Stars

[EZ-E]

This isn’t going to be a debate where you say “oh look at so-n-so! He was only a 3 star kid and he is playing in the NFL now!” It is going to be a post based on logical and critical thinking (which I am big on). It is not meant to crucify the stars system either.

 

Now; The stars are said to be determined on the stats of a player, his measurable, his NFL potential, etc. It seems that whenever the University of Florida throws an offer to a kid he is automatically ranked no lower than 4 stars. Does that make him better than a kid from Texas or California that is only a 3 star kid? Absolutely not.

 

Another component of the stars ranking is the LEVEL OF COMPETITION THAT ONE PLAYS. With that said one would think that is it very tough to gauge how Texas talent matches up with California talent and so on wouldn’t it? So is the LEVEL OF COMPETITION THAT ONE PLAYS an accurate way to rank a prospect nationally? Not in the least bit.

Would any of you trade Andrew Green for a higher ranked kid? I wouldn’t. He was a kid that came in and from day one challenged for a starting spot. How many freshman do we see come in and do that in a big time program like ours? Not many but this three star kid came in and did it. Could he have been held back from rivals based on “Not playing the best competition.” He very well could have been.

 

There are others across the board like Andrew Green. But this was the best recent example that I could find.

 

Are there others that the rivals system made perfect evaluations on? Absolutely. Reggie Bush came in from day one and was a game changer as was Demarrio Williams.

 

My point is that you have to look at the complete package. Not just the stars. There are guys that Rivals just cant get a good read on. Rivals isnt Gospel.

[EZ-E]

double

[caveman99]

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

[EZ-E]

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.

[caveman99]

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.

[kchusker_chris]

...certainly not gospel, but they usually get the "larger" picture right. they might not be able to guage each individual player 100% accurate, but as a whole...their class rankings fall into line more often that not.

 

I think we put too much emphasis on each individual players ranking. Not to mention, more times than not examples used to "validate" the argument that stars don't matter are defensive backs, linemen, etc. Rivals does a fairly solid job guaging their playmakers and difference makers. In the last decade, teams that win national championships include these type of guys.

 

Florida: Percy Harvin (5 stars), Tim Tebow (5), Brandon Spikes (5), Carlos Dunlap (5)

Alabama: Trent Richardson (5), Julio Jones (5), Mark Ingram (4), Marq. Maze (actually was a 3 star)

 

We can certainly build a team around 3 and 4 star players...but we need those big playmakers that can change a game. Those highly ranked players (Ndamukong Suh (4)) that can control a game. Not a whole team, but a few.

 

10 years ago the argument stars didn't matter easily held up. 5 years ago it was very debateable. In todays world where information is at everyones fingertips...it's much easier to guage talent. It's also much easier to discover talent. Those "diamond in the rough" guys are going to be fewer and fewer because if you're "that" good -- someone's going to post about you, someones going to contact coaches...you'll get discovered. It's also exponentially easier to contact coaches as a recruit, to get your name out there, get your film discovered. The days of mailing VHS tapes is over. And quite frankly, the days of saying stars don't matter is over. Misguaged talent is becoming the exception, not the norm.

[caveman99]

kchusker, I agree that the ratings services seem to do an ok job in evaluating talent overall when you look at the class rankings as compared to where teams finished up. I think a point EZ brought up that doesn't get enough consideration is how much emphasis do these services place on the evaluations of the high profile staffs? It seems that when a USC or Florida offer a young man, 4 or 5 stars just follow. It is really hard to determine how independent those ratings really are.

[EZ-E]

They also talk about the level of competition that they play. Granted I know a kid from Nebraska doesnt play the same type of kids a kid from Texas plays, but on a national level how do you determine who played the best competition?

[kchusker_chris]

Yeah, I wonder that sometimes as well.

 

There are 130+ programs out there, lets say 25 of them are "elite" programs. That means there are around 1300 "talent evaluators" on the staffs, and 250 of them are "elite" tallent evaluators. Rivals is a LONG ways from having that many scouts...so why wouldn't they follow the coaches positive evaluations (which is essentially what an offer confirms). If a kid has 10 offers from elite programs, that means that more than likely almost 100 coaches have reviewed film, evaluated other areas, and decided to invest over $100k in the kid.

 

We argue all the time "trust what Bo is doing" - isn't that what Rivals is doing? Trusting the coaching staff's of Florida, USC, Alabama? The difference between those schools, and NU is that they've earned that trust by winning games and championships. Bo hasn't yet. They probably have to do a lot more research evalluating the tallent we are after, than they do Florida's.

 

 

Just another perspective.

[kchusker_chris]

They also talk about the level of competition that they play. Granted I know a kid from Nebraska doesnt play the same type of kids a kid from Texas plays, but on a national level how do you determine who played the best competition?

 

 

 

I'd argue that competition comes with region population. With region population comes opportunity. With oportunity comes improved skills.

 

How many small town's have summer programs, and pop-warner football more organized than most high school programs. cities have this. villages don't.

[EZ-E]

They also talk about the level of competition that they play. Granted I know a kid from Nebraska doesnt play the same type of kids a kid from Texas plays, but on a national level how do you determine who played the best competition?

 

 

 

I'd argue that competition comes with region population. With region population comes opportunity. With oportunity comes improved skills.

 

How many small town's have summer programs, and pop-warner football more organized than most high school programs. cities have this. villages don't.

 

I understand that as I addressed that in the post that you quoted. What I am saying is that there isnt a good indicator to rank prospects nationally based on level of competition because you cant compare the level of competition between states like Florida and California.

[caveman99]

The big flaw though in the rankings is that they don't/can't measure a person's want to or toughness. Those factors play a big factor in how well a young man will turn out as a player. I think that the services place a higher value on the level of HS competition in evaluations because of this, but that alone doesn't tell you the story. That evaluation criteria leads to undervaluing players at smaller schools, I think this is where a whole lot of misses occur.

[RockyMountainOySker]

They also talk about the level of competition that they play. Granted I know a kid from Nebraska doesnt play the same type of kids a kid from Texas plays, but on a national level how do you determine who played the best competition?

 

 

 

I'd argue that competition comes with region population. With region population comes opportunity. With oportunity comes improved skills.

 

How many small town's have summer programs, and pop-warner football more organized than most high school programs. cities have this. villages don't.

 

I understand that as I addressed that in the post that you quoted. What I am saying is that there isnt a good indicator to rank prospects nationally based on level of competition because you cant compare the level of competition between states like Florida and California.

 

The only way is using a few states as a base for the best quality football (in some persons opinion)...which is what rivals/scout seem to do. Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Cali tend to get the highest marks. Comparing these states with each other (Georgia vs. Cali, etc) is very hard to do and comparing states like Maryland to Lousiana is basically impossible.

 

I am definitely on the side of stars are a place to start for fans like us. Only coaches like Lane Kiffin look at star ratings.

 

I argued in a different thread that Cooper will be a better player than Bronson Marsh b/c of potential. I looked more at who's offered Cooper (everyone) vs. who's offered Marsh (no one).

 

As a fan, you have to put everything together to really get a sense of how good a prospect could be. Start with the stars given by rivals/scout, then start looking at things like offer lists, then measurables, etc.

 

There is not a perfect system for rating kids and probably never will be.

 

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

[caveman99]

The services also don't really give you a true ranking of the incoming talent because they give their final evaluations right after signing day. They don't account for non-qualifiers or late signees, like Brown to TU. It skews the rankings. MU has the 15th best class per Rivals right now, but 2 of their 4 Star prospects most likely won't qualify. Does that mean that MU's class is still better than NU's or the others below it? I also think the point system lends itself to rate bigger classes better, which is also a big misrepresentation IMO.

[caveman99]

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.