For the star guys

[jjjrcanes]

This is a bold statement seeing as 1) Alabama has won 5 of the last 10 national championships, and 2) the only team that has beaten them in the playoff era were powered by five stars themselves (Watson, Cain, McCloud, Hyatt, Wilkins, Lawrence, Lamar, Higgins, Ross and Lawrence).

I get what you're sayin! But when you have a team on paper every year that project as the equivalent of the 2001 Canes team, shouldn't they be in the talk of NC every year?? Bottom line though, you have to play the game on the field and that's when you know what you really have. You can get lucky if most of your 5 star recruits pan out and do alright.

I don't know if you caught what some of the guys at the 5 star challenge said after going up against other recruits with the 5 star label. Some said they really don't know how some of these guys were rated that high!

I want our share of highly rated recruits, but I would like for the coaches to be more selective and doing good evaluations instead of just focussing on the stars. This may not sit well with some but if we didn't evaluate and get guys that fit the "U" we would miss on DJ Ivey, Jahfari Harvey, Gregory Rousseau, Zion Nelson, Jonathan Garvin, Jonathan Ford!

Make no mistake about it, those guys had no bigtime recruiting hoopla once they committed! Most were 3 stars or barely made the 4th star. But these guys might very well be apart of a dominate team as starters or at the very least on the 2 deep in their first year or as redshirt freshmen!

Don't get me wrong....I want 5 and 4 stars like everybody else, but I would put more into what the coaches are evaluating to not miss on key guys that get's underrated buy the so called recruiting gurus! jmo!

 

[CFLCane]

 

[puertorricane]

Stars dont matter if you get the right three stars and two stars.

 

[Dwinstitles]

Have to get 5 stars and be super elite at identifying guys that are supposed to be 5 stars that didnt get the right ranking. Saban and Butch are best at this, obviously BD at FIU aint doing **** there with that logo backing u up.

 

[hoops156]

Stars dont matter if you get the right three stars and two stars.

theyre way more accurate now than even the great butch was a decent college coach. very few players really slip through without getting notice nowadays. everyone can watch everyone at any camp or game from anywhere. the only position where id say, its often wrong is dealing with OL.

 

[puertorricane]

How many five and four stars were draft eligible?
You can make the case that more than half were busts.

 

[AllAboutTheU]

Stars matter. Traits matter more. The stars typically correlate with the traits, but there are holes in the rating system.

 

[1mg of Epi]

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.

There’s thousands of non blue chip recruits every year.

 

[1mg of Epi]

How many five and four stars were draft eligible?
You can make the case that more than half were busts.

Ok. 49% of 4 and 5 stars vs 5% of 3.

 

[Trafficante]

I would like to think for MOST football players the ultimate goal is to not just get drafted, but to also become a successful player in the NFL. When you make that the barometer or measuring stick, stars matter very little. There's many reasons for that, but one of the main ones is that in the NFL the level of parity is far greater than compared to college, particularly when it comes to coaching. In order for MIA to recapture the glory of it's heyday, it not only has to recruit & develop successful college players, it also has to acquire players that end up being SUCCESSFUL at the next level. There's a reason why once upon a time, MIA earned the moniker NFL-U, fielded the greatest/most dominant collection of talent a college team has ever seen, and set the record for most 1st round draft picks consecutively as well as in a single draft. It's also a fundamental difference between Bama & MIA. With the exception of a few, Bama players do absolutely nothing at the next level, despite the fact they field the #1 recruiting class every single yr, based on 4 & 5 star players. Why is that? This is the million dollar question that the star whores on this forum can never seem to answer.


- https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fba2/105ea1feb4ff9a710223d0d2d2c652a3c557.pdf

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

After all these years, anyone that thinks stars DON'T matter is an idiot. Plain and simple.

That doesn't mean every 5 star is going to hit, and it doesn't mean every NFL first rounder is going to be a 4 or 5 star...because at the end of the day it's subjective and subject to human error and bias.

But when you use your **** brains, take all that subjective stuff into account, and take a step back to look at the landscape from a little higher altitude.....there is no debating that on a macro level they are right more often than wrong.

Look at the last 10 National Championship teams and tell me stars don't matter. Strike that, take a look at the last 20 National Championship teams. Those teams have classes that are CONSISTENTLY ranked high when it comes to their respective recruiting classes.

Coaching mattters ALOT....but consistent success in college football comes from the INTERSECTION of great coaching AND great talent. Great coaching can temporarily mask problems and give you a cinderella season now and then, but the names we all know that are consistently in the running all recruit at the highest levels.

 

[datdude81]

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

What they don’t realize is the bigger the game gets the more cash pours into the sport the more refined the process gets

Stars matter

 

[omaha]

We Miami fans do not know the impact of a successful 5 star since DJ Williams.

The problem with successful 5 stars is they want to leave early. The bigger problem with unsuccessful 4 and 5 star prospects is they want to leave early with out putting in the work. It is a cancer to the whole team.

 

[Trescerocinco]

Lots of 3 star guys end up being great players around the country however the evidence is clear. If you want to win national championships you need load up on the highest ranked players in the country

 

[Trafficante]

After all these years, anyone that thinks stars DON'T matter is an idiot. Plain and simple.

That doesn't mean every 5 star is going to hit, and it doesn't mean every NFL first rounder is going to be a 4 or 5 star...because at the end of the day it's subjective and subject to human error and bias.

But when you use your **** brains, take all that subjective stuff into account, and take a step back to look at the landscape from a little higher altitude.....there is no debating that on a macro level they are right more often than wrong.

Look at the last 10 National Championship teams and tell me stars don't matter. Strike that, take a look at the last 20 National Championship teams. Those teams have classes that are CONSISTENTLY ranked high when it comes to their respective recruiting classes.

Coaching mattters ALOT....but consistent success in college football comes from the INTERSECTION of great coaching AND great talent. Great coaching can temporarily mask problems and give you a cinderella season now and then, but the names we all know that are consistently in the running all recruit at the highest levels.

The only one who's an idiot is you. You can't answer the question..if star recruiting rankings are so ACCURATE and a great predictor of player success, why is it that there exists a negative correlation between where a player is drafted, their recruiting ranking, and how successful they end up becoming in the NFL? The reason for this is that there is far greater statistical variance in college than in the NFL. Not just in in the recruiting rating system itself, but also amongst the college football programs. Only a dummy would think the main difference between Clemson or Bama and a bottom tier Power 5 program is 4 & 5 star ranked players. If you're truly interested in knowing the difference between a 5 star player & a 2 star player..you have to perform a thorough analysis of this at the NFL level. Why? Because at that level..all of the different variables/factors that ultimately determine whether a player becomes successful or not are much more evenly matched across the board.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

The only one who's an idiot is you. You can't answer the question..if star recruiting rankings are so ACCURATE and a great predictor of player success, why is it that there exists a negative correlation between where a player is drafted, their recruiting ranking, and how successful they end up becoming in the NFL? The reason for this is that there is far greater statistical variance in college than in the NFL. Not just in in the recruiting rating system itself, but also amongst the college football programs. Only a dummy would think the main difference between Clemson or Bama and a bottom tier Power 5 program is 4 & 5 star ranked players. If you're truly interested in knowing the difference between a 5 star player & a 2 star player..you have to perform a thorough analysis of this at the NFL level. Why? Because at that level..all of the different variables/factors that ultimately determine whether a player becomes successful or not are much more evenly matched across the board.

Talk to me about the correlation between national championships and teams recruiting rankings. Of course there is error as I mentioned in my original post. You extrapolate over large sample sizes and over the course of years and it's pretty ******* evident that they are right more often than they are wrong.

 

[Ethnicsands]

8 5* kids, 10 4* kids, 11 3* kids, 2 2* kids and one N/A (Howard).

There are 25-30 5* kids, so that’s around +/- 30% of 5* kids making first round. That’s astounding.

4* is defined as top 300 ... less the 5* kids that mans there are around 270 4* kids, so that’s about 3.7% of 4* kids making first round. Stunning difference from 5*.

3* is defined as top 750 kids. Less the top 300 above, that means there are around 450 3* kids, so that is about 2.4% of kids going to first round. Not as much below the 4* as I’ve have expected, personally. I suspect when you look at rounds 2-4 these numbers shift on a relative basis.

 

[Ethnicsands]

The only one who's an idiot is you. You can't answer the question..if star recruiting rankings are so ACCURATE and a great predictor of player success, why is it that there exists a negative correlation between where a player is drafted, their recruiting ranking, and how successful they end up becoming in the NFL? The reason for this is that there is far greater statistical variance in college than in the NFL. Not just in in the recruiting rating system itself, but also amongst the college football programs. Only a dummy would think the main difference between Clemson or Bama and a bottom tier Power 5 program is 4 & 5 star ranked players. If you're truly interested in knowing the difference between a 5 star player & a 2 star player..you have to perform a thorough analysis of this at the NFL level. Why? Because at that level..all of the different variables/factors that ultimately determine whether a player becomes successful or not are much more evenly matched across the board.

You are trying to change the debate. Stars are applied in Hs, and the measurement of how they correlate to nfl draft success is objective, and also one of the stated metrics they are supposed to be predictive of. It isnt an indictment of the star rankings that post-draft nfl outcomes deviate in different ways. It might be an indictment of nfl scouting, but it would take a sound analysis which i havent seen to even assess that. It’s neither here nor there, in any case, w/r/t high school star rankings.

So your statement above that “If you're truly interested in knowing the difference between a 5 star player & a 2 star player..you have to perform a thorough analysis of this at the NFL level“ is bizarre, imo. You seem fundamentally confused about the purpose of stars. They exist as a way to sort Hs players, for the purpose of predicting probability of success in college. Most college players do not play professionally, and college coaches are interested in their own teams, not future nfl outcomes, so the idea that the nfl is the right way to understand this sorting method is simply mistaken.

And as an aside, talent is absolutely the biggest difference between Alabama and Clemson vs. bottom tier P5 programs. Not the only difference of course. But Saban doesnt win with Indiana or Wake Forest kids. Only a dummy would think otherwise. There is a lot of truth to the adage that ‘it’s about the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os.’ Of course all generalizations are over and under inclusive and there is more to building and maintaining a program than talent (as Coker proved in reverse).

 

[Trafficante]

You are trying to change the debate. Stars are applied in Hs, and the measurement of how they correlate to nfl draft success is objective, and also one of the stated metrics they are supposed to be predictive of. It isnt an indictment of the star rankings that post-draft nfl outcomes deviate in different ways. It might be an indictment of nfl scouting, but it would take a sound analysis which i havent seen to even assess that. It’s neither here nor there, in any case, w/r/t high school star rankings.

So your statement above that “If you're truly interested in knowing the difference between a 5 star player & a 2 star player..you have to perform a thorough analysis of this at the NFL level“ is bizarre, imo. You seem fundamentally confused about the purpose of stars. They exist as a way to sort Hs players, for the purpose of predicting probability of success in college. Most college players do not play professionally, and college coaches are interested in their own teams, not future nfl outcomes, so the idea that the nfl is the right way to understand this sorting method is simply mistaken.

And as an aside, talent is absolutely the biggest difference between Alabama and Clemson vs. bottom tier P5 programs. Not the only difference of course. But Saban doesnt win with Indiana or Wake Forest kids. Only a dummy would think otherwise. There is a lot of truth to the adage that ‘it’s about the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os.’ Of course all generalizations are over and under inclusive and there is more to building and maintaining a program than talent (as Coker proved in reverse).

I think you're lost on this subject, and your head is completely in the sand, which is preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. 1st of all just because theres a correlation between recruiting rankings, success in college, and higher draft selection/frequency, that doesn't prove definitively or conclusively that theres a fundamental or core difference between players who are ranked 4 & 5 stars & their lower ranked counterparts. The reason for this is because in college the level of statistical variance is so high, that it prevents an accurate/fair analysis or comparison from being conducted between the higher ranked players & the rest of the the recruiting pool. It is absolutely a misconception to think that by limiting the analysis to only 4 & 5 star players who play for the most elite power 5 teams, we will be able to derive enough information to then extrapolate those findings on to the rest of the data in order to reach a definitive conclusion. At best that type of analysis is incomplete/inconclusive, and at worst it is extremely lazy. Because elite teams are able to hoard 4 & 5 star talent, it prevents the rest of the power 5 schools from having rosters that are evenly distributed, when it comes to recruiting rankings. This is not the case in the NFL, where each yr the worst team in the league picks 1st in the following draft. This in addition to the salary cap/revenue sharing, is why there is far greater parity in professional sports than in college. It is parity that is most critical when attempting to perform an analysis or comparison. You have to at least compare apples to apples, or NFL caliber talent to other NFL caliber talent. Try to compare Clelin Ferrell to Khalil Mack..I dare you. Of course you won't even dream of doing that..because you & I both know your entire argument will fall down like a deck of cards.

I also find it odd that you think when NFL outcomes fail to align with recruiting rankings & draft selections, it's not an indictment on star rankings as a whole. Do you realize that even 247, which is currently the standard for recruiting rankings, has explicitly stated/claimed in their methodology that their ratings are also reflective of NFL pro potential as well??? It's also absurd to suggest that college coaches are typically not concerned with NFL outcomes. 1st of all..college program prestige and tradition are commonly evaluated with respect to how many of their players have successful careers in the NFL. Secondly..many prospects consider this heavily in their decision regarding which program to ultimately play for. Furthermore it's also not by chance that the greatest period in MIA program history existed when the school earned the moniker 'NFL U'. Which brings me to my next pt..in order for MIA to recapture the glory of it's past, it has never been about recruiting rankings, PEDs, or bags. It is about NFL caliber coaches that evaluate and develop talent based on NFL criteria & metrics. It's simply not a coincidence that with the exception of 20-25 yrs when MIA was run like an extension of an NFL team, the majority of this program's history has been nothing short of a dumpster fire.

Finally..i'm curious to know what makes you believe talent is more important in college football than coaching? You would think that after being a fan of a program that has had woeful coaching for the past 20 yrs, you would finally begin to understand how important coaching is..but I guess not. I'm sure you realize that because we're dealing with 18-22 yr old kids, the essential nature of the sport is predicated around development. Not only that..if coaching wasn't more important than talent, then Clemson and Bama wouldn't be paying their HCs $9.5 mil /yr. If coaching wasn't more important than talent..then PMR would be able to take Clemson's or Bama's roster to the CFB or championship game. I know you don't seriously believe that..because it's so ridiculous its not even worth further discussing. Maybe it's time to finally change the adage that you love to recite so proudly on this forum to.."Without X's & O's, Jimmy or Joe, become jus another hoe"

 

[BoxingRobes]

Some of y'all need to get your heads out of your asses.