5 Stars doesn't mean greatness

[Captain K]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness. The fans who use it for that purpose are making a mistake. Some of these kids are just naturally bigger and stronger and faster than other kids their age, it's the five star player that is willing to work as hard as his 2,3 and 4 star teammates that is the sure thing. Unfortunately, some of these kids don't have the determination to work hard or have let the recruiting service hype go to their head. Give me 25 D1 prospects who are hard working-non quitters and I'll take it every time.

[Husker4lif3]

I thought it was weird how Kingle was number 8, like Owa is on Rivals. Although he isnt as highly rated on scouts, he is the number 8 overall Defensive End. I thought that was odd, especially since Kindle and Owa seem to have the same style of play; pass rushing with some speed to go with it.

[huskers17]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness. The fans who use it for that purpose are making a mistake. Some of these kids are just naturally bigger and stronger and faster than other kids their age, it's the five star player that is willing to work as hard as his 2,3 and 4 star teammates that is the sure thing. Unfortunately, some of these kids don't have the determination to work hard or have let the recruiting service hype go to their head. Give me 25 D1 prospects who are hard working-non quitters and I'll take it every time.

 

I agree to an extent, but I do think the star rankings take a lot of projection to the next level into consideration. Otherwise, why would Tyler Gabbert be a 4* prospect with the numbers he put up? Why wouldn't a kid like Godfrey who tore up Texas 3A ball be highly rated? It's not purely a ranking of the best high school players.

[Ohio Pete]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness.

Actually I think that is their exact intention. They are rating potential. Otherwise the 6' QB with 3000 yds would be highly rated instead of struggling for attention. Hell, a 4 OT last year or the year before out of Ohio had only played 1 game and was getting big time hype because of his measurables.

 

But much like the NFL draft, it is an inexact science thus the frequent misses.

[Captain K]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness. The fans who use it for that purpose are making a mistake. Some of these kids are just naturally bigger and stronger and faster than other kids their age, it's the five star player that is willing to work as hard as his 2,3 and 4 star teammates that is the sure thing. Unfortunately, some of these kids don't have the determination to work hard or have let the recruiting service hype go to their head. Give me 25 D1 prospects who are hard working-non quitters and I'll take it every time.

 

I agree to an extent, but I do think the star rankings take a lot of projection to the next level into consideration. Otherwise, why would Tyler Gabbert be a 4* prospect with the numbers he put up? Why wouldn't a kid like Godfrey who tore up Texas 3A ball be highly rated? It's not purely a ranking of the best high school players.

I said they get the ratings for their play up to that point, not the statistics. If a guy can throw a rope 40 yards downfield on a crossing route and hit the receiver in stride, that projects to possible success in college. If his high school team doesn't throw much and he doesn't throw for 300 a game should the same player not be as highly thought of? What about great players that play for pathetic high school programs? If they go 1-9 on the season, should they get two stars at the most? Yes, they are predicting their college greatness, notice I said predicting, by what they saw in high school and any camps attended during their h.s. careers. Actually, I believe their final ranking could be affected by who offers them a scholarship also. But in the end all they have to go by is how they have played up until that point, anything else would be guessing.

[Captain K]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness.

Actually I think that is their exact intention. They are rating potential. Otherwise the 6' QB with 3000 yds would be highly rated instead of struggling for attention. Hell, a 4 OT last year or the year before out of Ohio had only played 1 game and was getting big time hype because of his measurables.

 

But much like the NFL draft, it is an inexact science thus the frequent misses.

If this is true, then following recruiting is a bigger waste of time than I originally suspected.

[zoogs]

you wont talk these guys that are out to destroy the star ranking system into understanding that they are completely wrong.

 

5 stars equal higher success rate. simple as that.

And those of us who think the stars are bunk can't convince the star worshipers either.

 

Recruiting rankings are first and foremost a business. simple as that.

 

I think we all realize that "5 stars doesn't mean greatness", that it's inexact, and that of course, business and other motivations are factored in.

 

But if this is being presented as an argument that 'stars are bunk', it's really uninspiring. It's saying, "42% of 5-stars are successes." Compared to...? 15% of 4-stars? 5% of 3-stars? The argument being used to support the thesis actually flies in its face.

[huskers17]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness. The fans who use it for that purpose are making a mistake. Some of these kids are just naturally bigger and stronger and faster than other kids their age, it's the five star player that is willing to work as hard as his 2,3 and 4 star teammates that is the sure thing. Unfortunately, some of these kids don't have the determination to work hard or have let the recruiting service hype go to their head. Give me 25 D1 prospects who are hard working-non quitters and I'll take it every time.

 

I agree to an extent, but I do think the star rankings take a lot of projection to the next level into consideration. Otherwise, why would Tyler Gabbert be a 4* prospect with the numbers he put up? Why wouldn't a kid like Godfrey who tore up Texas 3A ball be highly rated? It's not purely a ranking of the best high school players.

I said they get the ratings for their play up to that point, not the statistics. If a guy can throw a rope 40 yards downfield on a crossing route and hit the receiver in stride, that projects to possible success in college. If his high school team doesn't throw much and he doesn't throw for 300 a game should the same player not be as highly thought of? What about great players that play for pathetic high school programs? If they go 1-9 on the season, should they get two stars at the most? Yes, they are predicting their college greatness, notice I said predicting, by what they saw in high school and any camps attended during their h.s. careers. Actually, I believe their final ranking could be affected by who offers them a scholarship also. But in the end all they have to go by is how they have played up until that point, anything else would be guessing.

 

So are you saying the ratings are based off of their talent, and not necessarily the statistics, correct? If so, I'd argue that if you are basing ratings off of a player's talent (arm strength, speed, etc) then you, in essence, are rating them based on their projection to the next level. Talent is the best indicator of next level success, whether you want to believe that or not. Yes, the player must also be willing to work hard and have the right attitude to build upon that talent, but if the talent is there, that's one less hurdle to climb.

[NoKoolAidForME]

you wont talk these guys that are out to destroy the star ranking system into understanding that they are completely wrong.

 

5 stars equal higher success rate. simple as that.

And those of us who think the stars are bunk can't convince the star worshipers either.

 

Recruiting rankings are first and foremost a business. simple as that.

 

I think we all realize that "5 stars doesn't mean greatness", that it's inexact, and that of course, business and other motivations are factored in.

 

But if this is being presented as an argument that 'stars are bunk', it's really uninspiring. It's saying, "42% of 5-stars are successes." Compared to...? 15% of 4-stars? 5% of 3-stars? The argument being used to support the thesis actually flies in its face.

I have alway felt people over look the amount of 3 and 4 star athletes there are compared to 5 stars. I said in another post if you have 50 5 stars players compared to 500 total 3 and 4 star players; and they have the same percentage become succesful (which it never is)the 3 and 4 stars would have more because they had a bigger number to pull from to begin with.

[Captain K]

A player gets a five star ranking for his play in high school and that is it. It is a recruiting service for earmarking college players, but it isn't intended to predict college greatness. The fans who use it for that purpose are making a mistake. Some of these kids are just naturally bigger and stronger and faster than other kids their age, it's the five star player that is willing to work as hard as his 2,3 and 4 star teammates that is the sure thing. Unfortunately, some of these kids don't have the determination to work hard or have let the recruiting service hype go to their head. Give me 25 D1 prospects who are hard working-non quitters and I'll take it every time.

 

I agree to an extent, but I do think the star rankings take a lot of projection to the next level into consideration. Otherwise, why would Tyler Gabbert be a 4* prospect with the numbers he put up? Why wouldn't a kid like Godfrey who tore up Texas 3A ball be highly rated? It's not purely a ranking of the best high school players.

I said they get the ratings for their play up to that point, not the statistics. If a guy can throw a rope 40 yards downfield on a crossing route and hit the receiver in stride, that projects to possible success in college. If his high school team doesn't throw much and he doesn't throw for 300 a game should the same player not be as highly thought of? What about great players that play for pathetic high school programs? If they go 1-9 on the season, should they get two stars at the most? Yes, they are predicting their college greatness, notice I said predicting, by what they saw in high school and any camps attended during their h.s. careers. Actually, I believe their final ranking could be affected by who offers them a scholarship also. But in the end all they have to go by is how they have played up until that point, anything else would be guessing.

 

So are you saying the ratings are based off of their talent, and not necessarily the statistics, correct? If so, I'd argue that if you are basing ratings off of a player's talent (arm strength, speed, etc) then you, in essence, are rating them based on their projection to the next level. Talent is the best indicator of next level success, whether you want to believe that or not. Yes, the player must also be willing to work hard and have the right attitude to build upon that talent, but if the talent is there, that's one less hurdle to climb.

My point was that the recruiting experts don't know everything about the kid. They see them play during high school and camps and determine whether they have what it takes to play in college. They don't see and in most cases even have a clue what type of person they are. The attitude, party habits and work ethic etc. of the kid are unknown, therefore no one knows what the kid will do in college. I don't think my original post suggested that they aren't projecting the player's talent to the next level, just that they are only working with less than all of the info needed to predict success. I think that if you asked Lemming, Crabtree or Wallace "hey you have Jones as the only 5* DE, he'll be the best DE in college ball in 4 years?" The answer wouldn't be a flat out "yes, no chance anyone could be better." Rather he would say he is the best high school senior DE headed to college.

 

My definition of predict is "something that will happen." I think maybe this is where I was misunderstood. Even predicting the ''possibility of'' is another animal. Does this make any sense?

[epocSoN]

I haven't read any of the posts on this topic but the very first, and I refuse to continue arguing about it.

[huskers17]

I get what you are saying, but it kind of goes without saying that there are many other factors in a player's development than we have access to. That is what makes recruiting so entertaining...it's an inexact science for sure. Personally, I think that's why we have to trust that the coaches have done their homework on each player they target.

 

So yes, the ranking isn't a guarantee of which player will be the best in college, but it's certainly a situation where the higher rated guys are much more likely to attain greatness. Just because someone's a 5 star doesn't mean they'll be good, or even useful, just like being a 1 star player doesn't prevent someone from becoming a major stud.

 

I think you are just taking the star rankings too literally. Yes there are some questionable issues when it comes to this stuff, but all in all, the services do a pretty good job (at least as good as anyone else with the same amount of info)

[Deafy1289]

But nigerian players with crazy names that are :star :star or better have been pretty good for us.

[default_28]

I haven't read any of the posts on this topic but the very first, and I refuse to continue arguing about it.

I agree. No point arguing. In the end nobody would be upset if we had the number one class in the country according to Rivals, but some people would be upset if we had the fiftieth ranked class.

[RedDenver]

you wont talk these guys that are out to destroy the star ranking system into understanding that they are completely wrong.

 

5 stars equal higher success rate. simple as that.

And those of us who think the stars are bunk can't convince the star worshipers either.

 

Recruiting rankings are first and foremost a business. simple as that.

 

I think we all realize that "5 stars doesn't mean greatness", that it's inexact, and that of course, business and other motivations are factored in.

 

But if this is being presented as an argument that 'stars are bunk', it's really uninspiring. It's saying, "42% of 5-stars are successes." Compared to...? 15% of 4-stars? 5% of 3-stars? The argument being used to support the thesis actually flies in its face.

I'm not trying to form a "good" argument against stars. I'm just showing that the poster I replied to has an equally uninspiring statement. As several others, on both sides of the argument, have said, there's not much point continuing to argue as neither side is doing much to convince the other.