Back testing Rivals.com ratings

[JTempl]

It seems people on this board, myself included, have become very "star" obsessed. I know the first question I ask when I hear of a new NU recruit is "how many stars?". Out of pure curiosity, I wanted to see how accurately the rivals stars predict future success. I think this is fairly telling...and pretty interesting. The relevance of this is questionable, but if you are a recruiting nerd like myself, you might enjoy this. I took this years AP all-american first team, and went to rivals to see how many stars each player was given when they were recruited. I thought it was very interesting that there are more 2-star players on the All-American team (7) then 5-star players (4).

 

Offense

QB Tim Tebow - *****

RB Darren McFadden - *****

RB Kevin Smith - **

WR Michael Crabtree - ****

WR Jordy Nelson - **

OL Jake Long - ****

OL Anthony Collins - **

OL Duke Robinson - ****

OL Martin O'Donnell - *****

OL Steve Justice - ***

TE Martin Rucker - ***

All Purpose - Jeremy Maclin - ****

K - Thomas Weber - **

 

Offense average stars: 3.46

 

Defense

DL - Chris Long - ****

DL - George Selvie - **

DL - Glenn Dorsey -****

DL - Sedrick Ellis - ****

LB - Dan Connor - *****

LB - James Laurinaitis - ***

LB - Jordan Dizon - ***

CB - Aqib Talib - **

CB - Antoine Cason - ***

S - Craig Steltz - ****

S - Jamie Silva - **

 

Defense average stars: 3.27

 

Total team average: 3.38 stars

 

NU 2008 class so far averages 3.17 stars.

[bigahusker]

Great analysis! Perfect day to do it when there is nothing on TV. I can't wait til August 30!

[Husker_x]

And let's not forget the star system contains a pretty inherent fallacy. I'd say in 99 cases out of 100, coaching is the determining factor in the performance (or lack of one) in a recruit, be he a two or a five star. The star system represents nothing less than a vain attempt to simplify a game which is not simple. The performances of so-called five-star players are also conditional, once you take into account factors outside their control. Perhaps they play early, perhaps they don't; it's completely dependent upon team needs, injuries, dispositions of coaches, etc. This then leads into their development.

 

Bottom line, the star system leaves out more than it includes, and it completely foregoes intangibles. What kind of rating would you give a kid who works his ass off vs. one who just sits there and cruises? Or what graph could you point to that foretells the moment where a running back of 18 is born as he sits in his coach's office and is told the team is going to be looking to him to carry the season now that the starter has torn his ACL?

 

Being that football contains just as many mental aspects as physical, I can hardly see why the star system is given any credence whatsoever. And by the looks of it, our staff doesn't give it much.

 

X

[JTempl]

And let's not forget the star system contains a pretty inherent fallacy. I'd say in 99 cases out of 100, coaching is the determining factor in the performance (or lack of one) in a recruit, be he a two or a five star. The star system represents nothing less than a vain attempt to simplify a game which is not simple. The performances of so-called five-star players are also conditional, once you take into account factors outside their control. Perhaps they play early, perhaps they don't; it's completely dependent upon team needs, injuries, dispositions of coaches, etc. This then leads into their development.

 

Bottom line, the star system leaves out more than it includes, and it completely foregoes intangibles. What kind of rating would you give a kid who works his ass off vs. one who just sits there and cruises? Or what graph could you point to that foretells the moment where a running back of 18 is born as he sits in his coach's office and is told the team is going to be looking to him to carry the season now that the starter has torn his ACL?

 

Being that football contains just as many mental aspects as physical, I can hardly see why the star system is given any credence whatsoever. And by the looks of it, our staff doesn't give it much.

 

X

 

agree. good points, all of them. But as nearly usless as they are, I still ind my self "star chasing", hoping NU lands that next high profile guy. Human nature I guess.

[NostraDumbAss]

While this is interesting, I would like to know how many 5 star players were there that did not make this list and who they were.

 

This tells us there were four 5 star players that actually panned out, but it fails to tell us how many did not. If they only picked five 5 star players and 4 made the list, then I am impressed. However, if they picked fifty 5 star players and only four made it, then why even care?

[NU fan in Denver]

It seems that rivals picks 27 to 30 5 star players a year. If that is the case and there are 4 classes to choose from then that is 5 out of 108 or 4.6%. But that isn't completely accurate because some younger 5 star players may still make it. More research is needed to come to a conclusion.

[JTempl]

While this is interesting, I would like to know how many 5 star players were there that did not make this list and who they were.

 

This tells us there were four 5 star players that actually panned out, but it fails to tell us how many did not. If they only picked five 5 star players and 4 made the list, then I am impressed. However, if they picked fifty 5 star players and only four made it, then why even care?

 

I guess more than anything this tells me that the number of stars does not predict success. Performance in high school and physical attributes of a 17 year boy are only a small portion of what makes for a outstanding college player. Coaching, conditioning, maturity (physical and mental), etc. make up a much larger portion. Rivals and services like that are great for entrertainment value, but that's about the extent of it.