Staff changes coming?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I think it would be a mistake to limit your focus to just one school or state when attempting to assess 5-star players overall.  You have totally killed your sample size.  Hell since we joined the SEC, I can count the number of 5-star players to even come out of this state on my hands.

Update:  Do yourself a favor don't go back and look at past in-state talent and get reminded of how little talent we have had to work with.

This is a quick pull from Rivals because that is what is easiest for me to use at work.

Now add W-L to that graph. That should make it even more interesting. Good job, by the way.

[LZH]

Fire everyone....that'll learn 'em!   

[Pork Twain]

The reason stars don't matter is this: Every swinging Tom, Dick, and Harry knows who the 5 stars, and most of the 4 stars, are before the end of their sophomore years.  The services are basically running a shell game, selling you common knowledge.  Couple that with the fact that they absolutely suck at evaluating the vast sea of 3 stars, and you have a bunch of people paying for NOTHING. 

The coaches don't need it, and anyone who wants to know can get it for free, with a minimum of effort.

Anyone with eyes can tell you that kids with more natural talent are more likely to "hit" than those who have to work at it a little more.  But the number of people who can project players 3-4 seasons down the road with accuracy, those are almost impossible to find.  CBB has a history of doing so.  We are about to find out if his ability transfers to the SEC.

So they don't matter because they do?

[Deep Shoat]

So they don't matter because they do?

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.  And everybody can identify 5 stars.  The people who can identify the real talent in the great, unwashed mass of 3 stars are the ones who matter.

Seriously, my mother can identify a 5 star talent.  Coach Bielema has shown that he can identify the 3 stars who have the talent to make the NFL at a higher rate than most.  In the Big Ten. this year, we will see if that skill carried over to the SEC.

[bennyl08]

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.  And everybody can identify 5 stars.  The people who can identify the real talent in the great, unwashed mass of 3 stars are the ones who matter.

Seriously, my mother can identify a 5 star talent.  Coach Bielema has shown that he can identify the 3 stars who have the talent to make the NFL at a higher rate than most.  In the Big Ten. this year, we will see if that skill carried over to the SEC.

Sounds like you are saying stars do matter but are simultaneously dismissing them as obvious.

[Deep Shoat]

Sounds like you are saying stars do matter but are simultaneously dismissing them as obvious.

Stars are a contrived device used to shill the gullible.

Talent matters.

[Youngsta71701]

That was not the point.  The point is we will never be signing teams made up of 4/5* players, but we can sign a majority of our classes filled with 3* or lower and develop them.  At least that is a possibility for us.  Again it appears that he was saying that there are plenty of players like Drew Morgan, that can come to a program and be developed, but there are not plenty of 4/5* players that can be signed, especially here.

This is my point. Arkansas may not produce a high number of 4 and 5 stars every year but they usually produce at least ten 3 stars or higher every year. Why not take those 3 stars or higher (Agim) from Arkansas and then try to fill up the rest of the class with the highest rated prospects at the positions of need that we have a realistic chance of getting?

This year alone in a so called down year we have at least fifteen 3 stars according to hawgs247. And that's excluding Hayden Henry and Marvin Moody.
http://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool&State=AR

And here's the kicker. Most of these cats play offense and defense for they're high school team. So if you don't have enough room at a certain position on offense you can put them on defense. And we all know we need help on the side of the ball.

[bennyl08]

Stars are a contrived device used to shill the gullible.

Talent matters.

That's like saying championships don't mean anything. Everybody can easily tell who the best teams are. Actually playing the game and having a winner is a contrived device to make money off the gullible.

Don't know about you, but I don't have time to watch tape on a few hundred thousand HS players to see which ones are the best. Nor do I care to compile a list of every player's offer sheets. You know where I would find that information? Recruiting sites. You know what else? That information if virtually akin to just looking at the stars. Now, for Arkansas kids, yeah, I will go and look as in depth as I can on the kids we sign or are close to signing. Information such as that easily tells you that somebody like Skipper was more than a typical 3* player. However, I don't care to do that for every other school out there.

[lakecityhog]

I think that the point most of you "star-gazers" are missing is that who says that there are ONLY 25 to 50 5* players in any given year? Are some of the guys rated 3* really a 5*? Are some of the unrated/2* kids actually 4 or 5* talents just waiting for a little development??

For anyone to place an arbitrary ceiling on 5* or 4* numbers is totally insane! Should there always be several 5* running backs and maybe only 1 5* O'Lineman? Who is to say that there aren't 10 running backs that are fully 5* talents?

I have NEVER seen any guidelines that shows the separation between what is actually a 4* talent and what is actually a 5* talent. Can someone please post those guidelines?

[a0ashle]

I think that the point most of you "star-gazers" are missing is that who says that there are ONLY 25 to 50 5* players in any given year? Are some of the guys rated 3* really a 5*? Are some of the unrated/2* kids actually 4 or 5* talents just waiting for a little development??

For anyone to place an arbitrary ceiling on 5* or 4* numbers is totally insane! Should there always be several 5* running backs and maybe only 1 5* O'Lineman? Who is to say that there aren't 10 running backs that are fully 5* talents?

I have NEVER seen any guidelines that shows the separation between what is actually a 4* talent and what is actually a 5* talent. Can someone please post those guidelines?

Also, no one knows what CBBs ratings look like. He isn't reading 247 or rivals for his ratings.

[bennyl08]

I think that the point most of you "star-gazers" are missing is that who says that there are ONLY 25 to 50 5* players in any given year? Are some of the guys rated 3* really a 5*? Are some of the unrated/2* kids actually 4 or 5* talents just waiting for a little development??

For anyone to place an arbitrary ceiling on 5* or 4* numbers is totally insane! Should there always be several 5* running backs and maybe only 1 5* O'Lineman? Who is to say that there aren't 10 running backs that are fully 5* talents?

I have NEVER seen any guidelines that shows the separation between what is actually a 4* talent and what is actually a 5* talent. Can someone please post those guidelines?

I what what some of you "star haters" are missing is that outside of a handful of trolls, there isn't a single person who thinks stars are the end all be all. They are as informative to future success as a player as your starting two cards in Texas Hold'em are informative as to who will win that hand. A lot can happen and there are a lot of variables at play. However, with as big a business as football in general is, stars are pretty dang accurate and nobody has yet to provide anything more accurate.

To your specific opinion on what star gazers think, know that different services do things differently. One may say that the top 50 overall players are 5*'s regardless and go from t here. Another may have 23 5*'s one year and 42 the next depending on who they think has earned those stars. I typically look at a player's superscore. Whatever their highest rating is what I consider them. Why?

This leads to the final point. There are a lot, lot, lot of HS football players out there. Those recruiting services are having to evaluate literally hundreds of thousands of players. You can't get too deep with that vast of a field to analyze. Coaches on the other hand may only evaluate 300-500 players in a given season allowing for much more in depth inspection of the players. So, given all the room for error, if somebody sees something more in a player than the others, it can safely be assumed that the others missed it rather than determined it to be a false positive. Hence, if scout gives somebody 4*'s and everybody else only 3, I consider them a 4* player. If a high level program offers a kid a scholarship, regardless of the recruiting services rankings, I'll consider them a high level prospect. If one of our commitments has neither the high level offers or was highly ranked by the recruiting services but our coach gives them a scholarship, I will assume that they are good enough to be a razorback and thus will warrant my support unless they demonstrate (such as arrests) otherwise.

[lakecityhog]

Benny, I sometimes think that you are a pretty intelligent guy, but your propensity to throw in a totally unnecessary snide remark kinda kills the thought.

Your last post goes a long way toward proving my point. It sounds as though you are saying that the services do pick an arbitrary number as a cutoff point, how is that an accurate assessment?
If you don't evaluate every player how can you be sure that you have picked the right kids to fill that arbitrary cupboard?

Let me give you a scenario to think about in a kinda related field. Let's say that Tom is a rather unscrupulous agent and really wants to sign Bobby to a contract. Now, Bobby is a Junior that hasn't declared for the draft but has submitted his paperwork. Tom knows that Bobby has a meeting scheduled with his HC to discuss Bobby's future plans.
So, to give himself a better shot at signing Bobby and basically forcing him to declare ole Tom calls an acquaintance of his that is a "draft guru" and offers him $25k to move Bobby up pretty high on his draft board. Tom then shows Bobby, look you have been picked as the #1 deep snapper in the country and are sure to go 1st round.

Boom, Bobby, Mom and Dad are sitting on cloud 9 thinking about signing bonuses and the decision is made. Oops, the "draft guru" might have made a mistake and Bobby becomes an undrafted free agent and now is getting the league minimum. Another year in school and he might have been a 2nd round pick, but it's too late now!

I give you Denver Kirkland! Scenario might be a little different, but I would just about bet that I'm not too far off. And the point to this is that you had better believe that this same kind of crap goes on in recruiting services. Like it or not, this is the world we live in. People are in the recruiting service INDUSTRY for a reason, to make MONEY! Parents, High School Coaches, "Handlers" and maybe even some college coaches have a vested interest in certain kids being "highly rated"!

[lakecityhog]

Back to the OP, if we see any changes I really think that it will be made by the coach involved. I have said and still say that every coach that we have is simply coaching what he has been instructed to coach. How can you fire someone for doing what he has been told to do?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I what what some of you "star haters" are missing is that outside of a handful of trolls, there isn't a single person who thinks stars are the end all be all. They are as informative to future success as a player as your starting two cards in Texas Hold'em are informative as to who will win that hand. A lot can happen and there are a lot of variables at play. However, with as big a business as football in general is, stars are pretty dang accurate and nobody has yet to provide anything more accurate.

To your specific opinion on what star gazers think, know that different services do things differently. One may say that the top 50 overall players are 5*'s regardless and go from t here. Another may have 23 5*'s one year and 42 the next depending on who they think has earned those stars. I typically look at a player's superscore. Whatever their highest rating is what I consider them. Why?

This leads to the final point. There are a lot, lot, lot of HS football players out there. Those recruiting services are having to evaluate literally hundreds of thousands of players. You can't get too deep with that vast of a field to analyze. Coaches on the other hand may only evaluate 300-500 players in a given season allowing for much more in depth inspection of the players. So, given all the room for error, if somebody sees something more in a player than the others, it can safely be assumed that the others missed it rather than determined it to be a false positive. Hence, if scout gives somebody 4*'s and everybody else only 3, I consider them a 4* player. If a high level program offers a kid a scholarship, regardless of the recruiting services rankings, I'll consider them a high level prospect. If one of our commitments has neither the high level offers or was highly ranked by the recruiting services but our coach gives them a scholarship, I will assume that they are good enough to be a razorback and thus will warrant my support unless they demonstrate (such as arrests) otherwise.

There are certainly "misses" to your point that there are so many players to be evaluated and that coaching staffs sometimes (maybe more often than sometimes) count on HS coaches to give them a "heads up" on players that they feel are being overlooked, but who certainly demonstrate all of the attributes necessary to be highly successful at the next level. Case in point...Josh Jacobs, the RB out of Tulsa McClain HS. He had few offers and didn't even make a visit to Alabama until late (Dec 2015), yet he is offered and signed by Alabama and rushes for 551 yards (6.64 per carry) and 13 receptions for another 159 yards (12.23 per reception) as a true freshman.

Who wouldn't have liked to have had that kid on their roster? Promising future? Probably. But one of those "overlooked" kids. How did everyone miss on him?

[Pork Twain]

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.  And everybody can identify 5 stars.  The people who can identify the real talent in the great, unwashed mass of 3 stars are the ones who matter.

Seriously, my mother can identify a 5 star talent.  Coach Bielema has shown that he can identify the 3 stars who have the talent to make the NFL at a higher rate than most.  In the Big Ten. this year, we will see if that skill carried over to the SEC.

So you are saying you, personally, can always separate the two?  If they can indeed be separated.

[razorkev]

So you are saying Bielema is constipated? 

OK...I have beer coming out of my nose on that one.

[Deep Shoat]

So you are saying you, personally, can always separate the two?  If they can indeed be separated.

Separate the two whats?

[Pork Twain]

Separate the two whats?

Talent vs stars.

[Deep Shoat]

Talent vs stars.

Yes, talent is a real thing.  It shows up on the football field.  Stars are a fiction created by dudes who want to sell you subscriptions to their magazines and websites.

[bennyl08]

Benny, I sometimes think that you are a pretty intelligent guy, but your propensity to throw in a totally unnecessary snide remark kinda kills the thought.

Your last post goes a long way toward proving my point. It sounds as though you are saying that the services do pick an arbitrary number as a cutoff point, how is that an accurate assessment?
If you don't evaluate every player how can you be sure that you have picked the right kids to fill that arbitrary cupboard?

Let me give you a scenario to think about in a kinda related field. Let's say that Tom is a rather unscrupulous agent and really wants to sign Bobby to a contract. Now, Bobby is a Junior that hasn't declared for the draft but has submitted his paperwork. Tom knows that Bobby has a meeting scheduled with his HC to discuss Bobby's future plans.
So, to give himself a better shot at signing Bobby and basically forcing him to declare ole Tom calls an acquaintance of his that is a "draft guru" and offers him $25k to move Bobby up pretty high on his draft board. Tom then shows Bobby, look you have been picked as the #1 deep snapper in the country and are sure to go 1st round.

Boom, Bobby, Mom and Dad are sitting on cloud 9 thinking about signing bonuses and the decision is made. Oops, the "draft guru" might have made a mistake and Bobby becomes an undrafted free agent and now is getting the league minimum. Another year in school and he might have been a 2nd round pick, but it's too late now!

I give you Denver Kirkland! Scenario might be a little different, but I would just about bet that I'm not too far off. And the point to this is that you had better believe that this same kind of crap goes on in recruiting services. Like it or not, this is the world we live in. People are in the recruiting service INDUSTRY for a reason, to make MONEY! Parents, High School Coaches, "Handlers" and maybe even some college coaches have a vested interest in certain kids being "highly rated"!

Proving your point? That different services do things differently? Some in theory would hand out zero if they don't think any earned it or 1000 5 stars if that's really what they thought there were. Also, impossible to get every single kid, but they get close. Just that their evaluations aren't going as in depth as coaches.

Further, your analogy makes no sense to me. I mean, recruiting people have zero power. You describe your opinion on what happened to Kirkland and say the same thing happens in recruiting but never explain how.

What money is to be made? Recruiting people make their money from fans. Not coaches or player's. What happens if they give a player a falsely high rating? That isn't going to met the kid a single scholarship. Coaches don't care about that at all. The only people going to see that are the fans or journalists who write for fans. Not a single college coach or NFL scout will care. The only way for them to dishonestly make money is to sway rankings to get people to pay money for their info.

However, maybe my creativity is just dull and I'm not getting your message. Oregon had a scandal few years ago with money transfers with somebody peddling highlight tapes. However, that was between a coach and finding player's. Had zero to do with stars.

[bennyl08]

There are certainly "misses" to your point that there are so many players to be evaluated and that coaching staffs sometimes (maybe more often than sometimes) count on HS coaches to give them a "heads up" on players that they feel are being overlooked, but who certainly demonstrate all of the attributes necessary to be highly successful at the next level. Case in point...Josh Jacobs, the RB out of Tulsa McClain HS. He had few offers and didn't even make a visit to Alabama until late (Dec 2015), yet he is offered and signed by Alabama and rushes for 551 yards (6.64 per carry) and 13 receptions for another 159 yards (12.23 per reception) as a true freshman.

Who wouldn't have liked to have had that kid on their roster? Promising future? Probably. But one of those "overlooked" kids. How did everyone miss on him?

Well, looks like everybody didn't miss him otherwise nobody including would know about him.

Every year there are many lower division players that go to the NFL and prove be at least as good if not better than their higher division counterparts. 

Doesn't mean that Saban is bad at evaluating just because he didn't offer Eric Fisher or Carson Wentz. I believe Brady wouldn't be the qb he is today if he was a first round pick. Being passed over may have given him that extra fire. Same might happen for HS players. Maybe the reason they become good in college while being unknown during recruiting is because. Of If the chip on their shoulder.

Or, maybe they just didn't physically or mature quick enough to be noticed in time and it took somebody seeing what they could become.

The harder question isn't how somebody gets missed or almost missed. It's how does this not happen much, much more often. It's impressive how high the hit rate is.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Well, looks like everybody didn't miss him otherwise nobody including would know about him.

Every year there are many lower division players that go to the NFL and prove be at least as good if not better than their higher division counterparts. 

Doesn't mean that Saban is bad at evaluating just because he didn't offer Eric Fisher or Carson Wentz. I believe Brady wouldn't be the qb he is today if he was a first round pick. Being passed over may have given him that extra fire. Same might happen for HS players. Maybe the reason they become good in college while being unknown during recruiting is because. Of If the chip on their shoulder.

Or, maybe they just didn't physically or mature quick enough to be noticed in time and it took somebody seeing what they could become.

The harder question isn't how somebody gets missed or almost missed. It's how does this not happen much, much more often. It's impressive how high the hit rate is.

I think you missed the point, benny.

[Pork Twain]

Yes, talent is a real thing.  It shows up on the football field.  Stars are a fiction created by dudes who want to sell you subscriptions to their magazines and websites.

Based on historical analysis, stars are a pretty darn good rating tool.

[nlrwildcat1]

stars may or may not make a difference. But tell me the last time someone with a recruiting class higher then the top 15 on a regular basis won a nc?

[Boss Hog in the Arkansas]

Every national champion of the past 5 - 10 years had at least 1 top 10 recruiting class. That's a fact

Under the radar players such as JJ Watt appear every year and out perform higher ranked players. That is also a fact.

Bothe sides of the argument help make college athletics what they are.

[Deep Shoat]

Based on historical analysis, stars are a pretty darn good rating tool.

Only in the 5 star and (somewhat) 4 star ratings.  Which is my point.  Anyone can pick out premium talent.  What the "star" people cant do is recognize which "3 stars" are actually 5 star talents who are going to blow up in college. 

There are a limited few coaches who can do that, and it sets them apart.

[Deep Shoat]

Every national champion of the past 5 - 10 years had at least 1 top 10 recruiting class. That's a fact

Under the radar players such as JJ Watt appear every year and out perform higher ranked players. That is also a fact.

Bothe sides of the argument help make college athletics what they are.

You guys are looking at the wrong metric.  Using stars the way you do is simply confirmation bias.

Your average mom in the stands recognizes the 5 stars.  We don't need a service to tell us who the elite HS players are.

But no one, including the recruiting gurus, can pick out which 3 stars are the real deal.  Only a very few coaches can do that.

[Pig in the Pokey]

Only in the 5 star and (somewhat) 4 star ratings.  Which is my point.  Anyone can pick out premium talent.  What the "star" people cant do is recognize which "3 stars" are actually 5 star talents who are going to blow up in college. 

There are a limited few coaches who can do that, and it sets them apart.

problem is, other coaches know which of their peers are able to do what you described and then piggyback their offers to those same guys. So if you are the coach of a, say, Oklahoma State, and you offer a under the radar guy, you then have Texas, Oklahoma, Ole Piss, and Aubarn offer the kid; which they never would have done if not for the okie state offer from a know talent evaluator in this example. Makes it awful hard to get those guys when the name schools just throw those scholly offers around. There should be a hard cap on offers or something.

[Deep Shoat]

problem is, other coaches know which of their peers are able to do what you described and then piggyback their offers to those same guys. So if you are the coach of a, say, Oklahoma State, and you offer a under the radar guy, you then have Texas, Oklahoma, Ole Piss, and Aubarn offer the kid; which they never would have done if not for the okie state offer from a know talent evaluator in this example. Makes it awful hard to get those guys when the name schools just throw those scholly offers around. There should be a hard cap on offers or something.

I agree.  But that is another subject entirely.

This has morphed into a "stars matter" discussion.  I'm trying to explain why stars are simply a tool used to generate revenue.  Talent matters, and stars =/= talent.  Stars = easily recognized talent.

[bennyl08]

I think you missed the point, benny.

Then would you mind explaining it better? I thought your point was about how player's can be mis evaluated by even the best coaches.

[Scott7703]

So about those staff changes............

[colbs]

So about those staff changes............

Did I miss something?

[Hogwild]

Saw this link on a SEC board, and found it interesting to see what another impartial university (non conference) thinks about our coaches/program


https://pittsburgh.forums.rivals.com/threads/dan-enos-as-offensive-coord.104605/

[hobhog]

Saw this link on a SEC board, and found it interesting to see what another impartial university (non conference) thinks about our coaches/program


https://pittsburgh.forums.rivals.com/threads/dan-enos-as-offensive-coord.104605/

That only proves every fan base has people post things as fact that are complete BS. We are not alone.

[Pork Twain]

Only in the 5 star and (somewhat) 4 star ratings.  Which is my point.  Anyone can pick out premium talent.  What the "star" people cant do is recognize which "3 stars" are actually 5 star talents who are going to blow up in college. 

There are a limited few coaches who can do that, and it sets them apart.

I am not sure what angle you are taking any more.  Stars are indeed a pretty good indicator of a player's talent level.  Nothing can be exact, not even any coach, with the best recruiting staff put together.

[southeasthog]

That only proves every fan base has people post things as fact that are complete BS. We are not alone.

It also proves that you don't have to be very smart to access the internet. And that you don't have to know anything about football to be on a message board. (One would quit following Pitt if they hired Enos as OC?)  But we already knew that because....well.....Hogvile.

[East TN HAWG]

Stars don't matter.  Talent does.  And everybody can identify 5 stars.  The people who can identify the real talent in the great, unwashed mass of 3 stars are the ones who matter.

Seriously, my mother can identify a 5 star talent.  Coach Bielema has shown that he can identify the 3 stars who have the talent to make the NFL at a higher rate than most.  In the Big Ten. this year, we will see if that skill carried over to the SEC.

Back in the day, Kentucky had a player named Ron Mercer.  Nolan recruited the kid hard, but lost out to Kentucky.  When describing this player, Nolan said "a blind man could see him play."  To your point, it is easy to spot the elite players.  Its identifying the 3* that can play that is difficult. 

This is also why I think the new signing date will hurt Arkansas more than it will help.  Some of the late blooming 3* will be pressured into signing with mid majors early before they even know their value.   

[buldozer]

Not sure if you actually don't get this or if you just want to argue about nothing.

It has to be the latter because no one really thinks player ratings don't matter, they just say that in an attempt to make poor recruiting more acceptable. You hardly ever hear this from the fans of good recruiting programs, just the ones that suck at recruiting....... Every one knows player ratings aren't perfect, some players turn out to be duds and some players turn out to studs. But overall higher rated recruiting classes are what is needed to make a winning program, otherwise, Sabin would have half a roster of 2 star players over at Alabama winning NC's ever year. But he doesn't. He has an almost full roster of 5 and 4 star rated kids every year with a 3 star sprinkled in hear or there. If you have half a brain, you only have to look at a consistently winning program like bama and look down their recruiting roster year after year to see if recruiting rankings matter. And the answer is, of course they matter and yea there will always be an exception hear or there but you can't build a consistent winning program on finding an exception hear and there, you have to learn how to compete for the good football players that everyone else knows are good.

[Vantage 8 dude]

Great to see all this arguing back and forth about star ratings, talent evaluation, etc. directly relates to the original topic subject matter of STAFF CHANGES COMING? Yep, HV per usual.

[Pork Twain]

Now add W-L to that graph. That should make it even more interesting. Good job, by the way.

This chart breaks down the stars we signed and the number of wins

[Athog]

6. Bret bielema should go to hogville for recruiting advice/coaching advice.

LOL ... yes!!

[Hogwild]

It also proves that you don't have to be very smart to access the internet. And that you don't have to know anything about football to be on a message board. (One would quit following Pitt if they hired Enos as OC?)  But we already knew that because....well.....Hogvile.

I thought it was funny how his fellow posters called him out for that.  I could understand the negative comments about Long, but the disdain for Enos is completely over the top. 

[little pigee]

Great to see all this arguing back and forth about star ratings, talent evaluation, etc. directly relates to the original topic subject matter of STAFF CHANGES COMING? Yep, HV per usual.

This place needs a moderator!

[Vantage 8 dude]

This place needs a moderator!

And perhaps a couple of psychiatrists as well