forums

Why recruiting rankings are stupid part 1.........

C

canesman

Junior
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,376
Lets say two teams each sign 15 players.

Each class has 1 five star player, 10 four star players and 3 three star players.

Each class has 14 players broken down as follows........ 2 RB, 3 WR, 2 OL, 3 DL, 2 LB, 1 S, 1 CB all graded euqually.

The only difference is that the 1st class has a 5 star QB (Andrew Luck, Matt Stafford, etc.) and the other class has 5 star punter as the 15th player.

Classes are ranked the same according to almost every service.....right?

I would argue the class with the QB is astronomically more likely to win than the other.
 
Advertisement
LOL. 5 star punter. He must have FSU speed and make Janikowski look like a kid kicking in his backyard.
 
Team recruiting rankings are useless and how they are measured is retarded. Star ratings are also retarded (for the most part) because 90% of a player's success in college is gonna depend on coaching and development. There are some (such as Jadeveon Clowney) who are absolute monsters and would thrive anywhere but for the vast majority of recruits, stars mean nothing if there isn't a good coach teaching him the game.
 
canesman said:
Lets say two teams each sign 15 players.

Each class has 1 five star player, 10 four star players and 3 three star players.

Each class has 14 players broken down as follows........ 2 RB, 3 WR, 2 OL, 3 DL, 2 LB, 1 S, 1 CB all graded euqually.

The only difference is that the 1st class has a 5 star QB (Andrew Luck, Matt Stafford, etc.) and the other class has 5 star punter as the 15th player.

Classes are ranked the same according to almost every service.....right?

I would argue the class with the QB is astronomically more likely to win than the other.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is stupid is your logic. You have no idea which class would 'win,' because (a) classes don't play as such; and (b) because you don't know which kids will be better or worse than their rankings or will develop well and which won't.

Beyond that, the reality is there has probably never been a 5* punter, but if there ever is one, it's probably a kid you'd be thrilled to have on your team.

Oh, and I don't think you're using the term 'astronomically' very effectively in that sentence.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
canesman said:
Lets say two teams each sign 15 players.

Each class has 1 five star player, 10 four star players and 3 three star players.

Each class has 14 players broken down as follows........ 2 RB, 3 WR, 2 OL, 3 DL, 2 LB, 1 S, 1 CB all graded euqually.

The only difference is that the 1st class has a 5 star QB (Andrew Luck, Matt Stafford, etc.) and the other class has 5 star punter as the 15th player.

Classes are ranked the same according to almost every service.....right?

I would argue the class with the QB is astronomically more likely to win than the other.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is stupid is your logic. You have no idea which class would 'win,' because (a) classes don't play as such; and (b) because you don't know which kids will be better or worse than their rankings or will develop well and which won't.

Beyond that, the reality is there has probably never been a 5* punter, but if there ever is one, it's probably a kid you'd be thrilled to have on your team.

Oh, and I don't think you're using the term 'astronomically' very effectively in that sentence.
Click to expand...

[URL=http://gifsoup.com/view/4316781/****.html][IMG]http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4316781&t=o[/URL] GIFSoup[/IMG]
 
Last edited:
Its funny how when Miami signs a top class, people rave about the class, its ranking and coaches. When our class is not ranked as high all of sudden rankings don't matter LOL They seem to matter to Saban and Alabama who have finished first on rivals in 5 of the last 6 years.
 
the higher the star ranking, the higher the probability of the athlete succeeding. Those that say stars dont mater are idiots. They dont mater as much as player development which was clearly evident with Shannon but they definitely mater A LOT.

Look at the top ten ranked in espn in 2008.

1. Da'Quan Bowers DE 95 Clemson
2. Julio Jones WR 95 Alabama
3. Will Hill S 94 Florida
4. Terrelle Pryor QB 93 Ohio State
5. A.J. Green WR 91 Georgia
6. Arthur Brown OLB 90 Miami
7. Jermie Calhoun RB 90 Oklahoma
8. Patrick Peterson CB 90 LSU
9. Darrell Scott RB 89 Colorado
10. Dee Finley

Practically half of those kids ended up being first rounders, go take the top the top ten 2 or 3 star players from the same year and see how many ended up developing into first rounders.....maybe 1, probably none. Are there a lot of successful 2 and 3 star players? Of course there are, thats because there LOTS of them. And dont bring up the Ed Reeds and so on cause the exposure these kids get today doesnt even compare with last year let alone 10-15years ago
 
Advertisement
moshated305 said:
Its funny how when Miami signs a top class, people rave about the class, its ranking and coaches. When our class is not ranked as high all of sudden rankings don't matter LOL They seem to matter to Saban and Alabama who have finished first on rivals in 5 of the last 6 years.
Click to expand...

Actually you're totally wrong on this. Saban doesn't recruit kids because of their stars. That's a retarded theory. What happens is that kids he recruits get ranked highly because they're good, and because he's recruiting them. Cause and effect have a sort of cart-horse type relationship. When you have the wrong one in front, you really don't move your goods very far.
 
canesman said:
The only difference is that the 1st class has a 5 star QB (Andrew Luck, Matt Stafford, etc.) and the other class has 5 star punter as the 15th player.

Classes are ranked the same according to almost every service.....right?

I would argue the class with the QB is astronomically more likely to win than the other.
Click to expand...

199.gif
 
Recruiting class rankings / BCS rankings = Bull Sh$t . Done by a group of bias groups/individuals. Somewhat accurate but somewhat completely not.
 
moshated305 said:
Its funny how when Miami signs a top class, people rave about the class, its ranking and coaches. When our class is not ranked as high all of sudden rankings don't matter LOL They seem to matter to Saban and Alabama who have finished first on rivals in 5 of the last 6 years.
Click to expand...


Regarding our fans' perception, absolutely. It's comical.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
moshated305 said:
Its funny how when Miami signs a top class, people rave about the class, its ranking and coaches. When our class is not ranked as high all of sudden rankings don't matter LOL They seem to matter to Saban and Alabama who have finished first on rivals in 5 of the last 6 years.
Click to expand...

You do realize that a big part of the reason that Saban's classes are rated so highly every year is because the recruiting gurus/evaluators piggy-back off of his evaluations, correct? It's part of the reason why some of Coker's classes were ranked so high after our run and all our highly ranked studs seemed to keep busting.
 
PUNCICANE said:
the higher the star ranking, the higher the probability of the athlete succeeding. Those that say stars dont mater are idiots. They dont mater as much as player development which was clearly evident with Shannon but they definitely mater A LOT.

Look at the top ten ranked in espn in 2008.

1. Da'Quan Bowers DE 95 Clemson
2. Julio Jones WR 95 Alabama
3. Will Hill S 94 Florida
4. Terrelle Pryor QB 93 Ohio State
5. A.J. Green WR 91 Georgia
6. Arthur Brown OLB 90 Miami
7. Jermie Calhoun RB 90 Oklahoma
8. Patrick Peterson CB 90 LSU
9. Darrell Scott RB 89 Colorado
10. Dee Finley

Practically half of those kids ended up being first rounders, go take the top the top ten 2 or 3 star players from the same year and see how many ended up developing into first rounders.....maybe 1, probably none. Are there a lot of successful 2 and 3 star players? Of course there are, thats because there LOTS of them. And dont bring up the Ed Reeds and so on cause the exposure these kids get today doesnt even compare with last year let alone 10-15years ago
Click to expand...

Great post. As always with Star Ratings - you have to look at the percentages.

Anyone who argues against stars will take 2 or 3 guys rated as 5 stars in a given year who are busts, then point out 2 or 3 guys rated as 2 stars who became great players in that same year. Yes, but there were only 40 5 starplayers to begin with, and about 500 2 stars. In any given year, about 20 5 Stars (50%) and about 20 2 Stars (4%) will go on to be great players.

It's just like the NFL Draft. Every year there's 1st round busts while players in the same draft in rounds 5 - 7 go on to be great. But on a whole, the 32 players taken in the 1st round will be better than than the 100 players taken in rounds 5 -7.

There are tons of factors that go into why players succeed do and don't succeed. But a greater % of the highly ranked players go onto succeed, because they are simply more talented.
 
5 first rounders and 5 that dropped off the face of the earth.

5 stars are usually boom or bust.
 
Advertisement
Luke Kuechly....Ray lewis stats in college and led the NFL in tackles this year..( should have been rookie of the year)....3 star...he just got better and better..take your stars and have fun with them,,,
 
Whats our best player star ranking? Uhhhhhh the Duke

Lets get rid of him and send him to Fsu or UiF because stars dont matter. Fkin guys amaze me thinking its 1999 n ****. Thrres to much exposure there aint no way Reed or Lewis would go unoticed so stop.
 
Check the last 10 BCS champs, and then check their recruiting rankings the previous 3-4 years....
Thanks for playing.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top