For the star guys

[Hoyacane1620]

 

[Hegemon]

Yep that "perfect science" still gets it wrong every time.

 

[mossmadness]

Just shows how accurate the recruiting rankings are. Stars matter.

 

[deleted19096]

Member how Kyler had more interceptions than touchdowns and transferred to Oklahoma?

 

[Hurracanes]

That tells me stars matter. However, there are exceptions. Look at all the championships the last 20 years and tell me why starts don't matter..

 

[gcane44]

Stars matter . . . at the end of the recruiting cycle

 

[DTP]

Nobody is winning championships with 2 and 3 star players. That's the bottom line. The more 4 and 5 star players you have, the better your team is a majority of the time.

 

[Pizzle]

This shows that the hit rate on 5 stars is astronomical. Thanks for this.

 

[Drewny1]

8 - 5*
10 - 4*
11 - 3*
2 - 2*
1 - N/A

Since to me we should focus on 4* talent, get in the game for 5*, and have very good evaluations on 3* talent.

 

[RedPill Stepdad]

There are more 3 stars taken bc 3 star is the largest pool of players out of all of the rankings. If anything this just shows that 4 and 5 stars are very likely to produce.

Edit: 3 > 4 > 5 when it comes to to the quantity of players are in that talent pool. So makes sense that that would be the order of how many are taken. If u did what are the percentages of a 5, 4, 3 star being drafted it would be a different story.

 

[Kn[]_[]ckles3o5]

8 5 stars, 10 4 stars, 11 3 stars, 2 2 stars, and 1 N/A.

There are way less 5 star recruits each year so I suppose there's a higher hit rate but overall it shows me that you can build a championship rooster composed of mostly 4 stars and some 3 star players.

A top 10 class with one or two 5 star players can still be filled with first round talent if you hit on evals and kids develop under your staff.

 

[westcoastcanes]

single class sample size as reference:

5 stars (32 approx), less than 1% of recruits, 25% of the first round
4 stars (380 approx), between 2 and 3% of recruits, 31.25% of the first round
3 stars (1350 approx), between 8 and 9% of recruits, 34.375% of the first round
2 or fewer stars (15,000+), approx 90% of recruits, 9.3% of the first round


Yet again the statistics heavily support the rating services with rapidly increasing representation by class proportion in the first round. Load up on 4 and 5 stars to get better players.

 

[mirvin88]

Anyone who says stars don't matter is delusional

 

[westcoastcanes]

Anyone who says stars don't matter is delusional

Yep, there is years of data to say they are wrong. Choosing an outlier does not make a valid argument. It is nothing more than a defense mechanism to justify the recruiting failures at this point.

 

[TheEye]

Half these guys were considered elite out of High School. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[ALLoverCANE]

Yep that "perfect science" still gets it wrong every time.

Hello Mr. Strawman

 

[mikedeep97]

single class sample size as reference:

5 stars (32 approx), less than 1% of recruits, 25% of the first round
4 stars (380 approx), between 2 and 3% of recruits, 31.25% of the first round
3 stars (1350 approx), between 8 and 9% of recruits, 34.375% of the first round
2 or fewer stars (15,000+), approx 90% of recruits, 9.3% of the first round


Yet again the statistics heavily support the rating services with rapidly increasing representation by class proportion in the first round. Load up on 4 and 5 stars to get better players.

5 stars are the automatic types. Anyone can see them.. and yet, on average, roughly 50% of them get drafted within four years of high school graduation.

4 stars are where the late movement and "program-based movement" is the most noticeable. Many kids are moved into (and out of) the mid-to-lower 4 star category because of what program they commit to. Many of the "late-bloomer" 4 stars are bumped because they signed with a team that is winning at the moment. These kids are more likely to get drafted (and/or drafted higher) because they play for a Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, etc. Even the kids that have 10+ scholarship offers from mid-tier SEC/ACC/Big 10 schools (think Missouri/GT/Iowa) are much more likely to be moved into the 3 star bucket late because (obviously) they must be "aight".

I'll say this for the "analysts", they do a good job of ranking and creating buzz and categorizing elite, legit, high potential, and JAG. But really, that's about all they do.

 

[mossmadness]

Stars matter, but they are almost too broad. I get it, conversations require shortcuts. You have to discriminate to move things along.

But somebody with an 89 rating isn’t going to have that much higher of a hit rate than somebody with an 88 rating, even though one is a 4* and the other is a 3* on 247.

But it says something about how accurate stars are that even with broad categories within them, you still see how accurate they are.

The most interesting thing would be if you just went down the player rating list.

“Here is everybody 247 gave a 94 to 95 rating out of high school. Here’s the % that were drafted.”

“Here is 95 to 96. Here’s how many were drafted.”

That’s when the ratings probably get insanely accurate. It’s when we include the 96 with the 89 as both being “4 Stars,” that the accuracy is weighed down.

 

[RedSquare]

There are more 3 stars taken bc 3 star is the largest pool of players out of all of the rankings. If anything this just shows that 4 and 5 stars are very likely to produce.

Edit: 3 > 4 > 5 when it comes to to the quantity of players are in that talent pool. So makes sense that that would be the order of how many are taken. If u did what are the percentages of a 5, 4, 3 star being drafted it would be a different story.

and at least 50% of the guys in that first round won't be in the league in 4 years, or will be such busts, they might as well go away and save themselves from further humiliation.

but it makes sense. a bunch of former postal clerks slap di*king high school kids, are always going to be better at talent evaluation than teams of NFL scouts armed with mega resources.

if the star system proves anything, it only proves that it's accurate PART of time. Problem is, you never know which part.

 

[Katzenboyer]

This shows that the hit rate on 5 stars is astronomical. Thanks for this.

Yeah. There are about 100x more three star players than there are five-star guys. This shows how much five-stars matter, not that three-stars are the better investment.

Star power matters.