forums

In case you needed another reminder that stars don't mean anything

OrangeBowlMagic said:
Bingo. Check my post below. A very big part of being a great coach is who you surround yourself with. Very, very few can do it like Saban where it's just a plug and play factory. He's the GOAT for a reason. The staff you assemble is a huge part of how good your program is, talent or not.
Click to expand...
That's why I said...what Mario's doing is very Butch- Like....Butch had...
Best RB Coach in UM History
Best WR Coach in UM History
Best DB/ STs Coach in UM History
Best (arguably) OL Coach in UM History
And all were Top Notch recruiters....When you assemble a staff like that, it Masks any deficiencies you have as a HC.....
 
Advertisement
To take this old and regurgitated conversation in a different direction, let’s discuss what impact coaching has and are coaches who “win with less” necessarily better than guys who assemble freakish talent.

I’m not going to sit here and say Georgia’s coaching staff isn’t good. But what level of success would Kirby Smart achieve coaching at a school where his team isn’t always way more talented than the opponent? Would Cincinnati’s staff have won the title with Georgia’s roster? Would Kirby make the playoffs with Cincy’s roster? Can you just talent your way to championships?
 
Ziggy said:
Bottom line: stars mean something, they just don't mean everything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Misses just look worse when it's out of a pool of only 30 or so vs. 1000 3*'s.


"The NCAA said in 2013 there were 310,000-some seniors playing football. Here’s how long their odds are to reach various recruiting ratings, using class of 2018 data from Rivals, if we settle on 300,000 football-playing seniors as a fair estimate."

  • 30 five-stars, or 0.01 percent of the class
  • 380 four-stars, or 0.13 percent of the class
  • 1,328 three-stars, or 0.44 percent of the class
  • 1,859 two-stars, or 0.62 percent of the class
  • 296,403 unrated, or 98.88 percent of the class
 
TC@neTC said:
Not disagreeing, but again just adding context. He was basically the Trevon Diggs of college football for one season, and then the ball production stopped.

And Trevon Diggs without INTs is not a good corner.
Click to expand...
I agree with u .my point is mostly 5 stars even if they don’t get drafted the majority still produced in college
 
Advertisement
OrangeBowlMagic said:
LMAO he's 58-10 since Year 2. Fired?

Nick Saban lost 7 games his first 5 years (not counting Year 1). Kirby has lost 10. Part of being a good coach is hiring other good coaches around you. Todd Monken >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Coley. So yeah, he had some bumps in the road along the way to get to the staff he has now. But they just had like 50 kids drafted. They can't coach?
Click to expand...
My point was without those 50 kids drafted he would not be a good coach. He is Ed Orgeron as a coach. Saban won at Mich St and LSU is your prospective Kirby could take his show on the road and be successful? It's been mentioned by insiders on this site that if he didn't win big this year he'd be close to the chopping block.
 
Last edited:
cway313 said:
My point wad without those 50 kids drafted he would not be a good coach. He is Ed Orgeron as a coach. Saban won at Mich St and LSU is your prospective Kirby could take his show on the road and be successful? It's been mentioned by insiders on this site that if he didn't win big this year he'd be close to the chopping block.
Click to expand...

Agree to wildly disagree. Ed Orgeron is.....whew.
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
Wow, this dumbass thread came earlier than usual this year. It's usually the dog days of summer where people try to throw this bozo chit against the wall.

Yes, Ed Reed was a 2-star. We know. So stars don't matter.
Click to expand...

I suspect the potential for an upcoming Emory Williams commit has some people experiencing cognitive dissonance in a serious way and brought this topic on sooner than usual. They'd avoid unpleasant feelings if they could just remember two things can be true at once: (1) higher ranked kids tend to play better; and (2) some kids outplay (or underplay) their star ranking.
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
I suspect the potential for an upcoming Emory Williams commit has some people experiencing cognitive dissonance in a serious way and brought this topic on sooner than usual. They'd avoid unpleasant feelings if they could just remember two things can be true at once: (1) higher ranked kids tend to play better; and (2) some kids outplay (or underplay) their star ranking.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Also, people need to remember a lot of the recruiting sites adjust rankings based on offers. If a kid picks up a bunch of offers from major programs, they'll bump him up. I would not be surprised to see Emory Williams eventually make it into the upper three star/low four star tier.
 
Everything evolves, including the inexact science of discovering and evaluating talent.

An inexact science involving fallible human beings on both sides of the equation attempting to refine the predictability of ultimately an uncertain future.

So, yes, bring me stars….
 
I fail to see how the original tweet -- which says stars are an "inexact science" -- can somehow be translated by the OP to mean that stars "don't mean anything."

The teams with the highest number of Top 100 players make the playoffs. The teams that do not have those guys don't make the CFP, or get killed by the former. Simple fact.
 
I argue with facts, and fact is, the teams that make the playoffs consistently , ironically finishes top 5 recruiting
 
Advertisement
Hurricane23 said:
I argue with facts, and fact is, the teams that make the playoffs consistently , ironically finishes top 5 recruiting
Click to expand...
Problem with facts is that a lot of people don’t believe in them.

I work in the ED and we always joke around and say we can cure a lot of things. Unfortunately stupid isn’t one them.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top