Stars matter in a big way

[Science Fiction Greg]

Well, that's an entirely different discussion.  It's for the fans.  It's just another element related to the game itself.  It's about hope.  It's like the buildup to Christmas morning.  Fans get a kick out of it.   

And I'm just calling it out for what it is:  useless nonsense.  I get it, I guess, some people like useless nonsense, some don't.  I just get annoyed when people pretend like it's so super important that we need to throw tantrums over the difference between being ranked 26th and 32nd.

Seriously, it's not that critical.

[trphog]

I don't think 9th and 11th validates "two classes in the top 10," but if you do, I guess that's cool. 

I will reiterate that I don't think this claim is remotely important even if true, as the correlation is mostly reverse in cause and effect from what is being assumed, so you can have it if you want it, I guess.

So, what claim would you like me to back up with statistics, exactly?  Do I need to be accurate with it or can I just exaggerate and then say close enough, too?

You want to throw out Clemson. Fine, one team in the past ten years has one a National Championship without having two top 10 recruiting classes in the four years leading up to their. That team, however, had an 11th place recruiting ranking.

Facts that sustained success on the field is not tied to sustained success in recruiting. By the way, I just flushed something more valuable than your opinion. Bring facts, son.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

And I'm just calling it out for what it is:  useless nonsense.  I get it, I guess, some people like useless nonsense, some don't.  I just get annoyed when people pretend like it's so super important that we need to throw tantrums over the difference between being ranked 26th and 32nd.

Seriously, it's not that critical.

And the same argument can be made for the game itself. 

[ChicoHog]

Everyone knows this, even without a silly formula with numbers plugged into it largely from guesswork.

I know but some people insist we can "out scheme" the opponent while I'll say talent beats scheme more often than scheme beats talent.  About 90% of the coaches will agree with that also. 

[Science Fiction Greg]

You want to throw out Clemson. Fine, one team in the past ten years has one a National Championship without having two top 10 recruiting classes in the four years leading up to their. That team, however, had an 11th place recruiting ranking.

Facts that sustained success on the field is not tied to sustained success in recruiting. By the way, I just flushed something more valuable than your opinion. Bring facts, son.

Sure look at every team outside the top 10.  Why are they not in order of recruiting ranking average?  Because, as I've claimed, outside the top 10 or 15 tops, the rankings are meaningless.  They are largely influenced by past success because star ratings fluctuate based on which power teams have offered rather than the actual potential contributions of the player.

Nice job acting tough, by the way.  We are all really impressed.  You forgot to read the 20 times I've said "outside of the top 10" and you keep focusing on that because I hurt your feelings or something.  Calm down and try to discuss this like an adult.  Good job owning up to the Clemson mistake, though, seriously.

[Science Fiction Greg]

And the same argument can be made for the game itself.

Yeah, I guess it makes more sense to me to be interested in the game itself than the meta game of recruiting star points.  But again, to each their own.

[Science Fiction Greg]

I know some of you will be really disappointed, but I am actually going to do something with my Saturday Friday night, so if I don't respond for awhile, it isn't because your toilet flushing posturing intimidated me into silence or anything.  I'll be back

[Vantage 8 dude]

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."

I won't argue that the better and more highly regarded recruits a team has the more success they're very likely going to have. However, I still contend that being able to actually COACH UP a team, no matter the star level, to get the kids to perform at their absolute best is also going to be critical. And that's especially true for teams that don't have the top rated kids and classes littering the roster. This is one of the areas that I believe hurt us over the past several years. For instance, the OL, not totally devoid of quality (not least according to the recruiting ratings), was generally pretty bad. And while some of that had to do with injuries, can anyone really argue that the coaching led by Kurt Anderson wasn't generally poor? How about the poor/sloppy tackling and coverage we continually saw on the defensive side? Think ALL of the fundamental issues this exposed was merely due to lower rating kids being on the field? Sorry, while it would doubtless be GREAT to have an load of Alabama type players back there it isn't going to happen. So....this means we have to maximize the talent, get the kids in the schemes that give us the greatest chance of success, AND ensure they play the PROPER way each and every time they get on the field.  Yes, we're usually playing from behind when it comes many other SEC programs, however, that doesn't mean we can't make up some of the distance other ways.

[trphog]

Sure look at every team outside the top 10.  Why are they not in order of recruiting ranking average?  Because, as I've claimed, outside the top 10 or 15 tops, the rankings are meaningless.  They are largely influenced by past success because star ratings fluctuate based on which power teams have offered rather than the actual potential contributions of the player.

Nice job acting tough, by the way.  We are all really impressed.  You forgot to read the 20 times I've said "outside of the top 10" and you keep focusing on that because I hurt your feelings or something.  Calm down and try to discuss this like an adult.  Good job owning up to the Clemson mistake, though, seriously.

LOL. You couldn't hurt my feelings if you could see them. I just don't like douchy posters who offer no proof. I'm guessing you got participation trophies as a kid. Am I right?

[trphog]

I know some of you will be really disappointed, but I am actually going to do something with my Saturday night, so if I don't respond for awhile, it isn't because your toilet flushing posturing intimidated me into silence or anything.  I'll be back

It's Friday champ

[Karma]

One of the more random and bizarre strawmen I've ever seen.  So you have that going for you, which is nice.

Let me try:

Some of you that think the world revolves around recruiting rankings probably also like licking buttermilk out from between your own toes.

Am I doing it right?

It appears that most everything you are doing, you are doing wrong.

[razorbackfaninar]

The same people who say "stars don't matter" all spring complain about how our talent doesn't stack up in the fall.

53% of all 5 star players are eventually drafted. A very small percentage of 3*'s are drafted.

In 2017 9% of players taken in the draft were 5* athletes, 30%of players taken were 4* athletes 35% were 4* athletes 10% were 2* athletes  and 15% were un-drafted coming out of high school.

There were 23 5* players drafted 76 4* 90 3* 26 2* players and 38 unranked players drafted.

[trphog]

In 2017 9% of players taken in the draft were 5* athletes, 30%of players taken were 4* athletes 35% were 4* athletes 10% were 2* athletes  and 15% were un-drafted coming out of high school.

There were 23 5* players drafted 76 4* 90 3* 26 2* players and 38 unranked players drafted.

I find these statistics very intriguing. Thank you for bringing them to the discussion, truly. I don't know that I see how discussion about high school recruiting relating to the NFL correlates to the success of a program in college. Regardless, it's fun to discuss.

[Pig in the Pokey]

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.

we arent a pro team. thats after full development. we get the kids mid-development. THAT'S why stars matter. what you are taking about is a false equivalency, but I suspect you knew that already.

[trphog]

we arent a pro team. thats after full development. we get the kids mid-development. THAT'S why stars matter. what you are taking about is a false equivalency, but I suspect you knew that already.

Agree with you Pokey

[Pig in the Pokey]

Agree with you Pokey

a lot of them bring that argument like our goal as a program is to be a farm system for the NFL. I dont care if we have no pros but we win trophies in college. Then contrast that with Bert's 2013 team that had 12 eventual pros on it or whatever yet went 3-9, who wants that?

[Piggfoot]

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).

I agree with this assessment. In the past and maybe now I might prefer a three star from a large Texas school over a four star from a small Arkansas or even small Texas school. I believe the three star from a large school may be under evaluated when the stars from his school are getting all the publicity. Vice versa on the evaluation of a four star from a small school.
Warren is an exception.

[IronHog]

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).

Load of BS

small school players wash out more because of academics or culture issues than who they played against in HS.


Exception would be QB's

[Science Fiction Greg]

LOL. You couldn't hurt my feelings if you could see them. I just don't like douchy posters who offer no proof. I'm guessing you got participation trophies as a kid. Am I right?

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, just seemed like it since you started talking about toilet flushing and calling me "son."  So what is the rest of your post there?  Some sort of an attempt to avoid discussing the rest of mine?  Participation trophies?  You serious?  I'm a pretty old dude, so no.

Here's something I was wondering about a little bit.  Why is the one team that doesn't fit the mold of won a ton before they made their championship run also the one team that allowances have to be made for to fit into the 2 top 10 recruiting classes in the past 4 years framework?  Why wasn't it a different team that just almost made the cut?  It just happened to be that one team with no recent history of winning big.

Heck of a coincidence.

[Science Fiction Greg]

It appears that most everything you are doing, you are doing wrong.

Sure, chief.  Whatever you say.

[Hoggish1]

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

Exactly.  This means an intense evaluation process that takes in the level of competition they are playing against in HS, their family atmosphere and that the intangibles are favorable (ability to grow into something special at the next level).

[IronHog]

Exactly.  This means an intense evaluation process that takes in the level of competition they are playing against in HS, their family atmosphere and that the intangibles are favorable (ability to grow into something special at the next level).

Sounds uncommon 🙄



Lots of the best players are high risk offers.  Gotta work the %'s

[trphog]

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, just seemed like it since you started talking about toilet flushing and calling me "son."  So what is the rest of your post there?  Some sort of an attempt to avoid discussing the rest of mine?  Participation trophies?  You serious?  I'm a pretty old dude, so no.

Here's something I was wondering about a little bit.  Why is the one team that doesn't fit the mold of won a ton before they made their championship run also the one team that allowances have to be made for to fit into the 2 top 10 recruiting classes in the past 4 years framework?  Why wasn't it a different team that just almost made the cut?  It just happened to be that one team with no recent history of winning big.

Heck of a coincidence.

BECAUSE THAT TEAM WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP LAST YEAR!!!!? Which, if you look, are the only teams that I have used as a point of reference. Are.you really that stupid to not be able to figure that out?
Or are you just a troll? Maybe your both, who cares. I'm still waiting on any facts or data that you can bring to the table to show that recruiting rankings don't matter to the success of a College football program.........

[trphog]

The recruiting rankings over the past four years of the four teams in this year's playoff.

Alabama: #1, #1, #1, #1
Clemson: #16, #11, #9, #16
Georgia: #3, #6, #6, #8
Oklahoma: #8, #19, #15, #14

[Hoggish1]

Some of you that argue stars don't matter likely also dispute the legitimacy of global warming.

Global warming is real and when I get excited about a recruit it's because he has an offer list that includes a lot of SEC teams after him, too + FSU and Clemson.

[Science Fiction Greg]

BECAUSE THAT TEAM WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP LAST YEAR!!!!? Which, if you look, are the only teams that I have used as a point of reference. Are.you really that stupid to not be able to figure that out?
Or are you just a troll? Maybe your both, who cares. I'm still waiting on any facts or data that you can bring to the table to show that recruiting rankings don't matter to the success of a College football program.........

I don't think you understood what I was asking.

There was one team that won the national championship that didn't fit the same mold as all the others in the ranking, and it happened to be the same one that wasn't the one with traditional success previous to it.  Almost as if the reason that it didn't fit the same mold in the rankings was because it didn't have the traditional success prior to it that would've boosted it into that same mold as the others.

You see?

Probably you still don't.

Here's another you still don't get apparently.  I never made this claim:

"I'm still waiting on any facts or data that you can bring to the table to show that recruiting rankings don't matter to the success of a College football program"

What I said is (simplifying so you can understand it), outside of the easiest to identify top recruits (the 5 stars and most of the 4 stars), the three stars and lower (and some of the 4 stars) are heavily influenced by which teams that are offering/recruiting them have traditionally had high levels of success, which makes the correlation the opposite of what people expect it to be - ie the rankings come from the winning, not the winnings come from the ranking.  I think pretty much everything I've said supports that, and even the "coincidence" of Clemson being both the one team that doesn't fit the same mold as the others (doesn't have two top 10 classes in their 4 previous to the championship - even if it is close, it's still the lowest ranking one by a good margin) and the only team out of that group that hadn't had a very strong previous winning tradition totally supports that view.

Read it slowly.  If you continue to make this same mistake I will have to assume you are more interested in fighting that strawman than actually talking to me.  Which is fine, I just need to know so I can go do something else.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Load of BS

small school players wash out more because of academics or culture issues than who they played against in HS.


Exception would be QB's

So players who have access to better training facilities for physical development and have gained experience playing against better competition in high school and have excelled in doing so, don't tend to have a better chance of competing for positions at the P-5 level than players that have played at smaller schools against lesser talent overall, even if they excelled against lesser competition and lesser talent? OK. There might be a few needles in that haystack to be found but the odds are that what Oklahawg said above is right far more often than it is wrong.

[trphog]

For comparison: Last year's playoff teams and their four previous recruiting classes

Alabama: #1, #1, #1, #1
Clemson: #11, #9, #16, #15
tOSU: #4, #7, #3, #2
Washington: #29, #26, #38, #18

[Science Fiction Greg]

Oh, I will concede you were right about one thing.

Yesterday was Friday.

The people we made plans with were off work yesterday and when we go out with them it is usually a Saturday.  I was halfway out the door when I typed it so I was in a hurry and that's where that came from.  I hope you can forgive me and not call me "son" again.

[Hoggish1]

Sounds uncommon 🙄



Lots of the best players are high risk offers.  Gotta work the %'s

Nothing uncommon about it.  I would submit that our problems during the last five years were due mainly to bad coaching and not the model I posted. 

Take a kid with the measurable needed (great size, aggressive attitude, intense work ethic and a stable parent or two from a big HS program and you are likely getting a very useful football player for your program who won't be a cancer to team chemistry and won't fail to graduate or become ineligible because he can't cut chewing gum and going to class at the same time.

Now that's uncommon in a way that does not remind us of a past slogan minus the quality coaching...

[VBMark]

I agree with this assessment. In the past and maybe now I might prefer a three star from a large Texas school over a four star from a small Arkansas or even small Texas school. I believe the three star from a large school may be under evaluated when the stars from his school are getting all the publicity. Vice versa on the evaluation of a four star from a small school.
Warren is an exception.

That is darn near the exact opposite of what Chad MF Morris said. He said, a player at a big-time Texas HS has shown you about 90% of what he is capable of doing/becoming. They have great coaches-not teaching any classes-and football is a 365 day thing for those kids versus a small school kid, who plays multiple sports and does not have a full blown strength and conditioning regime.

CMFM said, he will take the small school kid over the big school kid, because you have only seen 50%-60% of what the small school kid is capable of becoming. He repeated this on Bo's show this week.

#WPS #HammerDown

[VBMark]

The recruiting rankings over the past four years of the four teams in this year's playoff.

Alabama: #1, #1, #1, #1
Clemson: #16, #11, #9, #16
Georgia: #3, #6, #6, #8
Oklahoma: #8, #19, #15, #14

You only need 7 to 10 players per year to work out. If you get 7 to 10 4* and 5* players, then you are ahead of the power curve.

Let's split the difference and say you average eight per year 4* and 5* players that work out, then you only need about a handful of the 3* or lower to work out per year. And, that is how the two deep looks on a championship caliber team.

[trphog]

Stopped reading at:

I...

[Science Fiction Greg]

You stopped reading long before that.