentric prick. I'm sure a little of that goes into it...but you need to draw the line somewhere and consider the notre dame "Rudy's" as outliers.

 

[huskers1]

I think Cave made a good point about rating "want to" however, I read an article by rivals that said that is one main reason that Seastrunk was dropped in the rankings bc he just didn't seem to care, not showing up for meetings not taking practice seriously etc. So like mentioned in another post, with the amount of info that is among us now I think this recruiting is only going to become closer to a draft type research on recruits. I do also think that as a whole when it comes to five and highly ranked four star prospects rivals gets it right most of the time. Just looking at Floridas commits over the last few years you can really see the difference makers on their team and that they were in fact highly ranked. Haden (6.0 four star), Dunlap (five star), Pouncey Twins (5.8 four star), Major Wright (6.0 four star), Janoris Jenkins (6.0 four star). There are many more that they have gotten right when it comes to the impact type players. I do think it gets harder when you get to that line where a three star meets a four star. IMO 5.7 three stars are a lot of times turning out just as good as most four stars, and a 5.7 three star is exactly what Green was along with PJ Smith, Dennard, Fisher, Cotton, Meredith, Josh Williams, Ash, Randle and Sirles.

 

[TheCheshireCat]

you cant compare the level of competition between states like Florida and California.

Maybe not, but you can compare the level of competition between states like Florida/Texas/Cali and states like Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming overall. There is no doubt that overall the better players come from the first three. You also said Andrew Green might not have played "the best competition." But really, it doesn't get much better than Texas high schools for competition.

I agree that players who are very good from states like NE for instance may not be rated high simply because they don't face good competition and they may be penalized in the ranking systems for this. But my thought is that coaches can usually spot potential and who can make up that disadvantage by learning and adjusting at FBS schools.

I'm a bit of a star-gazer, but I also think that it's important to get the players that fit your system even if that means they aren't necessarily highly rated. I really feel like Bo and Co. have a great ability to pick out talent that may fly under the radar, or kids who can mature and grow into better players.

There are numerous studies about child prodigies or extremely good soccer players (there's a study on European soccer academies and who gets chosen). Most often it is simply that the person develops faster than his peers and thus looks like a 5 star player when by the time he gets into FBS competition he may not pan out. I think that happens quite frequently with rating systems. Keep in mind a lot of these kids are looked at and rated when they are 16,17,18 years old and may not be done growing/maturing. Once they grow, put on muscle, and undergo the nutrition/weight lifting/training regiment that universities provide they might be better than players that were ranked higher out of high school.

Stars do not mean everything, but I do think they are about as good a gauge as you can get for rating prospective talent. Whether or not players get better depends on work ethic, training, nutrition, desire, and a lot of other factors. So far I'm happy both with Bo and Co.'s ability to pick talent and to develop talent.

Once we get more wins and recognition, we'll get better talent and more athleticism.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Keep in mind a lot of these kids are looked at and rated when they are 16,17,18 years old and may not be done growing/maturing. Once they grow, put on muscle, and undergo the nutrition/weight lifting/training regiment that universities provide they might be better than players that were ranked higher out of high school.

Excellent point.

This also supports the argument that it is important for Rivals to evaluate the offers that a recruit has. They rely heavily on the staff's ability to identify kids that can mature into quality players. Multiple staffs identify this in a kid, and then Rivals can pick up on it from the offer count/quality and adjust accordingly after a more in depth review.

I think the a major flaw in the system revolves around early commits. It isn't always the case, but a kid that commits early to Nebraska, and doesn't send out tape...sending a clear signal that they aren't interested in other programs or any of the recruiting "process" is often negatively impacted in the rankings. They have fewer offers, and limitted exposure. Sometimes these are your "under the radar" guys...but in reality they never flew under the radar, the staff just identified them and jumped on board early. Bo is doing a good job offering first.

 

[t_husker]

also, the offensive or defensive system that a player goes into has a big impact on his future, whether as a star in college or draftability.

 

[caveman99]

you cant compare the level of competition between states like Florida and California.

Maybe not, but you can compare the level of competition between states like Florida/Texas/Cali and states like Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming overall. There is no doubt that overall the better players come from the first three. You also said Andrew Green might not have played "the best competition." But really, it doesn't get much better than Texas high schools for competition.

I agree that players who are very good from states like NE for instance may not be rated high simply because they don't face good competition and they may be penalized in the ranking systems for this. But my thought is that coaches can usually spot potential and who can make up that disadvantage by learning and adjusting at FBS schools.

I'm a bit of a star-gazer, but I also think that it's important to get the players that fit your system even if that means they aren't necessarily highly rated. I really feel like Bo and Co. have a great ability to pick out talent that may fly under the radar, or kids who can mature and grow into better players.

There are numerous studies about child prodigies or extremely good soccer players (there's a study on European soccer academies and who gets chosen). Most often it is simply that the person develops faster than his peers and thus looks like a 5 star player when by the time he gets into FBS competition he may not pan out. I think that happens quite frequently with rating systems. Keep in mind a lot of these kids are looked at and rated when they are 16,17,18 years old and may not be done growing/maturing. Once they grow, put on muscle, and undergo the nutrition/weight lifting/training regiment that universities provide they might be better than players that were ranked higher out of high school.

Stars do not mean everything, but I do think they are about as good a gauge as you can get for rating prospective talent. Whether or not players get better depends on work ethic, training, nutrition, desire, and a lot of other factors. So far I'm happy both with Bo and Co.'s ability to pick talent and to develop talent.

Once we get more wins and recognition, we'll get better talent and more athleticism.

Excellent point.

This also supports the argument that it is important for Rivals to evaluate the offers that a recruit has. They rely heavily on the staff's ability to identify kids that can mature into quality players. Multiple staffs identify this in a kid, and then Rivals can pick up on it from the offer count/quality and adjust accordingly after a more in depth review.

I think the a major flaw in the system revolves around early commits. It isn't always the case, but a kid that commits early to Nebraska, and doesn't send out tape...sending a clear signal that they aren't interested in other programs or any of the recruiting "process" is often negatively impacted in the rankings. They have fewer offers, and limitted exposure. Sometimes these are your "under the radar" guys...but in reality they never flew under the radar, the staff just identified them and jumped on board early. Bo is doing a good job offering first.

So here is the rub, if the Rating Services are so dependent on the Coaching Staffs to evaluate talent, why do we put so much importance on them? If the Coach seems to be pretty good at picking out talent, why bother looking at how a class is rated because in reality it is the Coaches that make the ratings work?

We mentioned several reasons that recruits get overlooked: smaller pop talent gets penalized or overlooked, players commit early and don't send out film to get rated, character and want to are hard to evaluate most times, etc. On top of all of this, we have all said, at least from what I can tell, that the Coaches are the real experts. Why then do people get upset when Coaches offer someone like Cotton? The young man didn't send any film out what so ever, he also plays in a small population state. Those were mentioned as some of the more common reasons that good talent gets overlooked. Why is more importance placed on how Rivals or Scout views the young man as compared to a well qualified Coach who has access to evaluate that player much more thoroughly than the services can?

 

[caveman99]

--double--

 

[redout22]

So you want to debate the relevancy of the Stars Ranking Systems?

I wouldnt say so much as to debate it Cave as I was trying to point out some flaws.

Oh ok, I got you know. Does any site do a re-ranking of classes 4 or 5 years later, what about just 2 years later? Not sure how you attempt that.

I know scout did that for both the 2004 and 2005 classes. So you can look there if you want to.

 

[TheCheshireCat]

It's a flawed system there's no doubt. A 3 star may be better than a 5 star in the end for a variety of reasons that have already been covered. It's just hard to say who will end up being a huge impact and who won't. I don't think Rivals is perfect by any means, but most of the time, you would take a 5 star player over a 3 star player. Until they get a better method, this is it.

 

[HuskerGBR]

It isn't a perfect system for sure. But it does a pretty good job of just measuring pure talent, which is something I think most people forget. Talent only takes you so far...the rest of the way is dedication, heart, strong work ethic, and coaching. That is why walk-ons are big for our program. These are kids that just want to put on that helmet and represent Nebraska. They give everything they have just to be apart of it and that makes them pretty dangerous men.

I have always felt that the bigger high school programs that produce these 5 star kids only give them that extra knowledge, training, and experience that makes them ready to play college football right when they come in. For the lower star guys...they just need more work right away to get them up to speed with others. There are exceptions of course. In some cases work and dedication is far superior to the talent. They work their butts off, but just can't get there because talent is lacking. The trick is to really get to know the kids character and talent...you go from there.