5 Stars doesn't mean greatness

:yeah I was going to say that percentage of guys who are all-american or likely 1st or 2nd round picks is pretty good.
 
You have to look at the situation that they walked into though IMO. Zach Bowman and Andre Jones were both 5 star kids but they played for Cosgrove. Were they going to get any better? No. If they would be in this class would they get better and would we be excited? You bet they/we would.

 
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.

 
husker B-rent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep. Having 5 stars certainly isn't a guarantee of greatness . . . but proportionally more 5 stars will be great than 4, 3, or 2 stars.

 
husker B-rent said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
carlfense said:
husker B-rent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep. Having 5 stars certainly isn't a guarantee of greatness . . . but proportionally more 5 stars will be great than 4, 3, or 2 stars.
Click to expand...
yup, but it's important to remember that you can still build an elite team by selecting the correct players with lower ratings. it all comes down to knowing exactly what you are looking for and then landing the kids you want most, regardless of the number of stars they have.

 
RedDenver said:
Recruiting rankings are first and foremost a business. simple as that.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I think Crabtree does a pretty good job of accessing talent; but when it comes to where he thinks the kid will end up he will tell you what you want to hear to sell his subscriptions.

 
And also to be fair some of the players they listed as "Not Quite" were pretty damn good players at there schools.

I'd say a 50% success rate is pretty good. I'd assume no where near 50% of two or three stars pan out.

 
braskypants said:
And also to be fair some of the players they listed as "Not Quite" were pretty damn good players at there schools.

I'd say a 50% success rate is pretty good. I'd assume no where near 50% of two or three stars pan out.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same. With 5 stars comes huge expectations; with that said if a 5 star kid turns out to just be a solid contributor he is dubbed as a "bust" it seems.

 
True that, Rex Burkhead wasn't a 5 star recruit and look how good he is. He is a classic example that its not just about stars.

 
It is hard to glean too much information off of just one year. I remember reading last year's article that looked at 2005 5-stars, and I don't think they were as successful. If you look at Nebraska's 3 and 4 stars from 2002-2007, the 3-stars have received just as high a percentage of all-conference recognition as the 4-stars. Of course, that is looking at recruiting classes from Solich and Callahan. Not enough players have contributed from the 2008 and 2009 classes to come to any significant conclusions regarding how good our staff is at identifying the 3-stars that will make a difference. Looking at Dennard and Gomes, I think the end results will leave everyone happy.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top