Stars matter in a big way

[195bc]

Was just doing some research for a thread in Monday Morning Quarterback, and to satisfy my own curiosity. Thought the regulars here would also find it interesting. Someone said they would prefer signing 100 3-star recruits per year (if that was possible), compared to what Alabama usually signs. My response:

"You apparently don't realize that the chance of a 3* player drafted is incredibly slim. 3-stars rarely become good players. In the 2017 draft, 23 or 32 first round picks were 4- or 5-star recruits out of high school. Of the 31 eligible 5-star recruits for that draft, 23 were drafted, with 9 being in the first round.

So consider this in your crazy example of taking 100 3-stars in each recruiting class compared to a top-rated class of about 25 recruits. Approximately 5% of all 3-star recruits are drafted. Approximately 26% of all 4- and 5-star recruits are drafted. So if you take 100 3-star recruits in a recruiting class, you will have about 5 players from that class drafted. Georgia currently has 23 recruits (six 5-stars, eleven 4-stars, six 3-stars). Using the percentages given, they have 4.72 players in that class that will be drafted (basically 5 players). It's the same, with a quarter of the recruits. If you take a program that only signs 25 3-star recruits, they will average about 1 drafted player per year.

Stars matter. Coaches matter also, and there are some outliers, like Snyder and Leach and Briles. But for nearly everyone else, stars are absolutely necessary, even to Saban. He wasn't the elite coach that he is when he was at Michigan St and LSU and had lower recruiting rankings. Saban's recruiting rankings at LSU were 2000-21st, 2001-2nd, 2003-21st, and 2004 really doesn't matter because he left after that season. His national championship there came when that 2001 class were juniors (7 players were drafted after that season). The next year he went 9-3 and finished ranked 16th in the country. Outside that national championship year, his other years at LSU were a combined 35-15, and the recruiting rankings were not spectacular in his 2000 and 2002 classes (both recruiting classes were ranked 21st).

Stars matter, and they matter in a major way. And the recruiting ranking services are more accurate than most will admit."

[RaisinHog]

I agree with you .. but there are an A$$ ton more 3* than 4 and 5 ... Hints the reason only 5% are drafted..

[hogfansince79]

Stars matter, and they matter in a major way. And the recruiting ranking services are more accurate than most will admit."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-super-bowl-how-falcons-patriots-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

Last years Super Bowl teams starting lineup...

Falcons
5*  -  1
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  3
NA  -  2

Patriots
5*  -  2
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  4
NA  -  1

...just saying.

[Rocket23]

That speaks volumes.

I can remember Bobby Bowden saying at the LR Touchdown Club, his downfall was chasing stars instead of relying on his coaches evaluations.

[rljjr]

It's an imperfect science. Of course you want the best athlete you can get at their position and build depth behind it. The recruiting services do a pretty good job, but there is some bias involved regarding subscriptions and offer lists and who the recruit is committed to.

It was mentioned just yesterday by a recruiting guru that Bumper Pool would have had more publicity (and in turn probably a higher rating) but he was firmly committed to the Hogs for more than a year.

However, in the past it seems we haven't thrown enough offers out there to increase our chances of landing a bigger fish. I see offers flying with this staff and that's hopefully going to result in more high-profile athletes.

[Freebrd]

This discussion reminds me of the movie Moneyball.

[searkhogfan]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-super-bowl-how-falcons-patriots-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

Last years Super Bowl teams starting lineup...

Falcons
5*  -  1
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  3
NA  -  2

Patriots
5*  -  2
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  4
NA  -  1

...just saying.

Don't go bringing facts to these folks.  You're gonna make their heads explode.

[hogsanity]

Not every really good college player is an nfl player. The fact remains, if your opponents are recruiting better players year after year after year, you are going to lose more games to them than you win.

[MFG]

Its all about odds.

[195bc]

I agree with you .. but there are an A$$ ton more 3* than 4 and 5 ... Hints the reason only 5% are drafted..

Only 5% of 3-stars are drafted because they are not as good, that's why I used percentages and not numbers. Of course more 3-stars were drafted, because there are more than 1700 3-stars per recruiting year while there are about 300-400 total 4- and 5-stars. The Falcons and Patriots are light on 4s and 5s, but they even prove my point. The Falcons starting lineup is about 20% 4s and 5s, yet 4s and 5s combined make up about 8% of rated recruits. So a huge percentage of 4s and especially 5s play in the NFL while a tiny percentage of all others do. It's not because there are more lower ranked recruits, it's because they are not as good. The ratios don't lie. Sorry if you don't understand math.

[hogsanity]

Look at it this way. If you give me 4 golfers that are scratch, and 4 that have a handicap from 2-10, and the 4 scratch golfers play straight up against the other 4, who is going to win most of the time?

[Con el Cerdos]

The data on the number of 3* vs. 4* and 5* drafted into the NFL, while interesting doesn't tell us anything about the on field performance of COLLEGE teams whose rosters are stacked with 4* and 5* players, and those who develop predominately 3* rosters.

It's fairly obvious that Bama, TOSU, FlaSt, and Clemson performance over the last decade or so reflects that IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL there is one hell of a difference in stocking rosters with 4* and 5* players and the teams who rely primarily on 3* rosters.

I certainly cannot recall the last predominately 3* team to win a national championship.

So, stars definitely matter if your goal is to pursue and win national championships. 

[RaisinHog]

Only 5% of 3-stars are drafted because they are not as good, that's why I used percentages and not numbers. Of course more 3-stars were drafted, because there are more than 1700 3-stars per recruiting year while there are about 300-400 total 4- and 5-stars. The Falcons and Patriots are light on 4s and 5s, but they even prove my point. The Falcons starting lineup is about 20% 4s and 5s, yet 4s and 5s combined make up about 8% of rated recruits. So a huge percentage of 4s and especially 5s play in the NFL while a tiny percentage of all others do. It's not because there are more lower ranked recruits, it's because they are not as good. The ratios don't lie. Sorry if you don't understand math.

..

I said I agree it matters dip weed .. but my point is valid ..

[Bubba's Bruisers]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-super-bowl-how-falcons-patriots-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

Last years Super Bowl teams starting lineup...

Falcons
5*  -  1
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  3
NA  -  2

Patriots
5*  -  2
4*  -  3
3*  -  13
2*  -  3
0*  -  4
NA  -  1

...just saying.

It's a simple lesson in probability.  There are plenty of 3* who will ultimately be NFL talents, so I'd agree they'd be underrated out of HS.  This has to be so, of course, because the math pretty much demands it.  The key is for a program to properly evaulate and sign the right underrated 3* in large numbers each class to make a difference.  And that's what nobody is doing.  All these underrated 3* are mostly sprinkled around throughout dozens and dozens of program.   They're not concentrated amoung just a few programs, which again, is why you usually don't see a program full of 3* winning championships.

Of course, there are exceptions...Mizzou a few years ago (Good team, but benefited from a embarrasingly weak division), Wisky back in the BB days (But again played in a crap conference and still usually had 3 or 4 losses each year), MSU (See Wisky), etc...  I probably shouldn't use a Big10 example over the last decade.  These are the exceptions.  We don't get to be an exception when we live in an SECW world, though.

[#1 STUNNA]

out of the 6 running backs picked for the pro bowl... 4 of them were 4/5*

[#1 STUNNA]

out of the 8 receivers... 5 were 4/5*

[#1 STUNNA]

have not had a chance to look up the other positions yet

[Bubba's Bruisers]

4* recruits need to be looked at on the aggregate, not individually.  If a team is getting tons of 4* every class...Bama, UGA, Clemson, Tosu, OU, FSU, etc...then they have much larger margin of error.  And they're the ones winning conference championships and playing in the playoffs.

[Nipsey Mussle]

Pocket 8's beat pocket Aces one out of every 5 times. That doesn't mean hand rankings don't matter, just as one 3* outplaying one 5* doesn't change the over value of star rankings.

[#1 STUNNA]

Georgia just pulled in 7 of the top 30 players in the country.

[a0ashle]

I get the appeal of using "drafted" as a measuring stick, but we have had a lot of players drafted, more under CBB then we did CBP. There are also tons of really good CFB players that don't get drafted, we need a few draft guys and a whole lot of those undrafted quality CFB guys.

Additionally, CBBs system made some players more appealing because it translated to the next level. It's possible (and I might argue likely) that we see a dip in "Draftables" while also seeing more success on the field.

Edit: I'm not arguing that stars don't matter, I'm arguing that draftability isn't necessarily  a good metric, if our goal is for our team to win games.

[Razorbackwarrior79]

Georgia just pulled in 7 of the top 30 players in the country.

Georgia is absolutely killing it right now. Kirby spent so much time under Nick and understands that you have to fight fire with fire. Doesn't mean someone can't have an off day but 9 times out of 10 that type of superior talent will win. Another class or two and Georgia will become the "big dog on the block".

[hogsanity]

Georgia just pulled in 7 of the top 30 players in the country.

And 4 of them came from in state. 7 of the top 30 players in the espn top 300 were from the state of GA.

Care to guess how many of the top 300 were from AR? IT was less than 4 iirc

[#1 STUNNA]

And 4 of them came from in state. 7 of the top 30 players in the espn top 300 were from the state of GA.

Care to guess how many of the top 300 were from AR? IT was less than 4 iirc

Bohanon and noland are only ones from arkansas

[Deep Shoat]

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.

Find the talent and nobody gives two fresh squirts where you ranked.

[hogsanity]

Bohanon and noland are only ones from arkansas

typical too that they both play the same position. 

[Oklahawg]

This discussion reminds me of the movie Moneyball.

Nice!

[Oklahawg]

Not all 3-star players are created equal.

UA needs several 5- or 4-star recruits every year. And, it needs half of the 3-star guys to come from big-time programs that play elite competition (and see good competition in practice). We cannot survive on small-town 3-star talents who have a higher chance of washing out because they never adapt to the elevated competition (and speed of the game).

It is why I am not worried about losing Bohanon. I am not sure about Noland, honestly, but he is from a more compatible system and plays at a much higher level of competition. What I like is the early visit to the NE OK monster programs. A three-star from Tulsa Union, Denton Ryan, or Bishop Rummel is better than a three-star from Charleston, Harrison, or Dumas (picking town names from thin air, no harm intended).

[Freebrd]

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.

Find the talent and nobody gives two fresh squirts where you ranked.

Most stars are awarded because of their assessed talent!  Look at schools that consistently have 4/5* players on the roster and they will consistently have better won/loss records hence ranked higher in the polls and go to better bowls.  Wanting to have 1/2/3* instead of wanting higher ranked players aka 4/5* is just justification for not being able to get the 4/5*

[hogsanity]

Not all 3-star players are created equal.

UA needs several 5- or 4-star recruits every year. And, it needs half of the 3-star guys to come from big-time programs that play elite competition (and see good competition in practice). We cannot survive on small-town 3-star talents who have a higher chance of washing out because they never adapt to the elevated competition (and speed of the game).

It is why I am not worried about losing Bohanon. I am not sure about Noland, honestly, but he is from a more compatible system and plays at a much higher level of competition. What I like is the early visit to the NE OK monster programs. A three-star from Tulsa Union, Denton Ryan, or Bishop Rummel is better than a three-star from Charleston, Harrison, or Dumas (picking town names from thin air, no harm intended).

agree on all points.

[Mo_Better_Hogs]

What Okie said ^^.

There still is the fact that some stars get elevated once a Bama or Ohio State offers a player.

And not every player that ends up under Satan's tutelage becomes a star. How can they? Their amazing depth alone cancels out many players. Look at the Arkies that have gone to Alabama (or another top 5-ish team). How many of those emerged as stars? Example, Altee Tenpenny, the state's top running back that year. Signs with Bama then joins the backfield with Kenyon Drake and Derrick Henry. And probably another couple studs i can't remember. Point is, when his roster is full of 4 and 5 star guys, many won't make it.

We've had some 4+ star guys not become elite players. But what's been said in this thread is true—the odds are in your favor.

[CDBHawg]

Since early 2000s...

Every SEC champion has had highly ranked recruiting classes.

Every National Champion has had highly ranked recruiting classes.

I'd say they matter. But it doesn't mean we can't  be successful or have great seasons. We're just not going to win a championship until our recruiting picks up.

[Deep Shoat]

Most stars are awarded because of their assessed talent!  Look at schools that consistently have 4/5* players on the roster and they will consistently have better won/loss records hence ranked higher in the polls and go to better bowls.  Wanting to have 1/2/3* instead of wanting higher ranked players aka 4/5* is just justification for not being able to get the 4/5*

And yet, not all 4/5 stars pan out.  And some 2/3 stars DO.  Proving my point that it is talent and not stars that make great football teams.

[Deep Shoat]

Since early 2000s...

Every SEC champion has had highly ranked recruiting classes.

Every National Champion has had highly ranked recruiting classes.

I'd say they matter. But it doesn't mean we can't  be successful or have great seasons. We're just not going to win a championship until our recruiting picks up.

Correlation =\= causation

Many would argue that those who win championships are rewarded with stars.

[Science Fiction Greg]

I certainly cannot recall the last predominately 3* team to win a national championship.

That's because the teams that normally win national championships get players bumped from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 stars when they offer them scholarships. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Translation...

Just consistently get measurably more players who were offered by the likes of Bama, LSU, UGA, FL, OU, etc...  You'll know they are likely the most talented players with tons potential.  We'll have a much larger margin of error for those that don't pan out.  Think aggregate, not individual.  Doesn't matter how/why those players will coincidentally be mostly 4* players.

Then we just have to develop and realize that potential via coaching.

[PorkSoda]

Only 5% of 3-stars are drafted because they are not as good, that's why I used percentages and not numbers. Of course more 3-stars were drafted, because there are more than 1700 3-stars per recruiting year while there are about 300-400 total 4- and 5-stars. The Falcons and Patriots are light on 4s and 5s, but they even prove my point. The Falcons starting lineup is about 20% 4s and 5s, yet 4s and 5s combined make up about 8% of rated recruits. So a huge percentage of 4s and especially 5s play in the NFL while a tiny percentage of all others do. It's not because there are more lower ranked recruits, it's because they are not as good. The ratios don't lie. Sorry if you don't understand math.

seem like the trick then (unless you are bama/OSU etc) is to choose your 3 stars wisely.

[hawgfan4life]

I believe everyone would agree stars do matter and it is little surprise that a high percentage of them are drafted and reach the pro bowl.  However, your use of data to prove the outcome you likely wanted and/or expected is a little skewed because it does tot factor a few variables.  One already mentioned is the fact that some star ratings are based on money spent by the recruit going to certain events sponsored by those giving the ratings and the fact that who offers raises and lowers the ratings on some players.  The second thing is your use of single recruiting classes or draft years compared to starting rosters and pro bowl rosters that include multiple years of drafted players.  Another variable not factored is the very high 3s equally lumped in with low 3s and all other lower or non rated players. 

Stars matter, but there aren't enough for everyone to fill their rosters wit them.  Evaluation and development are equally important.

[IronHog]

Big fast and good is big fast and good

[Nipsey Mussle]

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.

Find the talent and nobody gives two fresh squirts where you ranked.

Sorry, but this is laughable. They aren't given star ratings based on their personality, it's based on talent.

[IronHog]

Sorry, but this is laughable. They aren't given star ratings based on their personality, it's based on talent.

True

But there are plenty of 3*'s that are clearly under rated

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Was just doing some research for a thread in Monday Morning Quarterback, and to satisfy my own curiosity. Thought the regulars here would also find it interesting. Someone said they would prefer signing 100 3-star recruits per year (if that was possible), compared to what Alabama usually signs. My response:

"You apparently don't realize that the chance of a 3* player drafted is incredibly slim. 3-stars rarely become good players. In the 2017 draft, 23 or 32 first round picks were 4- or 5-star recruits out of high school. Of the 31 eligible 5-star recruits for that draft, 23 were drafted, with 9 being in the first round.

So consider this in your crazy example of taking 100 3-stars in each recruiting class compared to a top-rated class of about 25 recruits. Approximately 5% of all 3-star recruits are drafted. Approximately 26% of all 4- and 5-star recruits are drafted. So if you take 100 3-star recruits in a recruiting class, you will have about 5 players from that class drafted. Georgia currently has 23 recruits (six 5-stars, eleven 4-stars, six 3-stars). Using the percentages given, they have 4.72 players in that class that will be drafted (basically 5 players). It's the same, with a quarter of the recruits. If you take a program that only signs 25 3-star recruits, they will average about 1 drafted player per year.

Stars matter. Coaches matter also, and there are some outliers, like Snyder and Leach and Briles. But for nearly everyone else, stars are absolutely necessary, even to Saban. He wasn't the elite coach that he is when he was at Michigan St and LSU and had lower recruiting rankings. Saban's recruiting rankings at LSU were 2000-21st, 2001-2nd, 2003-21st, and 2004 really doesn't matter because he left after that season. His national championship there came when that 2001 class were juniors (7 players were drafted after that season). The next year he went 9-3 and finished ranked 16th in the country. Outside that national championship year, his other years at LSU were a combined 35-15, and the recruiting rankings were not spectacular in his 2000 and 2002 classes (both recruiting classes were ranked 21st).

Stars matter, and they matter in a major way. And the recruiting ranking services are more accurate than most will admit."

From the 2007 Draft through the 2016 Draft here are the number of draftees and their average "stars" when they were signed on both the offensive and defensive side of the ball of a few of the more notable SEC schools.

         Offense       Defense
ARK     28-3.3         12-3.0
LSU     27-3.8         35-3.7
ALA     31-3.8         37-3.8
A&M    17-3.4          8-2.8
AUB     16-3.4         17-3.0
OlM     10-4.1          9-3.0
MSU     7-3.1          15-3.5
FLA     26-3.8          30-3.9
GEO     25-3.5         28-4.0

Sources:
247 Sports
drafthistory.com

[Deep Shoat]

Sorry, but this is laughable. They aren't given star ratings based on their personality, it's based on talent.

No.  it's based on PERCEPTION of talent.

If stars were based on actual talent, there wouldn't be recruiting busts or recruiting misses.

Talent is what translates into actual play.  Stars are what a few con men use to predict who has the talent.

Stars are horse crap.  Talent matters.

[IronHog]

No.  it's based on PERCEPTION of talent.

If stars were based on actual talent, there wouldn't be recruiting busts or recruiting misses.

Talent is what translates into actual play.  Stars are what a few con men use to predict who has the talent.

Stars are horse crap.  Talent matters.

Yes and no.

Darius Winston had off the chart measurables. Wasn't going to cover anyone.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Sorry, but this is laughable. They aren't given star ratings based on their personality, it's based on talent.

The trick is, how do they evaluate the talent of all the thousands of players so quickly?

They don't.  They do the easy ones first, then they start filling in the rest the best they can and then fill in the gaps with lots of guesswork and inferences, with bonuses given to players shown interest by teams that traditionally win a lot of football games.

In an ideal world, stars = talent.  This one ain't ideal.

[Deep Shoat]

Yes and no.

Darius Winston had off the chart measurables. Wasn't going to cover anyone.

My point proven.

Measurable s get you stars.  Talent covers WR's in the SEC.

[IronHog]

The trick is, how do they evaluate the talent of all the thousands of players so quickly?

They don't.  They do the easy ones first, then they start filling in the rest the best they can and then fill in the gaps with lots of guesswork and inferences, with bonuses given to players shown interest by teams that traditionally win a lot of football games.

In an ideal world, stars = talent.  This one ain't ideal.

Lots of it is based off measurables.


Altee Tenpenny was a freak athlete.  Just an OK running back

[IronHog]

My point proven.

Measurable s get you stars.  Talent covers WR's in the SEC.

"Talent" isn't grit, effort, or attitude

[Deep Shoat]

Lots of it is based off measurables.


Altee Tenpenny was a freak athlete.  Just an OK running back

Which, again, proves my point. 

Measurables made him a 4 star.  Talent made him a 5th stringer.

[Deep Shoat]

"Talent" isn't grit, effort, or attitude

Talent is the ability to play the damn game.  Period.