New Nebraska Recruiting Record

[Hilltop]

58 minutes ago, BackInTheDay said:

I am of the opinion that coaching plus strength and conditioning trumps all the stars ever given out.  Some may get the vapors when I mention Pelini, but he took a bench warming wide receiver in Stanley Jean-Baptiste and made him into a NFL caliber cornerback.  (2nd round pick).  Also, does anybody remember how many stars Danny Woodhead had going in the recruiting season?

 

It's not where one starts out, it's where one ends up.  So I will, for my part, ignore all talk of "good recruiting classes" or "poor recruiting classes" and wait to see what the finished product looks like on the field...but it IS the off season, so knock yourselves out.  It passes the time.

The occasional low star kid does turn into a superstar but it's a much lower percentage than the highly touted kids %.  The stars have become somewhat of a game but they do have real measurable data behind them as well.  Physical size can't be coached.  Quickness, overall speed, and athleticism can be coached to a degree but a recruit that has it coming in is at a distinct advantage.  The more of those big, fast, athletic kids you have, the higher likelihood that a few of them realize their potential and become great at the college level.  As Nebfanatic pointed out above, it's hard to find an example of a championship team that didn't have multiple highly ranked classes leading up to the title run.  Recruiting matters. 

[84HuskerLaw]

8 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

The occasional low star kid does turn into a superstar but it's a much lower percentage than the highly touted kids %.  The stars have become somewhat of a game but they do have real measurable data behind them as well.  Physical size can't be coached.  Quickness, overall speed, and athleticism can be coached to a degree but a recruit that has it coming in is at a distinct advantage.  The more of those big, fast, athletic kids you have, the higher likelihood that a few of them realize their potential and become great at the college level.  As Nebfanatic pointed out above, it's hard to find an example of a championship team that didn't have multiple highly ranked classes leading up to the title run.  Recruiting matters. 

Are there good studies using about ten years of data on rivals recruiting ratings of all players across all teams to show how good (or not) their player ratings actually are by results?

Seems like something that avid number crunching geeks and gamblers would take the time to

do.   
I’m curious as to what the average rating was for all NFL players over time is and for the top 20 college teams.  
I’ve little doubt about the numbers but really is there a really strong correlation of rivals rating to becoming all conference level player?  
if so then it’s a no brainer that Frost should recruit ONLY by the stars and eliminate three stars or below. 
then what fraction of starters in power 5 schools are 5 star.  4 star 3 star etc.  

I have a hunch there are more low 3s or less than above.  ?

 

 

 

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

 

I have a hunch there are more low 3s or less than above.  ?

 

That's because there are by far more 3 star recruits than 4 and 5 star. You have to look at the percentages. Something like 50% of 5 star players are taken in the NFL draft. That number drops drastically for 3 stars

[N is for nowledge]

6 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Are there good studies using about ten years of data on rivals recruiting ratings of all players across all teams to show how good (or not) their player ratings actually are by results?

Seems like something that avid number crunching geeks and gamblers would take the time to

do.   
I’m curious as to what the average rating was for all NFL players over time is and for the top 20 college teams.  
I’ve little doubt about the numbers but really is there a really strong correlation of rivals rating to becoming all conference level player?  
if so then it’s a no brainer that Frost should recruit ONLY by the stars and eliminate three stars or below. 
then what fraction of starters in power 5 schools are 5 star.  4 star 3 star etc.  

I have a hunch there are more low 3s or less than above.  ?

 

 

 

It’s not so much one class but a string of classes to account for attrition and misses  in recruiting.  Does development matter yes, but recruiting matters more....60/40 maybe even 70/30.  If I recall correctly all four teams in the playoff this year have finished recruiting rankings inside the top ten with 3 I believe inside the top 5.  Yes, recruiting matters.  

 

And to to add a bit more to this... that’s why I’m so excited about the walkon pgm frost has going.  He’s getting kids that with development will make you question the rating but hey are the exception not the rule and should be applauded.  The difference between no and frost is bo offered these kids scholarships Frost is getting them to walkon.

[Nebfanatic]

https://247sports.com/Article/NFL-Draft-recruiting-rankings-go-hand-in-hand--117819292/

 

 

[84HuskerLaw]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

That's because there are by far more 3 star recruits than 4 and 5 star. You have to look at the percentages. Something like 50% of 5 star players are taken in the NFL draft. That number drops drastically for 3 stars

I get this.  But I can probably look at the local newspaper reports to find out who the “star” players are. In recruiting rating presumably they are much more serious. Just trying to get accuracy.  We all know they miss some diamonds in the rough but how many kids are actually even evaluated seriously by rivals or ESPN ?  20%?   Less?

i hope NU does exhaustive searching on their own and doesn’t give much weight to “the experts” UNLESS the actually are proven right a high percentage of the time. 

[Nebfanatic]

8 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I get this.  But I can probably look at the local newspaper reports to find out who the “star” players are. In recruiting rating presumably they are much more serious. Just trying to get accuracy.  We all know they miss some diamonds in the rough but how many kids are actually even evaluated seriously by rivals or ESPN ?  20%?   Less?

i hope NU does exhaustive searching on their own and doesn’t give much weight to “the experts” UNLESS the actually are proven right a high percentage of the time. 

Read the article I just posted. Like 60% of 5 stars were drafted and only 2 % of the 3 star players were drafted. There is a bunch of other data too, like what N for Nowledge said. Only 1 team in the history of the playoff hasn't recruited a top 10 class leading up to their playoff run, and that team was Michigan State who got embarrassed. The recruiting experts are pretty good at their jobs.

[Huckleberry Muhammad]

15 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I get this.  But I can probably look at the local newspaper reports to find out who the “star” players are. In recruiting rating presumably they are much more serious. Just trying to get accuracy.  We all know they miss some diamonds in the rough but how many kids are actually even evaluated seriously by rivals or ESPN ?  20%?   Less?

i hope NU does exhaustive searching on their own and doesn’t give much weight to “the experts” UNLESS the actually are proven right a high percentage of the time. 

 

My question is probably answerable by studying up on this:  What is the criteria on "star earning" for these kids in high school?  How does rivals dot come et al attach these stars to certain players?  I know it is relied upon by all concerned including coaches (obviously).  Are they wrong at times?  Is there margin for error?  I know that performance from one level (high school) to the next (college or jc) can be different challenge-wise, so do they gain/lose stars? 

[Nebfanatic]

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry Muhammad said:

 

My question is probably answerable by studying up on this:  What is the criteria on "star earning" for these kids in high school?  How does rivals dot come et al attach these stars to certain players?  I know it is relied upon by all concerned including coaches (obviously).  Are they wrong at times?  Is there margin for error?  I know that performance from one level (high school) to the next (college or jc) can be different challenge-wise, so do they gain/lose stars? 

 

30 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

https://247sports.com/Article/NFL-Draft-recruiting-rankings-go-hand-in-hand--117819292/

"The Top247 rankings are annually based on the NFL Draft. There are 32 five-star players in each recruiting class to mirror the first round of the draft, because the NFL Draft is the only real definable way to measure the success of said ranking and projection. It gives rankings a baseline, a target to shoot for. "

 

 

[84HuskerLaw]

14 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

 

 

 

So - they arbitrarily assign ratings on a curve vs actually evaluating raw talent?   Hmm.  
Seems more logical to rate on a fixed scale or formula of hard factual data such as height, weight, speed / quickness, agility, etc. add some weight for grades, character, statistical performance, experience, the “eye” test etc.  

Seems like there would be a variation in numbers of players and stars etc.  probably maybe just use a number system and give their raw scores.  
kids could go to area testing sites and get measured etc. not just camps.  - open to all comers so to speak.   Just thoughts I suppose.  
serms more scientific than just rather isolated areas etc.  

?
 

 

[Husker in WI]

3 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

So - they arbitrarily assign ratings on a curve vs actually evaluating raw talent?   Hmm.  
Seems more logical to rate on a fixed scale or formula of hard factual data such as height, weight, speed / quickness, agility, etc. add some weight for grades, character, statistical performance, experience, the “eye” test etc.  

Seems like there would be a variation in numbers of players and stars etc.  probably maybe just use a number system and give their raw scores.  
kids could go to area testing sites and get measured etc. not just camps.  - open to all comers so to speak.   Just thoughts I suppose.  
serms more scientific than just rather isolated areas etc. 

 

Do you not consider character, experience, and eye test measurements arbitrary? It's literally what they do, and the hard data is considered. There is no perfect system because a some of it is subjective, but they know what they're doing. The do give them raw scores, and then stars are a range in the raw scores. Camps are the testing sites - so they pretty much do what you're saying.

[BIG ERN]

The biggest factor will always be size/speed/physicality. You go and watch high school games and the 5* players seem 5 years older than everyone else on the field. 
 

[Nebfanatic]

15 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

So - they arbitrarily assign ratings on a curve vs actually evaluating raw talent?   Hmm.  
Seems more logical to rate on a fixed scale or formula of hard factual data such as height, weight, speed / quickness, agility, etc. add some weight for grades, character, statistical performance, experience, the “eye” test etc.  

Seems like there would be a variation in numbers of players and stars etc.  probably maybe just use a number system and give their raw scores.  
kids could go to area testing sites and get measured etc. not just camps.  - open to all comers so to speak.   Just thoughts I suppose.  
serms more scientific than just rather isolated areas etc.  

?
 

 

Did you not read the article? I think the key takeaway is 19 of 32 5 stars were drafted. 100 or so out of 2000+ 3 star players were drafted. They clearly know what they are doing and I am not going to question methods that produce such accurate results. 

[Nebfanatic]

Obviously coaches aren't going to rely solely on these rankings. There are so many other factors that come into play when targeting recruits. But that doesn't change the fact that the teams that win the most often times recruit the best according to online recruiting services. 

[junior4949]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

Read the article I just posted. Like 60% of 5 stars were drafted and only 2 % of the 3 star players were drafted. There is a bunch of other data too, like what N for Nowledge said. Only 1 team in the history of the playoff hasn't recruited a top 10 class leading up to their playoff run, and that team was Michigan State who got embarrassed. The recruiting experts are pretty good at their jobs.

 

Considering some of the lopsided losses we've seen thus far in the college football playoffs, I'm not sure the bolded really needs to be mentioned.  I get this is a thread about recruiting, and I get that you're trying to prove a point.  However, was Michigan State's loss any more embarrassing than Ohio State's in 17'? 

 

I think if we're being honest with ourselves, our program is a lot more similar to Michigan State than it is to any other team that has made the playoffs.  We have a pretty good recruiting class coming in, yet it still isn't a top 10 class.  If we're going to draw that line in the sand, then it might just be best that we keep our hopes and dreams in check of simply winning our division.