An argument for and against stars

[Hogballisback]

I hear a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to recruiting services and their rankings of players. Allow me to enter into this conversation, and provide my humble opinion about those evaluations. I welcome your thoughts for a good discussion!

Note: I have spent some time covering recruiting, but it was a while back. I don't write anymore and haven't for seven years.

First and foremost, stars matter to fans. This is because they carry prestige and give us a form of measurement for a coach in building the program outside of the actual coaching piece that happens in spring and fall. It isn't just about prestige, because honestly the coaches will make every class feel prestigious to the fans on signing day. However, as fans, we increasingly feel the need to be plugged in - for a myriad of reasons, including hype, distractions, excitement for the future, venting about progress, etc. - and recruiting rankings let us plug in.

Second, I believe without a doubt that schools do use some "football people" to help build their rankings. However, not all their writers are. I wasn't. Never played a down. But I think they have others at rivals/scout that are paid to do this and have a trained eye. But there is some risk: one highlight tape does not show bad habits or mental mistakes, or motor or differing levels of competition.

Lastly, I think all the recruits look at it. Why would you want to sign on to a cruddy class according to the rankings if you have other options? That's a risk and one reason to shoot for a bit of star power. But this does discount the conversations coaches have with these kids. You and I aren't privy to that. I bet coaches can sell through that.

Now, while there are some reasons to look at stars and reasons you want a ranked class, let's look at my reasons to not go crazy about them. I lean towards ignoring them. Here's why:

First, I manage people at work and we use a third party resource to evaluate performance. They provide a number per se and we ask people to hit it or beat it in hundreds of small transactions. This resource is sometimes spot on, other times way way off. It makes it not trustworthy as an evaluation tool UNLESS people use it as the basis for their work. In my case, we do. In NCAAF, they don't. The fans hold coaches accountable for rankings by a third party evaluator, but the schools don't use this to go about their jobs. That and the third party resources aren't always going to be right.

That brings me to the next point: those sites are heavily dependent on these three things:

Camps
Video
Offer lists

There are a ton of good players who for whatever reason didn't get to camps, don't have great video work done for them, and haven't been discovered yet. If you find a diamond in the rough, you evaluate and you offer the kid. Every time. You do this when you hire people too, if you're smart on the job. If you have three candidates and two of them are known commodities - but a third one comes in unknown and you get a chance to see the kind of work they do and they blow you away, you have to entertain the unknown. Even better as an analogy, how many times did underranked guys go on to be successful? Level of competition could be a reason. Maybe the recruiting sites didn't get a chance to evaluate. Maybe the coaches didn't use them right. Maybe they're playing the wrong sport. Maybe they are coming off an injury, and got forgotten about. Who knows the reason. Schools pay a lot to coaches and their large staffs because they know what they're doing, and hopefully better than their competitors. If they offer a guy - they did it for a reason. Trust the process until they don't win, then you can start to question evaluation and development ability.

My last point against it is this: and I touched on it earlier briefly, but evaluators for rivals and scout don't go to every game. They don't have time to watch full game films on every recruit. Many publishers are a one man show, some with two on their staff. They don't do this. It's just not possible. They rely on camps, offers, and highlight videos. They see the best someone can offer, and then allow word of mouth to affect ranking. That's a fair thing to do, as some assumptions have to be made. But this is not the process a coaching staff will follow, I guarantee you that. They look for other traits besides play making ability, or measurables, or speed. Physical talent has to come with work ethic, good attitude, football IQ, grades, and sometimes fitting the right scheme. Rivals didn't look at those things. They don't get to ask those questions on everyone or be all encompassing. They also don't get to watch game films all day.

Anyway, these are my two cents. Stars are fun to get, but don't beat yourself or the coach up over them... If they don't win over time, it is fair to assume that recruiting played a part. But I don't think you can look back and say "that's why! Not enough four stars!"

After all, these services have fun going back and re-ranking past classes based on how players turned out in college. It's entirely subjective.

Thanks for listening!

[RaisinHog]

Did not read

[Hogballisback]

Did not read

Sounds good! Never said you had to. It's a pretty fun look into it, though.

[Optimus Swine]

+1 good read

[Hogballisback]

+1 good read

Thanks!
Where do you fall in this line of thinking?

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Appreciate the insight, but it's nothing new. 

It's pretty simple, the system is pretty accurate in regards to say the top 10, maybe 15, classes, as it's not hard identify the top talent.  And it's pretty accurate say from the 50's and on, as it's easy to identify the obviously less talented.  Once you start getting into the middle ground, say 20's to 40's, it gets muddy. 

However, none of that really matters, because every fan of a P5 program dreams of winning a championship, conference or national.  Realistic or not, that's reality.  And these fans know that to do that, their program better be recruiting in the top 10 range consistently, where the rankings are usually dead on.  There are some exceptions here and there, of course, but that's pretty much the rule.  Talent is the lifeblood of a program.  Talent first.  Talent is king.  Don't get the talent, and it won't matter who the coach is.  And since most fans believe they already have a championship caliber coach, just ask them, then all they focus on is recruiting. 

UA fans are the poster child for this.  The coaching box is always seemingly checked off (reality or not), now we just need to check off the talent box.  Unfortunately, we never get to check off the talent box.

[lakecityhog]

Did not read

Then why comment at all???

[#1 STUNNA]

Burks would be a top 10-15 player if he would attend camps... but he doesnt care to do them.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Burks would be a top 10-15 player if he would attend camps... but he doesnt care to do them.

He'll still be a high 4* with an offer to every school in the USA.  He'll be top 50, which is all that matters, because it gets fairly fuzzy when trying to delineate the top 50 talented players anyway.  We just have to sign him. 

[hogmolar]

Good post and I think you are spot on.  After going through this myself I learned that a lot depends on

1.) going to camps (Travel time and expenses that all can't do)
2.) Playing in a well known system to be seen ( I played against guys that were not great but got hyped because of system)
3.) Hype from those around you
4.) Input and connections from your current high school coach (It actually takes effort by the coach in most cases)

The 4th one on my list is where I believe that CCM and his personality will have a huge advantage.  Not all college coaches take the time to develop relationships with high school coaches.  The high school coaches, if truthful, trustworthy, and feel respected, will be a huge help in U of A spotting unknown talent and or over hyped talent with in our state. 

Stars will help you determine the percent of a non player that a kid will be.  You know every year that Bama, Georgia, Clemson, Auburn, Florida have 4 and 5 stars that do not succeed but it is usually a smaller chance than the 2 star being a home run.  That being said when you sign 10-15 per class you don't really notice the miss.  When you sign 4 and count heavily on them you notice it.     

[Hogballisback]

Appreciate the insight, but it's nothing new. 

It's pretty simple, the system is pretty accurate in regards to say the top 10, maybe 15, classes, as it's not hard identify the top talent.  And it's pretty accurate say from the 50's and on, as it's easy to identify the obviously less talented.  Once you start getting into the middle ground, say 20's to 40's, it gets muddy. 

However, none of that really matters, because every fan of a P5 program dreams of winning a championship, conference or national.  Realistic or not, that's reality.  And these fans know that to do that, their program better be recruiting in the top 10 range consistently, where the rankings are usually dead on.  There are some exceptions here and there, of course, but that's pretty much the rule.  Talent is the lifeblood of a program.  Talent first.  Talent is king.  Don't get the talent, and it won't matter who the coach is.  And since most fans believe they already have a championship caliber coach, just ask them, then all they focus on is recruiting. 

UA fans are the poster child for this.  The coaching box is always seemingly checked off (reality or not), now we just need to check off the talent box.  Unfortunately, we never get to check off the talent box.

I don't disagree with you. You have to get talent. But I have more concern about recruiting sites actually properly evaluating talent - so I wait to see talented on the field, not in the stars. To me, stars are fun things to get excited about because at the highest levels, the 4 and 5 star kids, those are probably really good. But if we miss on one or don't go after that kid, I don't get mad because there is always more to the story.

[hawgfan4life]

Stars are important to a certain percentage because you can expect a certain percentage to live up to the hype or to be solid performers whether they are NFL caliber or not.  However, talent evaluation is more important because there are some highly rated players that shouldn't be offered and there are more under the radar players that should be offered.  Drew Morgan might of had 3 star athletic ability, but he had a 5 star heart.  Stars don't measure the intangibles.  Fans get caught up with the potential they see on paper or a highlight video from HUDL.  Evaluators assess whether the kid can play or not and look for those things that isn't on the highlight video.  The best coaches and programs are great at this task and the average are not.  A handful of programs attract the top talent and it doesn't hurt them as much when they miss.  Arkansas has to get it correct a majority of the time or it shows up on the depth chart and in the close losses column.

[Hogballisback]

Stars are important to a certain percentage because you can expect a certain percentage to live up to the hype or to be solid performers whether they are NFL caliber or not.  However, talent evaluation is more important because there are some highly rated players that shouldn't be offered and there are more under the radar players that should be offered.  Drew Morgan might of had 3 star athletic ability, but he had a 5 star heart.  Stars don't measure the intangibles.  Fans get caught up with the potential they see on paper or a highlight video from HUDL.  Evaluators assess whether the kid can play or not and look for those things that isn't on the highlight video.  The best coaches and programs are great at this task and the average are not.  A handful of programs attract the top talent and it doesn't hurt them as much when they miss.  Arkansas has to get it correct a majority of the time or it shows up on the depth chart and in the close losses column.

+1

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I don't disagree with you. You have to get talent. But I have more concern about recruiting sites actually properly evaluating talent - so I wait to see talented on the field, not in the stars. To me, stars are fun things to get excited about because at the highest levels, the 4 and 5 star kids, those are probably really good. But if we miss on one or don't go after that kid, I don't get mad because there is always more to the story.

Sure, but you're applying the exception, not the rule.  Better evaluations likely won't make measurable differences in the overall results.  Particularly in the top 15 or so, which is really all that matters.  It's just a game of probability.  Odds are stacked in favor of the big boy programs, because they are able to stockpile talent.  They can afford some misses.

And let's be honest, it's less about evaluation than it is recruiting.  Evaluation =/= recruiting.  UA coaches might be exceptional evaluators.  I mean it's no coincidence that the first wave of scholies that go out each year from UA are by and large to the top rated guys...the guys pursued by Bama, FL, UGA, etc...  Confirming the service rankings of the top players, which aren't difficult to identify.  Problem is, we don't get those kids to sign and LOI in any meaningul numbers.  And we see the results on the field.

Forget the stars, look at the offer sheets.  But it's no coincidence that the offer sheet usually coincides with the number of stars.  It just so happens that it's easier to talk (or write) in terms of stars.  There's usually a correlation between the two.