2* RB

[scruf]

David Johnson (Northern Iowa) scores the 1st TD in the Senior Bowl.
http://sports.yahoo.com/iowa/football/recruiting/player-David-Johnson-93852

[yraciv]

Good for him.  He is also projected to be a 7th round pick.  At the top of the board you have.
Melvin Gordon - 4*
Todd Gurley - 4*
Ameer Abdullah - 3 or 4* depending where you look
Tevin Coleman -  3* - plenty of major offers
Duke Johnson - 5*

What is your point? I don't get your agenda. There are millions of 2 stars so surprise surprise some of them may make it.

[trashcan maN]

yraciv, why so mad?

[yraciv]

Ben Koyack got the 2nd td of the game.  He was a 4 star TE.

[yraciv]

yraciv, why so mad?

I just hate when people beat the dead horse that stars don't matter and this is the 2nd thread I've seen him post on the matter in a matter of days.  It is obvious Scruf has an agenda in the matter.

Time and time again people post this nonsense, when the reality of recruiting is it's obvious that higher stars have a higher success rate.  I'm not one to hate on our recruiting class or think that Bielema's staff doesn't do a good job evaluating, but logic is logic.  The top teams for the most part year in and year out are the teams that dominate in recruiting.

No one in the recruiting forum cares that a 2* RB from N Iowa scored a TD in the SR bowl.  Post that nonsense in general sports because it has nothing to do with recruiting.

[4me2know]

JJ Watt was a 2*

[IndianaHog]

Yraciv has a valid point

[scruf]

I just hate when people beat the dead horse that stars don't matter and this is the 2nd thread I've seen him post on the matter in a matter of days.  It is obvious Scruf has an agenda in the matter.

Time and time again people post this nonsense, when the reality of recruiting is it's obvious that higher stars have a higher success rate.  I'm not one to hate on our recruiting class or think that Bielema's staff doesn't do a good job evaluating, but logic is logic.  The top teams for the most part year in and year out are the teams that dominate in recruiting.

No one in the recruiting forum cares that a 2* RB from N Iowa scored a TD in the SR bowl.  Post that nonsense in general sports because it has nothing to do with recruiting.

I have no agenda, I just think it's funny that everybody gets so spun up about a kid's star rating, that's all. It's hilarious.

[Music City Hog]

I have no agenda, I just think it's funny that everybody gets so spun up about a kid's star rating, that's all. It's hilarious.

The past 5 NFL 1st round draft picks (160 players):

29 players were 5* players
64 players were 4* players
43 players were 3* players
21 players were 2* players
2 players were unranked players

Now, consider this:
There are typically just around 30 5* players signed per year in college
There are typically 275-300 4* players signed per year
The other 85% of signed college prospects are 3* are below.

So yes, higher ranked players absolutely have a waaaay much higher success rate than lower ranked players.  It's statistically proven over an extremely large sample size. 

Now stop making these threads please.

[scruf]

I'd love to see Arkansas with a roster full of 5* players because we all know it increases the odds of winning games but it's just one piece of the puzzle. Great coaching and player development, along with minimal attrition and a strong strength and conditioning program are also a part of the equation. These threads are hilarious.

[redeye]

This topic has become twisted.  We all know that some 2 stars make it and we all know that teams with more 4-5 stars dominate, and yet, both sides pretend otherwise.  Where's the disagreement?

For myself, it's getting tired of "stargazers" thinking we must only recruit 4-5 star players to have the success we had in 2010-11 without all those 4-5 star players.  Truth is that most, if not all, of us know that that's not true and most know that it will very difficult, if not impossible, for us to ever recruit on that level.  And yet, we stereotype the other side like I did above.

But in the end, we all want the best players we can find and we all know that recruiting services hit more then they miss.  If there's anyone here who wouldn't rather see our class ranked higher with more 4-5 stars, I'll be very surprised.  However, that doesn't mean some of us wouldn't rather have our class, then some classes ranked higher, because for all their preciseness, the rankings still don't tell the whole story.  Because if they did, that 2-star RB wouldn't have scored the first TD, right?

[scruf]

This topic has become twisted.  We all know that some 2 stars make it and we all know that teams with more 4-5 stars dominate, and yet, both sides pretend otherwise.  Where's the disagreement?

For myself, it's getting tired of "stargazers" thinking we must only recruit 4-5 star players to have the success we had in 2010-11 without all those 4-5 star players.  Truth is that most, if not all, of us know that that's not true and most know that it will very difficult, if not impossible, for us to ever recruit on that level.  And yet, we stereotype the other side like I did above.

But in the end, we all want the best players we can find and we all know that recruiting services hit more then they miss.  If there's anyone here who wouldn't rather see our class ranked higher with more 4-5 stars, I'll be very surprised.  However, that doesn't mean some of us wouldn't rather have our class, then some classes ranked higher, because for all their preciseness, the rankings still don't tell the whole story.  Because if they did, that 2-star RB wouldn't have scored the first TD, right?

Well put. Some good 4* players on those teams like Knile Davis, Jarius Wright, Tyler Wilson and Joe Adams. Worth noting that Chris Gragg, Dennis Johnson, Greg Childs, Cobi Hamilton, Jerry Franklin and Jake Bequette were all 3* (Rivals). I can only remember two 5* - Ryan Mallett and Darius Winston.

[Music City Hog]

Another stat:

EVERY BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes.


So your odds of winning a national title without signing more 4/5* players than 3* or below in the previous 4 signing classes has been 0%.  Yes, ZERO percent.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

It's a matter of percentages.  And I've noticed that there seem to be more threads started about stars not mattering as compared to stars mattering.

[scruf]

Another stat:

EVERY BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes.


So your odds of winning a national title without signing more 4/5* players than 3* or below in the previous 4 signing class has been 0%.  Yes, ZERO percent.

Next time you put a quarter in the jukebox push a different button.

[Music City Hog]

Next time you put a quarter in the jukebox push a different button.

You started the thread.  You just don't like the facts that don't support your "hilarious" opinion.

[scruf]

It's a matter of percentages.  And I've noticed that there seem to be more threads started about stars not mattering as compared to stars mattering.

Three truths:

1) I've never said that stars don't matter.
2) Stars matter.
3) Stars aren't the ONLY thing that matters.

[redeye]

Another stat:

EVERY BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes.


So your odds of winning a national title without signing more 4/5* players than 3* or below in the previous 4 signing classes has been 0%.  Yes, ZERO percent.

I've actually never heard this one before.  You have a link or did you look it up yourself?  I'm genuinely curious.

[scruf]

You started the thread.  You just don't like the facts that don't support your "hilarious" opinion.

I have no problem with a 2* RB scoring his team's only 1st half TD in college football's biggest all-star but you seem to.

[Music City Hog]

Three truths:

1) I've never said that stars don't matter.
2) Stars matter.
3) Stars aren't the ONLY thing that matters.

I'm more of an offers guy than stars guy, but stars matter if you want to win a national title.  Because it's never been done without them.

[Music City Hog]

I've actually never heard this one before.  You have a link or did you look it up yourself?  I'm genuinely curious.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Three truths:

1) I've never said that stars don't matter.
2) Stars matter.
3) Stars aren't the ONLY thing that matters.

4th truth...nobody on the other side of the fence disagrees with these truths.

[scruf]

I'm more of an offers guy than stars guy, but stars matter if you want to win a national title.  Because it's never been done without them.

Women used to not vote. Black men used to not be president. What's your point?

[scruf]

4th truth...nobody on the other side of the fence disagrees with these truths.

True. True.

[Music City Hog]

Women used to not vote. Black men used to not be president. What's your point?

You've officially been pwned if this is your rebuttal to the facts I've given.  Enjoy the rest of your thread. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Women used to not vote. Black men used to not be president. What's your point?

Dude, that's not even a legit comparison.

[redeye]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships

Thanks MCH.

Btw, Rivals started in '98, but didn't begin archiving things until later, so it's difficult to find any information  older then 2002 or so.  Many people don't seem to realize that it predates what you'll find on rivals.com.

[scruf]

Apparently the concept of "there's a first time for everything" is a first time concept for some. The number of 4*/5* to 3* and below players on national championship teams is a correlation and not a causation.

[redeye]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships

From my experience, the 247composite for classes before 247 existed are very incomplete, so I'm curious how they compiled the data and I find it suspicious that they didn't explain this.  Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it's all true.  When I think back on the teams that have won it during this span, they all seemed to be recruiting great and there were no teams like BYU in 1984.  Oregon may have fit that description if they had won in 2010, but they didn't.

I also consider this proof of how the recruiting services have strengthened top teams, by helping them find the best players.  Can't say I care for how the game has changed with recruiting services, even though I love following it all.

[BR]

Saw on Twitter today 0 5Stars are playing in the Super Bowl.

[DoctorSusscrofa]

Sometimes people get mad about relatively little.

[yraciv]

Saw on Twitter today 0 5Stars are playing in the Super Bowl.

Thats cause most go pro after 3 years.

[ArmyOfnobunaga]

there are not that many 5 stars a year. I will need link proofs. From memory many more fail than succeed


cheers

[redeye]

Thats cause most go pro after 3 years.

What does that have to do with there being none in the Super Bowl?

[redeye]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships

I was gonna take a close look at this using rivals, since it was the original major service and goes back longer.  Then I realized that rivals only goes back to 2002, which means this is only a worthy exercise for teams that have won a BCS title since 2005, which is 9 years.  We could probably throw Ohio State in there, but it wasn't the BCS and the article was written a year ago.

So, let's look at the teams that have won it since 2005:

Texas (05)
Florida (06, 08)
LSU (07)
Alabama (09, 11, 12)
Auburn (10)
FSU (13)

That's only 6 teams in 9 years, which isn't a very large sample, and they're all obviously teams that recruit very well, all the time.  They're also all teams from the South lying in the middle of great recruiting territories.

I'm not saying the author is wrong, but if Oregon had beaten Auburn for the 2010 title, they would have broken the rule.  I only used rivals to verify, but less then 35% of Oregon's previous 4 classes were 4-5 star players and they did come close to beating Auburn.  I didn't look at any other teams, because that Oregon team came to mind and so I just looked at them.

However, I'm not disputing the claim and will even say that I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb for today's game.  Specifically, that to win a national championship, you need to recruit more 4-5 star players, then non-4-5 star players.  It makes sense and does lend credence to recruiting services.  It also may explain why we may come close, like Oregon, but struggle to get over the hump, since we've never signed more bluechips then non-bluechips in the history of online recruiting services.

[ArmyOfnobunaga]

anyone against scruf tell me how missouri won the east last 2 years?


mouthbreathers: the sec east is crap




The reality is that good coaches find the stars..... they do not recruit the stars...


like CBB

[Hoggish1]

I'd love to see Arkansas with a roster full of 5* players because we all know it increases the odds of winning games but it's just one piece of the puzzle. Great coaching and player development, along with minimal attrition and a strong strength and conditioning program are also a part of the equation. These threads are hilarious.

Never forget that not all 5* are equal.

[Uncommon]

On average, there are only about 12 5* players per class.  Factor in some don't pan out and the ones that do are spread out over 32 teams and the chances of a 5* being on a Super Bowl team are slim.  The number is supposed to be small.  So throwing out that stat and saying that is why recruiting rankings don't matter is a little ridiculous.

Breakdown the Top 25 players of the 2009 class
1. QB Matt Barkley          Philadelphia Eagles
2. LB Manti Te'o               San Diego Chargers
3. WR Russell Shepard     Tampa Bay Buccaneers
4. CB Dre Kirkpatrick       Cincinnati Bengals
5. DT Jacobbi McDaniel     Cleveland Browns
6. RB Trent Richardson     Indianapolis Colts
7. S Craig Loston              Jacksonville Jaguars
8. RB Bryce Brown           Buffalo Bills
9. LB Jelani Jenkins          Miami Dolphins
10. WR Rueben Randle      New York Giants
11. QB Garrett Gilbert       New England Patriots       Practice Squad
12. OT DJ Fluker               San Diego Chargers
13. QB Aaron Murray         Kansas City Chiefs
14. LB Devon Kennard       New York Giants
15. CB Greg Reid                     
16. LB Vontaze Burfict       Cincinnati Bengals
17. WR Andre Debose
18. CB Stephon Gillmore    Buffalo Bills
19. LB Devonte Holliman
20. LB Nico Johnson           Cincinnati Bengals
21. LB Ray Ray Armstrong  Oakland Raiders
22. RB Jaamal Berry
23. DT Gary Brown
24. WR Marlon Brown         Baltimore Ravens
25. CB Darius Winston        We know

So out of the top 25, 6 aren't in the NFL that leaves 19.

Out of the 19 players that are in the NFL, 5 of the players were on teams that made the playoffs.

None of those 5 players were on teams that made the Super Bowl.

[redeye]

On average, there are only about 12 5* players per class.  Factor in some don't pan out and the ones that do are spread out over 32 teams and the chances of a 5* being on a Super Bowl team are slim.  The number is supposed to be small.  So throwing out that stat and saying that is why recruiting rankings don't matter is a little ridiculous.

There are 35 5-star players in this year's 247composite.  I'm not sure where you get the figure of 12, but that seems low to me.

Regardless, I'll guess that around half of those will actually make a NFL team one day, but that's just a guess, so that's around 16 per year.  Over a 5 year span, that's 80 players and it seems like at least one of them would be playing for a team in every Super Bowl.  I don't think it says anything about them not being the great players they're supposed to be, but I do think it's an interesting stat.

[CDBHawg]

Stars.....

Can you lose with them? Yes.

Can you win a NC or SECCG without them? No. Or at least it hasn't been done yet.

[The Recruiting Guy]

You can make an argument that stars do matter and you can make one they don't.

[dynastyhog]

This topic has become twisted.  We all know that some 2 stars make it and we all know that teams with more 4-5 stars dominate, and yet, both sides pretend otherwise.  Where's the disagreement?

For myself, it's getting tired of "stargazers" thinking we must only recruit 4-5 star players to have the success we had in 2010-11 without all those 4-5 star players.  Truth is that most, if not all, of us know that that's not true and most know that it will very difficult, if not impossible, for us to ever recruit on that level.  And yet, we stereotype the other side like I did above.

But in the end, we all want the best players we can find and we all know that recruiting services hit more then they miss.  If there's anyone here who wouldn't rather see our class ranked higher with more 4-5 stars, I'll be very surprised.  However, that doesn't mean some of us wouldn't rather have our class, then some classes ranked higher, because for all their preciseness, the rankings still don't tell the whole story.  Because if they did, that 2-star RB wouldn't have scored the first TD, right?

Solid post.

[dynastyhog]

Stars.....

Can you lose with them? Yes.

Can you win a NC or SECCG without them? No. Or at least it hasn't been done yet.

True, and this is jmo but had they put TCU in the playoffs I do believe they would have pounded FSU, beaten Oregon, and could have went toe to toe with bama and osu.

[Music City Hog]

Facts are facts.   No team has ever won the title (since rankings were around) without more 4/5 stars than 3 and under in the previous 4 classes.


There is no debate about that.  That's the truth. That's what has happened. 

[dynastyhog]

Saw on Twitter today 0 5Stars are playing in the Super Bowl.

A breakdown for you 

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2015/1/21/7861989/super-bowl-2015-patriots-seahawks-high-school-recruiting-ratings

[Arkansas Fan]

I just hate when people beat the dead horse that stars don't matter and this is the 2nd thread I've seen him post on the matter in a matter of days.  It is obvious Scruf has an agenda in the matter.

Time and time again people post this nonsense, when the reality of recruiting is it's obvious that higher stars have a higher success rate.  I'm not one to hate on our recruiting class or think that Bielema's staff doesn't do a good job evaluating, but logic is logic.  The top teams for the most part year in and year out are the teams that dominate in recruiting.

No one in the recruiting forum cares that a 2* RB from N Iowa scored a TD in the SR bowl.  Post that nonsense in general sports because it has nothing to do with recruiting.

You star gazers have to be the most moronic bunch I've ever seen. You people still don't realize stars have NOTHING to do with how good or bad a player will be in college. It's about how motivated the player is to be good.

You can't sit there and say that just because a kid was a two or three star player, he can't get stronger, faster, bigger, than a four or five star kid. That they can't get more knowledgeable about the game. I can go on and on.

Stars don't mean a thing. Give me a motivated two or three star player over some four or five star hot shot that expects everything to be given to him any day.

[scruf]

Facts are facts.   No team has ever won the title (since rankings were around) without more 4/5 stars than 3 and under in the previous 4 classes.


There is no debate about that.  That's the truth. That's what has happened. 

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Nobody having won yet with more 3* and lower ranked recruits than 4* and higher ranked recruits is not a guarantee that it will never happen. Stop pretending that it can't happen. It's not impossible.

[bvillepig]

I'm more of an offers guy than stars guy, but stars matter if you want to win a national title.  Because it's never been done without them.

This !  I like the fact we are recruiting against offers from Alabama,Lsu, Florida. Etc instead of Louiiana Monroe, Tulsa etc

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

I just hate when people beat the dead horse that stars don't matter and this is the 2nd thread I've seen him post on the matter in a matter of days.  It is obvious Scruf has an agenda in the matter.

Time and time again people post this nonsense, when the reality of recruiting is it's obvious that higher stars have a higher success rate.  I'm not one to hate on our recruiting class or think that Bielema's staff doesn't do a good job evaluating, but logic is logic.  The top teams for the most part year in and year out are the teams that dominate in recruiting.

No one in the recruiting forum cares that a 2* RB from N Iowa scored a TD in the SR bowl.  Post that nonsense in general sports because it has nothing to do with recruiting.

If we were to all be 100% honest with each other the truth is simple.. Recruiting rankings are the same as team rankings. They (team Rankings)are determined by measuring the measurables, history and educated guestery that takes the perception of experts and mixes them up in a blender to determine a forecasted outcome. Sometimes they are obvious (USC & Bama bck2bck yrs), but sometimes they are not (OSU 14)... Regardless people are going to keep making predictions and other people are going to keep knocking them down.

The thing I tend to focus on, in particular, is that coaching has proven by far to be the #1 factor... The same guys keep on and the new guys soon shake apart from their peers.
Arkansas can become what the previous elite have been, but nobody is gonna stay on top forever. We are on an excellent band on the inertia scale. It's fixin' to be a hell of a ride, and the world will scratch their head and attempt come up with a way to determine why we did it with barely a top 20 class...

[bennyl08]

You star gazers have to be the most moronic bunch I've ever seen. You people still don't realize stars have NOTHING to do with how good or bad a player will be in college. It's about how motivated the player is to be good.

You can't sit there and say that just because a kid was a two or three star player, he can't get stronger, faster, bigger, than a four or five star kid. That they can't get more knowledgeable about the game. I can go on and on.

Stars don't mean a thing. Give me a motivated two or three star player over some four or five star hot shot that expects everything to be given to him any day.

That's good satire. Thanks.