Calling All Star Gazers

[20hog11]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/195544/mctelvin-agim

http://www.arkansasfight.com/2015/8/3/9092469/espn-rates-mctelvin-agim-5-9-overall-prospect

Coach B is about to make you very happy.... Agim got that fifth star. Will other recruiting sites follow?

Oh yea, SIAP.

[redeye]

Wow, he's now their 9th best overall player!

:razorback: :razorback: :razorback:

To give some idea how big that is, ESPN only has 14 5* players and Ole Mi$$ is the only SEC team that has one currently committed.  I also like 3 of the DT's ranked ahead of Agim.

[CFB_Fanatic]

Awesome. Now whats the odds we actually get him without Bama, Auburn, or Ohio St coming in and sweeping him out from under us? Thats the question.

[redeye]

Awesome. Now whats the odds we actually get him without Bama, Auburn, or Ohio St coming in and sweeping him out from under us? Thats the question.

Well, none of those schools are in his top-4, so that would seem unlikely.

[Huds_HawgTide]

I think arkansas all the way

[WorfHog]

Woo Pig, we're going to land us another FIVESTAR!

[Theolesnort]

Wow he has that 5TH star. Does that mean he is a lot better player now than he was when he was only a 4 star this summer............ just pulling your leg.

[HoggusMaximus]

Stars dont matter, only performance on the field.

[scooby21322]

How is Houston pulling in a 5-Star? 

[greenie]

How is Houston pulling in a 5-Star?

Home town boy.

[redeye]

How is Houston pulling in a 5-Star?

Their new head coach was the OC at tOSU last year and he's been recruiting very well.

[20hog11]

Not sure why some schools pay so much for five stars..... They're pretty cheap here in Arkansas

[trok24]

these star ratings are a freaking joke...it doesnt mean crap. i can remember several highly rated players who didnt have the motor for SEC ball at the U of A... marcus shavers, fred bledsoe, the corner from west helena. come on guys . gimme an UNCOMMON high character 3 star or walkon that wants to be a 5 star and they can be your biggest team assets   

[Medic821]

5 star-potenial reached. 3 star- still hungry tons of potential

[Adam Stokes]

these star ratings are a freaking joke...it doesnt mean crap. i can remember several highly rated players who didnt have the motor for SEC ball at the U of A... marcus shavers, fred bledsoe, the corner from west helena. come on guys . gimme an UNCOMMON high character 3 star or walkon that wants to be a 5 star and they can be your biggest team assets   

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/5/12/5696710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars



So it certainly does have an affect, but I agree that it is not the end all be all.

[OLDHOG]

these star ratings are a freaking joke...it doesnt mean crap. i can remember several highly rated players who didnt have the motor for SEC ball at the U of A... marcus shavers, fred bledsoe, the corner from west helena. come on guys . gimme an UNCOMMON high character 3 star or walkon that wants to be a 5 star and they can be your biggest team assets   

I tend to agree. Just my opinion

[scruf]

5 stars, 3 stars, no stars, who gives a crap - this kid can play. Sign him up.

[Arkansas Fan]

Star gazers need to be put down like the idiots they are. Name a player that performed well in college and tell them he was just a "three-star recruit" and they'll scramble to find some recruiting site that had him higher than a three-star just so they can keep up the "stars matter" propaganda.

[Ham Ham Pigelow]

Star gazers need to be put down like the idiots they are. Name a player that performed well in college and tell them he was just a "three-star recruit" and they'll scramble to find some recruiting site that had him higher than a three-star just so they can keep up the "stars matter" propaganda.

Going back to when recruiting services began assigning stars, what is the correlation between the NC winners/BCS bowl participants and the recruiting rankings? Also, out of the group of players that have had the most impact at Arkansas, what was their typical star rating?

[Arkansas Fan]

Going back to when recruiting services began assigning stars, what is the correlation between the NC winners/BCS bowl participants and the recruiting rankings? Also, out of the group of players that have had the most impact at Arkansas, what was their typical star rating?

When recruiting services wait and see what schools offer a kid then put how many stars a player is. It's bogus. When recruiting services have different ratings for a player, like only having a kid three-stars, yet has offers from big time programs, it's bogus. I'll take the evaluations of actual coaches over some recruiting "experts" every time.

A player's success is determined by how hard he wants to work, how motivated he is, his team, and coaches. That's it.

Also, how many highly rated players have we had that didn't do squat? Darius Winston comes to mind. Now, let's look at a guy like Kiero Small, no stars, yet I'd take him as my fullback any day because of his attitude, hard work, motivation, and willingness to be physical. Take your stars and shove 'em.

[redeye]

I think both sides make excellent points and I tend to fall in the middle of this debate.  However, the sample size for the correlation of national champions to recruiting rank is so small that it's value is limited.  And I think the hits and misses by recruiting services is too great, even though I'm not sure they could do much better.  Still, I've been a recruitnik since long before Rivals began, and have always enjoyed the thrill of signing a great class, and then imagining what it will accomplish.

The main problem with star gazers is that they just give recruiting services too much credit.  They're entertainment and it's like getting all your news from a cable source, which are usually more interested in entertaining, then providing news.  I still find them useful, and they're a lot of fun, but I consider their ratings very limited.

I actually do believe that our coaches often prefer a lowly rated player, over all those rated higher, and until they give me reason to think differently, I'll trust their opinion over recruiting services.  Of course we miss on some they want who are ranked higher, but I just don't think it's as bad as some do.  And I'm comforted by remembering that Bielema built top-5 teams at Wisconsin, with classes ranked in the 40-50's, so it's exciting to imagine what he can do here with classes ranked much higher.

[bennyl08]

When recruiting services wait and see what schools offer a kid then put how many stars a player is. It's bogus. When recruiting services have different ratings for a player, like only having a kid three-stars, yet has offers from big time programs, it's bogus. I'll take the evaluations of actual coaches over some recruiting "experts" every time.

A player's success is determined by how hard he wants to work, how motivated he is, his team, and coaches. That's it.

Also, how many highly rated players have we had that didn't do squat? Darius Winston comes to mind. Now, let's look at a guy like Kiero Small, no stars, yet I'd take him as my fullback any day because of his attitude, hard work, motivation, and willingness to be physical. Take your stars and shove 'em.

A players success is also determined by his natural talents as well. Think Dmac would have been just as successful if he ran a 5.5 forty?

If I had to choose a team consisting of 2/3*'s only or 4/5*'s only, the choice is simple. Especially with 5*'s, you know 1/4 of your team will be drafted in the first round with over half being drafted in general. NFL doesn't give two cents about what ranking you had in HS, yet that ranking is still a very good predictor of being drafted and where. Obviously the best would be having players with the right mentality and that fit the system which would probably include a mix of all star ratings. Look at Bama and Ohio St. Both sign several 3* guys over higher rated players due to them being better. Skipper being a great example of that type of player. Flowers being a guy who slipped through the cracks of recruiting.

[bennyl08]

I think both sides make excellent points and I tend to fall in the middle of this debate.  However, the sample size for the correlation of national champions to recruiting rank is so small that it's value is limited.  And I think the hits and misses by recruiting services is too great, even though I'm not sure they could do much better.  Still, I've been a recruitnik since long before Rivals began, and have always enjoyed the thrill of signing a great class, and then imagining what it will accomplish.

The main problem with star gazers is that they just give recruiting services too much credit.  They're entertainment and it's like getting all your news from a cable source, which are usually more interested in entertaining, then providing news.  I still find them useful, and they're a lot of fun, but I consider their ratings very limited.

I actually do believe that our coaches often prefer a lowly rated player, over all those rated higher, and until they give me reason to think differently, I'll trust their opinion over recruiting services.  Of course we miss on some they want who are ranked higher, but I just don't think it's as bad as some do.  And I'm comforted by remembering that Bielema built top-5 teams at Wisconsin, with classes ranked in the 40-50's, so it's exciting to imagine what he can do here with classes ranked much higher.

Almost our entire roster of OL is 4/5*. All of our QB's are. Most of our TE's are. Our top receiver is a 4*. On defense, a majority of our DL is 4* and only the back 7 isn't. Basically, our biggest question marks in the season, WR, LB, and secondary are the groups not dripping with 4/5*'s. Granted, Tevin Mitchel who was just drafted was a 4* guy.

Stars are not the end all be all, particularly when it comes to defining a teams success. They are a solid predictor of athletic ability, however, and a coach will prefer a hard working guy who is fast and strong with high character over a hard working guy who is slow and small. That is why there is generally such a correlation. However, note that the correlation is stronger to the draft than to collegiate wins. That has to do with what the rankings don't factor in. Team fit, team chemistry, character, and hard work. You have all of that and you can get a low rated group of guys have a good amount of success in college. However, when it comes to the pros, you have to be able to translate that to the next level which generally means being athletic. Look at UW with 3 first round picks this year but was a mediocre PAC team. 

[Nipsey Mussle]

When recruiting services wait and see what schools offer a kid then put how many stars a player is. It's bogus. When recruiting services have different ratings for a player, like only having a kid three-stars, yet has offers from big time programs, it's bogus. I'll take the evaluations of actual coaches over some recruiting "experts" every time.

A player's success is determined by how hard he wants to work, how motivated he is, his team, and coaches. That's it.

Also, how many highly rated players have we had that didn't do squat? Darius Winston comes to mind. Now, let's look at a guy like Kiero Small, no stars, yet I'd take him as my fullback any day because of his attitude, hard work, motivation, and willingness to be physical. Take your stars and shove 'em.

So the only difference between me and Matt Jones are the criteria you listed above?

Yes, you can have a 5 star that is a bust. And yes, you can have a 3 star that turns out great.

One time I was playing poker and pocket 10's beat my pocket aces. However, if I have a choice of which hand to play for the next 4 years, give me pocket aces and I'll take my chances.

You'll see much, much more 5 stars like Eric Berry, DMAC, and countless others who dominate from day 1 than you will see the Darius Winston types.

[redeye]

Almost our entire roster of OL is 4/5*. All of our QB's are. Most of our TE's are. Our top receiver is a 4*. On defense, a majority of our DL is 4* and only the back 7 isn't. Basically, our biggest question marks in the season, WR, LB, and secondary are the groups not dripping with 4/5*'s. Granted, Tevin Mitchel who was just drafted was a 4* guy.

Stars are not the end all be all, particularly when it comes to defining a teams success. They are a solid predictor of athletic ability, however, and a coach will prefer a hard working guy who is fast and strong with high character over a hard working guy who is slow and small. That is why there is generally such a correlation. However, note that the correlation is stronger to the draft than to collegiate wins. That has to do with what the rankings don't factor in. Team fit, team chemistry, character, and hard work. You have all of that and you can get a low rated group of guys have a good amount of success in college. However, when it comes to the pros, you have to be able to translate that to the next level which generally means being athletic. Look at UW with 3 first round picks this year but was a mediocre PAC team.

Yea, I mostly agree, but Bielema's never signed really high classes, and yet, he has an outstanding record of sending players to the NFL.  How's that even possible?

College isn't the NFL, though, and I think the key in your post is what I put in bold.  Finding players that fit your system and have a high ceiling are often overlooked.  Then you have players like Hayden Johnson, who's rated low as a DE, but is being recruited as a FB by Arkansas (similar to Kiero Small, who was listed as a LB).  The question is "Do you want the end all, be all, or do you want team success?"  Stars do play a part in team success, but as you said, it's not the end all, be all.  If it were, we probably wouldn't have curb-stomped LSU, Ole Miss and Texas last year.

edit: While reading this again, I realize my question doesn't make much sense.  It should read "Do you want stars or do you want team success?"  The point being that while there is a correlation, they're not one and the same.

[Ham Ham Pigelow]

When recruiting services wait and see what schools offer a kid then put how many stars a player is. It's bogus. When recruiting services have different ratings for a player, like only having a kid three-stars, yet has offers from big time programs, it's bogus. I'll take the evaluations of actual coaches over some recruiting "experts" every time.

A player's success is determined by how hard he wants to work, how motivated he is, his team, and coaches. That's it.

Also, how many highly rated players have we had that didn't do squat? Darius Winston comes to mind. Now, let's look at a guy like Kiero Small, no stars, yet I'd take him as my fullback any day because of his attitude, hard work, motivation, and willingness to be physical. Take your stars and shove 'em.

The answer is there is a direct correlation between sustained success in CFB and recruiting rankings. We're talking the overwhelming majority, not the outliers like every other person that uses the "For you star gazer" logic. And for every Darius Winston you offer, I raise you just about every single major contributor Arkansas has had since Houston Nutt, to include Bielema's current roster. And you talk about attitude and willingness to be physical? Kids with 4 or 5 stars can do that too. Being "Uncommon" isn't unique to 2 or 3 star players. Bielema isn't stupid, he offers some of the same highly rated kids that the big boys do. These recruiting services aren't stupid either. Do they miss some? Sure. But they get a TON right as well. The research going back at least a decade isn't debatable or subjective.

[Ham Ham Pigelow]

Yea, I mostly agree, but Bielema's never signed really high classes, and yet, he has an outstanding record of sending players to the NFL.  How's that even possible?

College isn't the NFL, though, and I think the key in your post is what I put in bold.  Finding players that fit your system and have a high ceiling are often overlooked.  Then you have players like Hayden Johnson, who's rated low as a DE, but is being recruited as a FB by Arkansas (similar to Kiero Small, who was listed as a LB).  The question is "Do you want the end all, be all, or do you want team success?"  Stars do play a part in team success, but as you said, it's not the end all, be all.  If it were, we probably wouldn't have curb-stomped LSU, Ole Miss and Texas last year.

I agree that there is something to be said about Bielema's ability to develop under-evaluated players and his NFL track record. But I think this record, while impressive, is a bit skewed due to the high number of those players being interior lineman and a typical style of running back. I think Bielema is well aware that playing in the SEC will require a delicate balance of that same type of under-developed player, the "Uncommon", along with highly-talented skill players to keep teams off balance.

[redeye]

I agree that there is something to be said about Bielema's ability to develop under-evaluated players and his NFL track record. But I think this record, while impressive, is a bit skewed due to the high number of those players being interior lineman and a typical style of running back. I think Bielema is well aware that playing in the SEC will require a delicate balance of that same type of under-developed player, the "Uncommon", along with highly-talented skill players to keep teams off balance.

I agree and hope we'll get more great skill players in the future, which I think we will do.  As many have pointed out, that's not a big requirement for Bielema's offense, but it may be a requirement to win the SEC.

However, Alex Collins was rated the #1 RB on 247.  Jojo Robinson, Dominque Reed, Jared Cornelius, Hunter Henry, Will Gragg, Austin Cantrell, RWIII, et al, aren't patsies, either.  Some of us have a tendency to sell Arkansas short, imo.  Part of being great is knowing you're great, which means you're not distracted by second-guessing.  Most of us are just fans, but all animals feed off their environment, both literally and figuratively, and I'm sure our players are no different in that regard.

[Adam Stokes]

One time I was playing poker and pocket 10's beat my pocket aces. However, if I have a choice of which hand to play for the next 4 years, give me pocket aces and I'll take my chances.

+1, perfect analogy for the discussion. 

[duckman]

Go to the thread I started and read the long post by Jack, you will understand why we are priming to explode...

[LJHOG]

Wow he has that 5TH star. Does that mean he is a lot better player now

Yes, a whole lot better.

[bennyl08]

Yea, I mostly agree, but Bielema's never signed really high classes, and yet, he has an outstanding record of sending players to the NFL.  How's that even possible?

College isn't the NFL, though, and I think the key in your post is what I put in bold.  Finding players that fit your system and have a high ceiling are often overlooked.  Then you have players like Hayden Johnson, who's rated low as a DE, but is being recruited as a FB by Arkansas (similar to Kiero Small, who was listed as a LB).  The question is "Do you want the end all, be all, or do you want team success?"  Stars do play a part in team success, but as you said, it's not the end all, be all.  If it were, we probably wouldn't have curb-stomped LSU, Ole Miss and Texas last year.

edit: While reading this again, I realize my question doesn't make much sense.  It should read "Do you want stars or do you want team success?"  The point being that while there is a correlation, they're not one and the same.

Obviously team success. I'd rather a natty with no draft picks than 5 first rounders and no bowl game. I like the poker analogy because that is one of the subjects that people understand probability. A 5* is like pocket aces. Now, a good player can beat  a poorer player pocket aces with skilled betting alone. Further, there are other cards that come into play too. However, with minimal other info, pocket aces are the ones to bet on. Combine a good coach with good talent and you get OSU, USC, Bama... They can beat avg coaches with good talent or good coach with avg talent.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Obviously team success. I'd rather a natty with no draft picks than 5 first rounders and no bowl game. I like the poker analogy because that is one of the subjects that people understand probability. A 5* is like pocket aces. Now, a good player can beat  a poorer player pocket aces with skilled betting alone. Further, there are other cards that come into play too. However, with minimal other info, pocket aces are the ones to bet on. Combine a good coach with good talent and you get OSU, USC, Bama... They can beat avg coaches with good talent or good coach with avg talent.

DING
DING
DING

[redeye]

Obviously team success. I'd rather a natty with no draft picks than 5 first rounders and no bowl game. I like the poker analogy because that is one of the subjects that people understand probability. A 5* is like pocket aces. Now, a good player can beat  a poorer player pocket aces with skilled betting alone. Further, there are other cards that come into play too. However, with minimal other info, pocket aces are the ones to bet on. Combine a good coach with good talent and you get OSU, USC, Bama... They can beat avg coaches with good talent or good coach with avg talent.

That's a good analogy, but it's not perfect.  Pocket aces have a static value that can't be changed, but 5* players can be pocket deuces in some cases.  Bielema's put around the same number of players in the NFL as Saban, even though he's signed far fewer 4-5* recruits, but I don't think anyone would argue that he's had better overall talent, so you're right.

[Choctaw Hog]

One time I was playing poker and pocket 10's beat my pocket aces. However, if I have a choice of which hand to play for the next 4 years, give me pocket aces and I'll take my chances.

This is a very poor analogy.  Admittedly, I know very little about cards but I do know for certain that "low cards" don't have the ability to be become higher performing cards through hard work and determination and "high cards" don't become complacent and perform below their potential or get arrested and get kicked out of the deck.

I've stated this before and I'll state it again.  Recruiting services are in business for one thing and one thing only and that is to make money by selling their services to the ignorant and uninformed college football fan. These services don't have the time, money or expertise properly evaluate players and they "miss" on player evaluations way more then they hit. 

There's a lot of reasons college and pro coaches don't use their services and if the star gazers would only open their eyes they too could see that these services are irrelevant. Sadly, star gazers refuse to see that because their whole world revolves around whether a Razorback recruit is going to be anointed with another star or two believing that somehow that's going to make him a better player. 

[bennyl08]

This is a very poor analogy.  Admittedly, I know very little about cards but I do know for certain that "low cards" don't have the ability to be become higher performing cards through hard work and determination and "high cards" don't become complacent and perform below their potential or get arrested and get kicked out of the deck.

Low cards certainly do have the ability to become higher performing cards. If you have pocket aces and I have pocket two, but the flop contains the other pair of twos, now those two's are higher performing. That is analogous to a 3* guy with great work ethic, scheme fit, and coachability vs a 5* who feels entitled. The flop, turn, and river are the sort of x factors that you can't know until you dig deeper into the game in the same way character, work ethic, motivation, how a body will physically change with a college weight program can't be known just by watching tape, but you must instead dig deeper. It is still a good analogy.

I've stated this before and I'll state it again.  Recruiting services are in business for one thing and one thing only and that is to make money by selling their services to the ignorant and uninformed college football fan. These services don't have the time, money or expertise properly evaluate players and they "miss" on player evaluations way more then they hit. 

You are mostly right here. I'd argue though that it isn't the uninformed fan who subscribes to them. Those are the fans who want 4 games over a season and that is it. You are absolutely right that they don't have the time or resources to 'properly' evaluate every player and they do miss a lot, though certainly not way more than they hit. Without leaving the program of Arkansas, the stars of a player have been correct far more often than they have been wrong on terms of athletic ability. Who is the better running back, Collins or Evans? Better receiver, Hatcher or Hawkins? Better O-line, Kirkland or Danenhaur? If you actually look, they are a solid indicator. Not full proof by any means, but if you are going to look at one single thing, it is probably the most accurate single thing to look at.

There's a lot of reasons college and pro coaches don't use their services and if the star gazers would only open their eyes they too could see that these services are irrelevant. Sadly, star gazers refuse to see that because their whole world revolves around whether a Razorback recruit is going to be anointed with another star or two believing that somehow that's going to make him a better player.

Yes, there are lots of reasons. Any coach who recruits players based of a recruiting service and nothing else is going to be a terrible coach. The coach needs to be able to judge character, future potential with a year or two in the weight room, fit in the locker room and scheme, etc... as well as the athleticism and technique that the player has established today which is all the rankings look at. A guy that would be a home run LT for Oregon probably would not cut it in our offense and vice versa. Both could be 4* players, but scheme fits into things too. It just so happens that there is a strong correlation between the players that coaches really want and that recruiting services rank highly.

As for pro coaches, of course they don't care what people thought of you in high school. You think a graduate school gives two flips about your GPA? Of course not, they want to know you did in undergrad, what research you've done, etc... Further, they care about how you will do at the NFL where you are playing against the best. So, they want to see that you are athletic. Guess what, athleticness is pretty much what recruiting services look for. Hence, when over 50% of 5*'s get drafted and less than 1% of 3*'s do, there is no causal relationship, but it is highly correlated because both are largely based on athleticism.

Sadly, I think you do not understand either what star gazers are looking at or do not understand what recruiting services actually do. A star gazer doesn't simply look at the stars and make all their judgements off of that. That is simply the starting point. You then look at the offer list, if they are a 4/5* guy with few offers, that is a red flag. If 3* guy with a lot of offers, then that is a good sign. Then you look at the tape, how does this guy look on tape? Does he look like a guy who should be highly coveted or does he look like somebody playing weak competition?

[Corkscrew Johnson]

Wow he has that 5TH star. Does that mean he is a lot better player now than he was when he was only a 4 star this summer............ just pulling your leg.

For those people who think that having a 5 star, or a higher rated recruiting class, or the momentum of being a rising program, doesn't help you in recruiting (or hurt you if you are going in the wrong direction), you've been living in Russia for too long.  It's a lot easier to sell a good product than a floundering one.  That takes nothing away from the importance of on-the-field performance (sorry Coach Freeze) or the ability to identify & develop unheralded talent (sorry Hootie!), but in this hog-eat-hog world you take every advantage you can get.  And the hype of landing a 5 star defensive tackle sure is one of them. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I love all the star gazer mantra.  I'd bet most don't put as much stock in stars as much as claimed around here.  I suspect, like me, they primarily look at offer sheets to best gauge someone's talent, because, you know, I admit that I'm probably the only sideline coach around here that admits I'm not qualified to evaluate a HS football player...unless he's obviously exceptional or really bad. 

Just so happens that, by and large, there is a correlation to the offer sheet and the number of stars.  And like during the BP days, I suspect nobody around here distrusts our staff's evaluations...that's largely ridiculous.  However, I'm sure there are a handful that don't trust the staff's ability to close the deal.  And that's a different matter entirely.  I ain't one of those guys.

From where I sit, it looks obvious that we're recruiting at a higher level than the last 15 years...with a higher success rate.  We fine.

[redeye]

I love all the star gazer mantra.  I'd bet most don't put as much stock in stars as much as claimed around here.  I suspect, like me, they primarily look at offer sheets to best gauge someone's talent, because, you know, I admit that I'm probably the only sideline coach around here that admits I'm not qualified to evaluate a HS football player...unless he's obviously exceptional or really bad. 

Yea, I agree with that.  Most of us probably don't disagree as much as we think we do.  Star-gazing's an exciting sideline activity that's easy to get caught up in and sometimes we get too caught up in it.

The media isn't immune to it, either.  Higher rated recruits are regarded as better players from the moment they step on campus.  Even when it becomes obvious they're not everything they were thought to be, they're often still treated as if they are or rated above others who put up better numbers.

[Theolesnort]

When it comes to Bielema and staff when he offers a player and takes the commitment I don't even play attention to the recruiting rags # of stars, and yes the # of offers from the best of programs usually means more than a Rivals or whomever # of stars. Still though we have people on here that will argue for the star system even though we have almost all the top coaches say they don't pay attention to recruiting stars but their own evaluations. The star system doesn't make a player any better than he is or for that matter any worse. They are what they are despite Rivals or Scout. For some of these folks it becomes a competition as to the # of stars a team recruits, it becomes a game unto it self. Actually if Alabama has recruited #1 for 5 strait years and with Nick Saban as the best coach with the best staff how do they ever lose a game? Think about it because the gulf according to that is so wide.  Heck when it comes to 16, 17 or 18 year old kids lots of changes are in store both good and bad. Some will whiz by others and some will fall back, then there are the rare ones who are what many say they are. It is a mixed bag of hit and miss on these kids regardless.

[hawginbigd1]

I love all the star gazer mantra.  I'd bet most don't put as much stock in stars as much as claimed around here.  I suspect, like me, they primarily look at offer sheets to best gauge someone's talent, because, you know, I admit that I'm probably the only sideline coach around here that admits I'm not qualified to evaluate a HS football player...unless he's obviously exceptional or really bad. 

I wish that were true, but there are many multi page threads in this forum that says we will never compete for SEC championship and higher as long as our recruiting rankings remain in high teens and in the 20's.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I wish that were true, but there are many multi page threads in this forum that says we will never compete for SEC championship and higher as long as our recruiting rankings remain in high teens and in the 20's.

You think this is the majority opinion?  I don't.  The number of threads or pages in the thread aren't relevant.  It's a small minority constantly claiming direct correlation between stars and SECC IMO.  Then they immediately get dog-piled by the majority who are claiming the opposite.  Heck, I'd estimate there are more threads started in an effort to debunk stars than support them.

[bennyl08]

When it comes to Bielema and staff when he offers a player and takes the commitment I don't even play attention to the recruiting rags # of stars, and yes the # of offers from the best of programs usually means more than a Rivals or whomever # of stars. Still though we have people on here that will argue for the star system even though we have almost all the top coaches say they don't pay attention to recruiting stars but their own evaluations. The star system doesn't make a player any better than he is or for that matter any worse. They are what they are despite Rivals or Scout. For some of these folks it becomes a competition as to the # of stars a team recruits, it becomes a game unto it self. Actually if Alabama has recruited #1 for 5 strait years and with Nick Saban as the best coach with the best staff how do they ever lose a game? Think about it because the gulf according to that is so wide.  Heck when it comes to 16, 17 or 18 year old kids lots of changes are in store both good and bad. Some will whiz by others and some will fall back, then there are the rare ones who are what many say they are. It is a mixed bag of hit and miss on these kids regardless.

Recruiting can be a lot like a movie. Offer list is analogous to cast/director. Recruiting rankings are like critic's reviews. If you see Scorcese or Denzel willing to put their name to a movie, that is akin to having an Alabama, USC, or Ohio State willing to attach their name to a recruit. Now, what Roger Ebert (rest in piece) says about a movie does not change the movie. I'm sure everybody here can list off several critically acclaimed movies that they hated and several movies shredded by critics that they personally enjoyed. However, chances are you look at your favorite movies and most will probably have a pretty good IMDB score.

You won't hear movie directors saying they will change how they do movies based on what some guy on rotten tomatoes says in the same way that Saban isn't basing his recruiting off of rivals. All the same, most of the best movies have high rankings and the worst movies overall have bad ratings. That is largely how it is with recruiting. Countless movies have come along with no-name actors and directors that didn't get reviewed by many people and they do great. For every three star at arkansas that was great I can point out 5 that weren't. For every 4/5* bust I can point out 3 others that were good.

Being highly rated by recruiting beatniks doesn't guarantee success nor does being low or averagely rated preclude one from greatness in the same way that Ebert's opinion on a movie doesn't guarantee you will like it or dislike it. It's just a matter of percentages and likelihoods. Certain coaches like Petrino and Bielema are able to bend those percentages towards their favor, however even then, the best players are usually the more highly recruited/ranked. By CBB's recruiting alone, it could easily be argued he is a star gazer. Of course, he probably never looks at a players stars, he just certainly goes after high star players more than he does lower star guys. You may have never read an Ebert movie review but chances are, you agree with him more than not. That is what star gazing is. There are very, very few 'star gazers' who base their entire opinion on a player based on stars. Just like I'd put my bet on a really good poker player with 4-10 off suit over someone known to not be very good with pocket 8's, I'd put money on a 3* guy for Bielema over a 4* guy under Freeze at least as it relates to college success. When it comes draft time, I'd probably lean to the 4* guy who is quicker, faster, and more explosive but lacks the technique and teamwork of the 3* on draft day.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

Awesome. Now whats the odds we actually get him without Bama, Auburn, or Ohio St coming in and sweeping him out from under us? Thats the question.

No the question is: "Does your wife occasionally let you carry a full bag or just an empty sack?"

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

One last time...  The star system is based on a players impact ability right now. 5* right away, 3* needs development. CBB's system doesn't require that a player be all SEC now.  Bama's embarrassment of riches is going to close in on them soon...

[Overrated]

Look, if you think that stars on a player are the only thing that matters, you obviously haven't been paying attention to football. Plenty of people in this thread (and a million other threads and websites) have great examples of players that go above and beyond their star rating (and also ones that don't live up to their potential). Each time a player goes above their star rating or doesn't live up to that potential, the reasons are unique to that player/team. Also, there are millions of other reasons that have been pointed out (again in this very thread) that players may not fit a team mentality or scheme or even that the recruiting services just missed a guy.

However, on the flip side, to claim that the star ratings mean absolutely nothing is just being naïve. The facts support that so far (since we have had recruiting ranking data), there is a direct correlation to having a high ranking recruiting class on campus (within the last 4 recruiting cycles), and winning a national championship.

Using 247Sports Composite Recruiting Rankings back to 2002, you can see in the following data that every team that has won a national championship has had a Top 6 recruiting class on campus when they won that NC. In fact, the only team that didn't have a Top 5 recruiting class was the 2010 NC Auburn team.



   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Year [NC]	National Champion	Year [RR]	Recruiting Ranking
2002	Ohio State Miami (Fla.) [robbed]	2002 2002	4 5
2003	Louisiana State Southern California	2001; 2003 2003	2; 3 2
2004	Southern California	2003; 2004	2; 2
2005	Texas	2002	1
2006	Florida	2003; 2004; 2006	1; 5; 2
2007	Louisiana State	2004; 2007	3; 5
2008	Florida	2006; 2007	2; 1
2009	Alabama	2008; 2009	3; 2
2010	Auburn	2010	6
2011	Alabama	2008; 2009; 2010; 2011	3; 2; 5; 1
2012	Alabama	2009; 2010; 2011; 2012	2; 5; 1; 1
2013	Florida State	2011; 2012	2; 3
2014	Ohio State	2012; 2013; 2014	5; 2; 3

Now, you can argue that the reasons those teams won was because of some sort of subconscious perception in the minds of recruits causing them to gravitate towards a winning team; or because of outstanding coaching at those schools; or a million other reasons, but that doesn't change the facts.

If I were betting inside of a sandbox (blocking out all media / fan hype about how different teams are going to do this year and blocking out my own personal experience from watching the teams performances the last few years and my own bias for the hogs); I would bet on one of the following schools winning the national title this year (based purely on recruiting data / cycles for the last 4 years):

Alabama (1; 1; 1; 1)
Texas (2)
Florida State (3; 4; 3)
Florida (4; 3)
Ohio State (5; 2; 3)
Southern California (2)
Michigan (4)
Notre Dame (5)
Louisiana State (2; 5)
Texas A&M (5)
Tennessee (4)

Obviously, based on the conditions of each of those teams and a ton of other factors I could narrow that list down substantially, on who I thought could actually win it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it couldn't have happened in the past or can't happen now; anything is possible. The college football landscape right now (with the advent of the college football playoff) is the best time to break that mold since the recruiting rankings have been available. I could see a team breaking into the playoff and winning the big game without having a top 6  (or even top 10) recruiting class on campus. Any team with player + coaching talent to a certain degree should have a chance. Without looking deeper, I believe there have been teams that played for the championship that didn't fit the data above, they just couldn't pull out the win; but maybe out of 10 games against each other they would have won a significant portion of them. The data just shows that although not everything, there is definitely something to the recruiting rankings.

No matter what, though, I will always support the Razorbacks and they will always be my team, and when we have a team like we do now, I will think we can hang with any team in the nation (I truly believe we have something special going on right now). There are definitely times in the last 13 years that there were teams that didn't have a top 6 class on campus that I think could have won a national championship (Razorbacks had a couple), but it just didn't pan out that way. We demolished two teams last year (and should have beaten more) with higher star/rankings than us. Personally I just look at the stars/rankings as one factor in a list of many that can build a championship team. With our current staff/system, I think if we can maintain top 25 recruiting classes, we can win a championship, and that just leads to better recruiting classes, coverage, recognition, etc. Hopefully we're the team to break that mold, a championship would be so much sweeter if we did; Go Hogs...

[lefty08]

This list you have given

Alabama (1; 1; 1; 1)
Texas (2)
Florida State (3; 4; 3)
Florida (4; 3)
Ohio State (5; 2; 3)
Southern California (2)
Michigan (4)
Notre Dame (5)
Louisiana State (2; 5)
Texas A&M (5)
Tennessee (4)

Would pretty much be the list of national champions (minus aTm) over the last 20 years even if teams didn't recruit at all

The reason that doesn't matter at all to me is the fact e same teams have been winning national championships for the last 25 or so years. There is an equal amount of public perception that leads to winning championships, and to me that means much more than how they recruit

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

This list you have given

Alabama (1; 1; 1; 1)
Texas (2)
Florida State (3; 4; 3)
Florida (4; 3)
Ohio State (5; 2; 3)
Southern California (2)
Michigan (4)
Notre Dame (5)
Louisiana State (2; 5)
Texas A&M (5)
Tennessee (4)

Would pretty much be the list of national champions (minus aTm) over the last 20 years even if teams didn't recruit at all

The reason that doesn't matter at all to me is the fact e same teams have been winning national championships for the last 25 or so years. There is an equal amount of public perception that leads to winning championships, and to me that means much more than how they recruit

Damn right there is. The perception is what gets teams to the table early in the rankings. Rankings is how you get into the discussion about the BCS... The play-offs just doubled the chances of getting in. They should be doubled again and you would see a whole lot more of who can really coach or not. Also watch Bama. I fully believe that they are going to implode again this year due to their individual star power(perception). Our team is a real TEAM. They are also full on bought in to the process. They are all pulling in the same direction and focused on doing what the coaches tell them to do. We are a very dangerous team this year...

[HawgFan70]

Spin it any way you want it spun. Find the exception to every rule, name every 2 star who went on to have a great college career, name every 5 star bust you can google up. At the end of the day SEC Champions have highly rated recruiting classes, that is the fact you can't avoid. Year after year SEC Champions have highly rated recruiting classes

[lefty08]

Spin it any way you want it spun. Find the exception to every rule, name every 2 star who went on to have a great college career, name every 5 star bust you can google up. At the end of the day SEC Champions have highly rated recruiting classes, that is the fact you can't avoid. Year after year SEC Champions have highly rated recruiting classes

surely you realize only 6 teams have won the conference since 92, right?