Another "recruiting-stars" study

[Fayettechill14]

Did some research on how recruiting stars translate to on-field success, and found some interesting results. Here y'all go:

2012 all-SEC Offense, 1st and 2nd Teams
Player, Position      Team         Stars
Johnny Manziel, QB   Texas A&M      3
AJ McCarron, QB   Alabama      4

Mike Gillislee, RB   Florida      4
Eddie Lacy, RB      Alabama      4
Zac Stacy, RB      Vanderbilt      3
Todd Gurley, RB      Georgia      4

Cobi Hamilton, WR   Arkansas      3
Jordan Matthews, WR   Vanderbilt      3
Ryan Swope, WR   Texas A&M      3
Justin Hunter, WR   Tennessee      4

Mychel Rivera, TE   Tennessee      3
Jordan Reed, TE      Florida      4

Luke Joekel, OL      Texas A&M      4
Chance Warmack, OL   Alabama      5
DJ Fluker, OL      Alabama      5
Jake Matthews, OL   Texas A&M      4
OFFENSE AVERAGE            3.75

2012 all-SEC Defense, 1st and 2nd Teams
Player, Position      Team         Stars
Jadaveon Clowney, DL South Carolina   5
Sam Montgomery, DL   LSU         4
Sharrif Floyd, DL      Florida      5
Damontre Moore, DL      Texas A&M      3
Barkevious Mingo, DL   LSU         4
Sheldon Richardson, DL   Mizzou      5
John Jenkins, DL      Georgia      4
Corey Lemonier, DL      Auburn      4

Jarvis Jones, LB      Georgia      4
CJ Moseley, LB      Alabama      4
Kevin Minter, LB      LSU         4
AJ Johnson, LB      Tennessee      4
Jon Bostic, LB         Florida      4
Alec Ogletree, LB      Georgia      4

Dee Milliner, DB      Alabama      5
Matt Elam, DB      Florida      5
Eric Reid, DB         LSU         4
Johnathan Banks, DB      Mississippi State   3
DJ Swearinger, DB      South Carolina   3
Darius Slay, DB      Mississippi State   3
DEFENSE AVERAGE            4.05

[Fayettechill14]

Here's our potential 2013 starting lineup, with stars:

Brandon Allen, QB         3
Johnathan Williams, RB      4
Alex Collins, RB         4
Demetrius Wilson, WR      3      
Javontee Herndon, WR      2
Hunter Henry, TE         4
Brey Cook, OL         4
Mitch Smothers, OL         4
Denver Kirkland, OL         4
Travis Swanson, OL         3
Cordale Boyd, OL         3
OFFENSE AVERAGE      3.45

Chris Smith, DL         3
Trey Flowers, DL         3
Byran Jones, DL         4
Robert Thomas, DL         3
Otha Peters, LB         4
AJ Turner, LB            3
Martrell Spaight, LB         3
Tevin Mitchel, DB         4
Will Hines, DB         3
Eric Bennett, DB         3
Rohan Gaines, DB         3
DEFENSE AVERAGE      3.27

[Fayettechill14]

Really looks like our offense, depending on QB development, could be capable next year.

Our line really should be much, much better than in years past.

But the defense looks a bit back. How much is experience worth? How do stars matter? It sure looks like they matter more on defense (4.05 stars) than on offense (3.75 stars).

I also researched Arkansas and Alabama offenses 2009-2012. Both were high-producing, but did Arkansas really have a significant talent gap over that time? My findings were thus:
  1. Arkansas' 13 most significant contributors averaged 3.62 stars.
  2. Alabama's 16 most significant contributors averaged 3.81 stars.

It is worth noting that 2 of Arkansas' 13 guys were linemen, while 6 of Alabama's 16 were linemen.

[jlhogfan]

I get what you are trying to say; but, I think what most of us "star gazers" are trying to say is that we always have the mid tier or 3 star range and zero SEC championships to show for it.  Why do the top programs chase the stars then?

[ZERO]

What service did you use for these stars, anyway? I thought Allen and Collins were 4 and 5 star.

[Fayettechill14]

What service did you use for these stars, anyway? I thought Allen and Collins were 4 and 5 star.

Rivals. They were higher on both Scout and 247.

[Fayettechill14]

This info is all over the place, but here's the basic stuff I found:

1. Petrino got kind of lucky to be honest, landing some serious offensive talent. He didn't "coach up" very many lower-recruited players. Dennis Johnson, Tyler Wilson, and Cobi Hamilton are the only major ones. None of the key contributors in 2010 were below a 4*, and three of them (Mallett, Adams, Green) were 5*. He's still a great coach, but he was working with more "recruiting stars" than many noted.

2. It appears that defensive recruiting stars are truer to actual results than the offense, meaning that Bielema is going to have a harder time "coaching up" defensive players.

3. Our offense, star-wise, is in good shape. Needs experience, but the talent is there.

I was hoping that y'all could comment on/dispute any of the above points, or answer the question "Which will be SEC-caliber first, offense or defense?"

[Danny J]

I get what you are trying to say; but, I think what most of us "star gazers" are trying to say is that we always have the mid tier or 3 star range and zero SEC championships to show for it.  Why do the top programs chase the stars then?

I agree. There is a reason why the dominant teams consistently have highly ranked classes. People point to our 10-3 and 11-2 teams and that is fine and dandy but if we want to compete for titles with those teams we need to step it up. It appears we are on our way with the late players we signed this past year. I bet we start to pull more of those players than we did under BP.

[Verge]

Look at bamas recruits.


Now look at their trophies. You have to ride the short bus to not see a correlation.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Look at bamas recruits.


Now look at their trophies. You have to ride the short bus to not see a correlation.

During those recruiting cycles when we aren't getting the stars, it's shocking how many around here proudly sprint to board that particular bus.  Now that we have an apparent ace recruiting staff, however, I expect those same folks to disembark at warp speed. 

[Danny J]

Look at bamas recruits.


Now look at their trophies. You have to ride the short bus to not see a correlation.

Yep....the same with OU, USC, tOSU, UF, etc......all routinely sign top classes. However signing top classes doesn't mean you are going to win it all but having those highly regarded classes seems to be a necessity to winning it all.  As a matter of fact I can't think of a national title winner in the BCS era that has routinely signed classes between 20-40 in the rankings and won it all.

[Pathogen]

As a matter of fact I can't think of a national title winner in the BCS era that has routinely signed classes between 20-40 in the rankings and won it all.

That's because there are none.  Zero.

Those that bash "star gazers" only do so because Arkansas doesn't/hasn't had highly rated classes.  It's like people with only a high school diploma bashing those with master's degrees, saying you can make good money with only a high school education.  Of course you can, but ON AVERAGE, those with a master's make significantly more and do so much more frequently.  Low-rated classes can produce good teams, but ON AVERAGE, highly rated classes produce much better teams.

[ZERO]

I believe pretty evenly in stars and solid coaching. People say stars don't matter until they land four or five 4* in a single class when they're used to 2 and 3 stars. Then all of the sudden we rock.

I think the truth is that since the Star System has to track so many players, either a lot of good ones slip under the radar, or the skill difference between the average 3* and 4* is not as big of a gap as most think. Same with 4* to 5*. It's probably both of these factors.

I think most of the time, the 4* and 5* are noticeably better than the 3* players. The fact that the NC winner has a highly rated recruiting class every single time proves it. But also keep in mind that we've all been tracking players and watched their star rating raise or lower a full star (or more?) at some schools due to money talking. I think that Auburn doing so poorly in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, etc., is 50% bad coaching, and 50% of the star system just telling them what they wanted to hear.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

I believe pretty evenly in stars and solid coaching. People say stars don't matter until they land four or five 4* in a single class when they're used to 2 and 3 stars. Then all of the sudden we rock.

I think the truth is that since the Star System has to track so many players, either a lot of good ones slip under the radar, or the skill difference between the average 3* and 4* is not as big of a gap as most think. Same with 4* to 5*. It's probably both of these factors.

I think most of the time, the 4* and 5* are noticeably better than the 3* players. The fact that the NC winner has a highly rated recruiting class every single time proves it. But also keep in mind that we've all been tracking players and watched their star rating raise or lower a full star (or more?) at some schools due to money talking. I think that Auburn doing so poorly in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, etc., is 50% bad coaching, and 50% of the star system just telling them what they wanted to hear.

This.  I remember when we landed Darius Winston, and people pooped their pants with delight.

[Danny J]

I believe pretty evenly in stars and solid coaching. People say stars don't matter until they land four or five 4* in a single class when they're used to 2 and 3 stars. Then all of the sudden we rock.

I think the truth is that since the Star System has to track so many players, either a lot of good ones slip under the radar, or the skill difference between the average 3* and 4* is not as big of a gap as most think. Same with 4* to 5*. It's probably both of these factors.

I think most of the time, the 4* and 5* are noticeably better than the 3* players. The fact that the NC winner has a highly rated recruiting class every single time proves it. But also keep in mind that we've all been tracking players and watched their star rating raise or lower a full star (or more?) at some schools due to money talking. I think that Auburn doing so poorly in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, etc., is 50% bad coaching, and 50% of the star system just telling them what they wanted to hear.

I agree and I think there are tons of 2 and 3 stars they miss out on because they don't attend camps and aren't really seen by the ratings services. That being said I would still rather have a known commodity, 4 and 5 star, than gamble on a 2 and 3 start that he MAY have been non properly or mis-evaluated.

[nationwish]

Someone on here pointed out awhile back that a coach said something like you coach offense, and you recruit defense. The information here would seem to back that up.

[Wildhog]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/arkansas/football/recruiting/player-Brandon-Allen-79359

Allen was a four-star.

[Murr]

Really looks like our offense, depending on QB development, could be capable next year.

Our line really should be much, much better than in years past.

But the defense looks a bit back. How much is experience worth? How do stars matter? It sure looks like they matter more on defense (4.05 stars) than on offense (3.75 stars).

I also researched Arkansas and Alabama offenses 2009-2012. Both were high-producing, but did Arkansas really have a significant talent gap over that time? My findings were thus:
  1. Arkansas' 13 most significant contributors averaged 3.62 stars.
  2. Alabama's 16 most significant contributors averaged 3.81 stars.

It is worth noting that 2 of Arkansas' 13 guys were linemen, while 6 of Alabama's 16 were linemen.

hog linemen have regressed since the Nutt days--CBP's great weakness in recruiting

[Fayettechill14]

hog linemen have regressed since the Nutt days--CBP's great weakness in recruiting

Good news is that we have two former 4* recruits on campus (Cook and Smothers) and two more on the way (Kirkland and Koehler), so I think we can have a huge turnaround in just one year with Pittman's coaching. Then we'll all realize just how bad Chris Klenakis was.

[ChicoHog]

Someone on here pointed out awhile back that a coach said something like you coach offense, and you recruit defense. The information here would seem to back that up.

Correct.  that was in a USA Today article a few months ago.  I think it may have been Sonny Dykes, new coach at Cal, but I'm not positive.  I think it's pretty simple.  Defense is more innate athleticism-go tackle the guy with the ball, etc., vs offense which is more cerebral and has a bigger learning curve except for RB.  Most Olineman take a couple years to get on the field.  Same with QBs.  It takes a different skill set and film room dedication also to be a successful QB. 

[Ugly Uncle]

Correct.  that was in a USA Today article a few months ago.  I think it may have been Sonny Dykes, new coach at Cal, but I'm not positive.  I think it's pretty simple.  Defense is more innate athleticism-go tackle the guy with the ball, etc., vs offense which is more cerebral and has a bigger learning curve except for RB.  Most Olineman take a couple years to get on the field.  Same with QBs.  It takes a different skill set and film room dedication also to be a successful QB. 

I was thinking as I read Faychill's post that Bobby did get lucky on some recruits but just on offense.  It seems to me that RBs or WRs, sometimes even QBs can be lower rated and be great.  While on defense it has to be there more athletically from the start.

[Hog Fan...DOH!]

There's a big chicken/egg argument with the star ratings.  Are these kids highly rated because they're being recruited by major programs with proven success?  If I'm Rivals, I wouldn't hesitate to latch my credibility onto Bama and Florida's evaluations and offer list.

[PygmalionEffect]

Here's our potential 2013 starting lineup, with stars:

Brandon Allen, QB         3
Johnathan Williams, RB      4
Alex Collins, RB         4
Demetrius Wilson, WR      3      
Javontee Herndon, WR      2
Hunter Henry, TE         4
Brey Cook, OL         4
Mitch Smothers, OL         4
Denver Kirkland, OL         4
Travis Swanson, OL         3
Cordale Boyd, OL         3
OFFENSE AVERAGE      3.45

Chris Smith, DL         3
Trey Flowers, DL         3
Byran Jones, DL         4
Robert Thomas, DL         3
Otha Peters, LB         4
AJ Turner, LB            3
Martrell Spaight, LB         3
Tevin Mitchel, DB         4
Will Hines, DB         3
Eric Bennett, DB         3
Rohan Gaines, DB         3
DEFENSE AVERAGE      3.27

You've got 3 guards and 1 tackle there.  Brey is a guard now and will not be switched back to tackle unless due to an injury situation according to Pittman. 

Did you intentionally leave off our starting walk-on tackle because it wasn't clear how to compute a walk-on in your star avg?  It would drop it a bit wouldn't it?

[PygmalionEffect]

I realize it's just a projection, but putting a true freshman in there as a 4 star (Kirkland) doesn't seem to as safe as putting up any number of 3 star tackles that are already on campus such as Ollison, Beck, Stringer,  in addition to my previous post of putting Hurd in there at the other tackle for sure with zero stars, he was our starter last year and Pittman says he has improved a lot.

[PygmalionEffect]

The only time I ever read the phrase "stars don't matter" is from someone accusing other posters of saying it.

That is the most over-used false accusation on this board.

NO ONE ON HERE THINKS OR POSTS THAT STARS "DON'T MATTER"

People like me say on here that recruiting sites are not exact sciences and are wrong about as much as they are right and I can bring up lists of all-sec players with  2 or 3 stars and then can bring up lists of 4 and 5 stars that never make it to campus, get injured or are just busts.

You're probably not going to win an NC with an avg Rivals class in the high twenties or thirties but you can finish in the top 10 in the country with it, as CBP proved here recently.

[PygmalionEffect]

This info is all over the place, but here's the basic stuff I found:

1. Petrino got kind of lucky to be honest, landing some serious offensive talent. He didn't "coach up" very many lower-recruited players. Dennis Johnson, Tyler Wilson, and Cobi Hamilton are the only major ones. None of the key contributors in 2010 were below a 4*, and three of them (Mallett, Adams, Green) were 5*. He's still a great coach, but he was working with more "recruiting stars" than many noted.

2. It appears that defensive recruiting stars are truer to actual results than the offense, meaning that Bielema is going to have a harder time "coaching up" defensive players.

3. Our offense, star-wise, is in good shape. Needs experience, but the talent is there.

I was hoping that y'all could comment on/dispute any of the above points, or answer the question "Which will be SEC-caliber first, offense or defense?"

That's an interesting observation and the statistics you put together do a good job of supporting that.  I think there could be something to it but also I think those numbers could be schewed to look that way because of bama and Saban.

Here lately when Saban recruits a defensive player, he is getting the top 5 player at that position.  He may only have 4 stars but is probably closer to a 5 star defender than what the other SEC schools will be picking up by signing a 4 star defender who might only be the 20th best player at his position.  Saban's 4 star defensive recruits are really closer to a 5 star while other SEC schools 4 star are closer to a 3 star.

OL are supposed to be the most difficult to evaluate out of h.s. so that helps your assumption when you have surprise 3 star linemen making all-sec teams fairly frequently.  QBs are difficult as well,

so maybe it's not that it is more difficult to "coach up" a defensive player, maybe the variance is due to offensive players being more difficult to evaluate out of high school.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Let's take this a step further. Prominent players on every team are important, but the greatest measure of talent and how that equates to success is the overall talent level AND COACHING (and the emphasis of that coaching), that a team receives.

Look at Alabama, which has certainly deserved to be called the "gold standard" in the SEC over the last 4 years.

Here are their average recruited player ratings according to Rivals by position area on average over the last 4 years (2009-2012):

QB's:         5.80
WR's:        5.85
RB's:         5.93
OL:            5.80
Front 7:      5.81
Secondary: 5.93
Team Avg:  5.85  4 year win %: .907

Here are Florida's:

QB:             5.70
WR's:          5.82
RB's:           5.81
OL:              5.90
Front 7:        5.83
Secondary:   5.89
Team Avg:    5.83   4 year win %: .736

And LSU:
QB:               5.80
WR's:            5.85
RB's:             5.87
OL:               5.80
Front 7:         5.79
Secondary:    5.74
Team Avg:     5.81  4 year win %: .811

And Arkansas:

QB:               5.65
WR's:            5.61
RB's:             5.73
OL:               5.70
Front 7:         5.65
Secondary:    5.65
Team Avg:     5.67   4 year win %: .647

Does the level of talent make a profound difference? Of course, but in the absence of coaching that is equally as good, you simply aren't able to sustain winning seasons over the long term.

We have a way to go in recruiting, but I think that we are making in-roads in that area and I also think that we now have an overall coaching staff that is of the quality needed to help compete for conference championships.

[Biggus Piggus]

Great stuff Muskogee. Did you notice that the biggest gulf between Arkansas and the top three was

WIDE RECEIVERS holy crap.

With the secondary close behind. Why did Petrino struggle so badly trying to recruit receivers, of all positions?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Great stuff Muskogee. Did you notice that the biggest gulf between Arkansas and the top three was

WIDE RECEIVERS holy crap.

With the secondary close behind. Why did Petrino struggle so badly trying to recruit receivers, of all positions?

Thanks Biggus. But the biggest thing that this little bit of research pointed out to me was that if you want to have sustained success over the long term in the SEC (in the absence of the utilization of a gimmicky offense), your overall talent level of your entire team better average at least 5.8. Overall and on average, the huge gulf seems to be between players that are rated 5.7 and below, and those that are rated 5.8 and above. That seems to be the real dividing line.

[jlhogfan]

The only time I ever read the phrase "stars don't matter" is from someone accusing other posters of saying it.

That is the most over-used false accusation on this board.

NO ONE ON HERE THINKS OR POSTS THAT STARS "DON'T MATTER"

People like me say on here that recruiting sites are not exact sciences and are wrong about as much as they are right and I can bring up lists of all-sec players with  2 or 3 stars and then can bring up lists of 4 and 5 stars that never make it to campus, get injured or are just busts.

You're probably not going to win an NC with an avg Rivals class in the high twenties or thirties but you can finish in the top 10 in the country with it, as CBP proved here recently.

Are you sure?  I believe I had seen many suggest that we can win championships by "evaluating talent" and "coaching up" lower rated recruits.  To your point about top 10 finishes, consistency is the difference.  I do not believe you can consistently finish top 10 with average recruiting. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

There's a big chicken/egg argument with the star ratings.  Are these kids highly rated because they're being recruited by major programs with proven success?  If I'm Rivals, I wouldn't hesitate to latch my credibility onto Bama and Florida's evaluations and offer list.

This is exactly what I've been suggesting for some time now.  IMO, the most credible thing a service could do in setting their ratings would be to first and foremost base it on a kid's offer sheet.  I mean if I'm some "guru" recruiting service evaluator and I rank some kid a 3-star, but then notice that Saban, Meyers and Stoops have all offered, then I'm going to bump him up another star...immediately.  Not even going back to look at the film again.   

[Bubba's Bruisers]

The only time I ever read the phrase "stars don't matter" is from someone accusing other posters of saying it.

That is the most over-used false accusation on this board.

NO ONE ON HERE THINKS OR POSTS THAT STARS "DON'T MATTER"

People like me say on here that recruiting sites are not exact sciences and are wrong about as much as they are right and I can bring up lists of all-sec players with  2 or 3 stars and then can bring up lists of 4 and 5 stars that never make it to campus, get injured or are just busts.

You're probably not going to win an NC with an avg Rivals class in the high twenties or thirties but you can finish in the top 10 in the country with it, as CBP proved here recently.

Ever heard the term "star gazers"?

[Arkansas Fan]

Stars don't mean anything. It's all about coaching, player development, how well the individual player understands the game, and teamwork.

What did Auburn's top classes do for them besides the Cam year? 8-5 and a nice 3-9 season. How about Florida going 8-5 then 7-6. Or Ohio State going 6-7? Michigan going 3-9. Hell, us going 4-8 with all those returning players. Interesting how they have better seasons when they have good capable coaching.

It's not like we're playing NCAA Football on Xbox where the stars determines how fast, strong, quick, etc. a player is. In real life, stars don't determine any of that.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Stars don't mean anything. It's all about coaching, player development, how well the individual player understands the game, and teamwork.

And maybe talent?

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

And maybe talent?

No.  You could give him an entire roster of Sumo Wrestlers and with the right coaching, etc. they go at least 8 or 9 wins in the SEC.

[Arkansas Fan]

And maybe talent?

Yes, that helps, but stars has nothing to do with how a player performs. See Dennis Johnson vs. Ronnie Wingo.

[ramsandhogs1033]

1. Good list but the SEC has powerhouses with big name coaches which leads to great classes with great coaching and All-SEC players. In my personal opinion the best way to see stars is in the draft because it is the best players around the NCAA not just the conference with the highest average stars between all its recruiting classes even with Vanderbilt and Kentucky. here is how rival's graded 2012 first round http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1359762

2. Stars definitely matter and players do slip through but one thing to keep in mind when looking at lower star players excelling is that there are way more players at each level as you go down.

3. Also the recruiting sites don't see practices, they don't know the players work ethic, and they don't know where they are at academically; as a result their rankings are mostly based on pure athleticism and stats which leads to elite prospects teammates being boosted up because they have more visibility and a better team leads to better stats.

[Danny J]

Yes, that helps, but stars has nothing to do with how a player performs. See Dennis Johnson vs. Ronnie Wingo.

Cherry pick? Look....of the BCS era national title winners how many of those teams were loaded with 2 and 3 star talent?

Lets see.....

Bama
Tenn
tOSU
USC
LSU
Florida
Auburn
OU

If you want to win a sec title you had better start recruiting with those guys. You take the 2 and 3 star players and I will take the 4 and 5 star players and see who has a better shot at a title. You can't go through cherry picking players who have already had successful college careers. We are talking about right out of HS.

Having top 15 recruiting classes every year and winning a national title for those teams is not just a coincidence. If we continue to land 4 and 5 star players like Collins and Kirkland we will be well on our way to FINALLY winning a SEC title and get our shot at a national title.

[Danny J]

This is exactly what I've been suggesting for some time now.  IMO, the most credible thing a service could do in setting their ratings would be to first and foremost base it on a kid's offer sheet.  I mean if I'm some "guru" recruiting service evaluator and I rank some kid a 3-star, but then notice that Saban, Meyers and Stoops have all offered, then I'm going to bump him up another star...immediately.  Not even going back to look at the film again.   

I heard one of the evaluators for Rivals say that is exactly what they do. He said they definitely weigh offer lists in their ratings. Would be dumb not to.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Yes, that helps, but stars has nothing to do with how a player performs. See Dennis Johnson vs. Ronnie Wingo.

I don't disagree with your literal position on stars, but your omission of talent on your list is glaring to say the least.  You then, seemingly, go on to somewhat marginalized the importance of talent in your next post.  All those attributes on your list are essentially useless if you don't have talent. 

Yes, talent alone won't make you elite, but it's the most important item on the list.  Talent is priority #1 for any program.

I, like you, don't pay any attention to stars.  I pay attention to offer sheets.  Of course, it just so happens that the list of offers generally corresponds to the number of stars.

[Danny J]

I, like you, don't pay any attention to stars.  I pay attention to offer sheets.  Of course, it just so happens that the list of offers generally corresponds to the number of stars.

I agree.....only thing I look at as well.

[Arkansas Fan]

Cherry pick? Look....of the BCS era national title winners how many of those teams were loaded with 2 and 3 star talent?

Lets see.....

Bama
Tenn
tOSU
USC
LSU
Florida
Auburn
OU

If you want to win a sec title you had better start recruiting with those guys. You take the 2 and 3 star players and I will take the 4 and 5 star players and see who has a better shot at a title. You can't go through cherry picking players who have already had successful college careers. We are talking about right out of HS.

Having top 15 recruiting classes every year and winning a national title for those teams is not just a coincidence. If we continue to land 4 and 5 star players like Collins and Kirkland we will be well on our way to FINALLY winning a SEC title and get our shot at a national title.

Yep, and how many of those schools have had bad seasons with their great top ten classes? ALL of them. As I mentioned above, they just so happen to do good when they don't have crappy coaching.

Our problem in the SEC hasn't been talent. Our problem has been coaching. How many good coaches would you say we've had since we've been in the SEC? Petrino, right? And he didn't even play defense and he had mediocre O-line play. IF Bielema wins an SEC title here it won't be because of stars, it'll be because he actually coached up, recruited enough players to provide depth, and made sure we played good all around football.

[Arkansas Fan]

I don't disagree with your literal position on stars, but your omission of talent on your list is glaring to say the least.  You then, seemingly, go on to somewhat marginalized the importance of talent in your next post.  All those attributes on your list are essentially useless if you don't have talent. 

Yes, talent alone won't make you elite, but it's the most important item on the list.  Talent is priority #1 for any program.

I, like you, don't pay any attention to stars.  I pay attention to offer sheets.  Of course, it just so happens that the list of offers generally corresponds to the number of stars.

Of course you have to have talent, you just don't recruit some random person that has no idea what's going on. You need athletes, and as I stated above, stars have nothing to do with how well one plays the game of football.

[ramsandhogs1033]

Of course you have to have talent, you just don't recruit some random person that has no idea what's going on. You need athletes, and as I stated above, stars have nothing to do with how well one plays the game of football.

stars don't cause someone to play football better but commonly it means they play the game pretty well at least at a high school level and since a lot of the five stars come from power High schools means they have good coaching at the HS level.

[Danny J]

Yep, and how many of those schools have had bad seasons with their great top ten classes? ALL of them. As I mentioned above, they just so happen to do good when they don't have crappy coaching.

Our problem in the SEC hasn't been talent. Our problem has been coaching. How many good coaches would you say we've had since we've been in the SEC? Petrino, right? And he didn't even play defense and he had mediocre O-line play. IF Bielema wins an SEC title here it won't be because of stars, it'll be because he actually coached up, recruited enough players to provide depth, and made sure we played good all around football.

I see the confusion.

Nobody is saying, certainly I am not, that recruiting top classes equates to national titles. It is probably the biggest factor. Les Miles is the perfect example.

Yes...we certainly need coaching. There is no question. I do believe that it is rare to have both and have both for long periods of time. Guys like Saban and Meyer are the ones who are not only great coaches but great recruiters and also have great fertile grounds to recruit and tradition to back that up. Just look at Saban's record at MSU versus LSU/Bama. So it is not all about coaching or all about recruiting.

So I would say that recruiting is way more than "half the battle". I would say it is closer to 75% of the battle. Coaching, tradition, support, etc...all make up that 25%. Just to clarify I pulled those numbers out of my ass. 

[LZH]

This is exactly what I've been suggesting for some time now.  IMO, the most credible thing a service could do in setting their ratings would be to first and foremost base it on a kid's offer sheet.  I mean if I'm some "guru" recruiting service evaluator and I rank some kid a 3-star, but then notice that Saban, Meyers and Stoops have all offered, then I'm going to bump him up another star...immediately.  Not even going back to look at the film again.   

Then that really wouldn't be 'your' rating then, would it?  I've been kinda interested in getting more into the recruiting thing lately since I don't have much else to do and off-season is a b!tch.  But if that's the way some of these evaluations are actually done I can just read what someone else posts about them.  It's disingenuous imo.  I mean, if you're charging people money to access your website proclaiming you're a recruiting 'guru', or talent evaluator, then what are you actually selling?

And as for the topic of this thread (stars on a team as opposed to individual ratings), there are coaches who can take 2* & 3* players and win.  But if you're talking about conference championships and national championships, then you better believe the more 4* & 5* players you have on your team, the greater your chances are of winning at that level.  Period.

[Danny J]

And as for the topic of this thread (stars on a team as opposed to individual ratings), there are coaches who can take 2* & 3* players and win.  But if you're talking about conference championships and national championships, then you better believe the more 4* & 5* players you have on your team, the greater your chances are of winning at that level.  Period.

Well said....

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Yep, and how many of those schools have had bad seasons with their great top ten classes? ALL of them. As I mentioned above, they just so happen to do good when they don't have crappy coaching.

Our problem in the SEC hasn't been talent. Our problem has been coaching. How many good coaches would you say we've had since we've been in the SEC? Petrino, right? And he didn't even play defense and he had mediocre O-line play. IF Bielema wins an SEC title here it won't be because of stars, it'll be because he actually coached up, recruited enough players to provide depth, and made sure we played good all around football.

It will require enhanced talent levels on the team at all positions as well as quality coaching. Great talent can certainly make a great coach look like an even better coach, but that great talent still needs great coaching.

A team can have better talent than any other team around them and they will make plays. But if you don't have a great coaching staff that helps that great talent hone and develop their skills and techniques, and if that staff also isn't really great at game planning and scheming, that team will still underachieve, despite their great talent level.

You have to have both to sustain success over the longer term.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Then that really wouldn't be 'your' rating then, would it?  I've been kinda interested in getting more into the recruiting thing lately since I don't have much else to do and off-season is a b!tch.  But if that's the way some of these evaluations are actually done I can just read what someone else posts about them.  It's disingenuous imo.  I mean, if you're charging people money to access your website proclaiming you're a recruiting 'guru', or talent evaluator, then what are you actually selling?

And as for the topic of this thread (stars on a team as opposed to individual ratings), there are coaches who can take 2* & 3* players and win.  But if you're talking about conference championships and national championships, then you better believe the more 4* & 5* players you have on your team, the greater your chances are of winning at that level.  Period.

While "stars" may be dictated by this Rivals Ranking (numerical ranking) overall and on average, it does seem to relate. The bottom line seems to be that those teams who average higher than a 5.8 overall recruiting average are far more successful than those who average 5.7 or below. Those that average between 5.7 and 5.8 most always seem to be the teams that are "on the bubble" and may sometimes have really good teams and seasons, and then have less than stellar seasons at other times.

The 5.7 to 5.8 seems to be the dividing line between sustainable success and just having success sometimes.

[PygmalionEffect]

The only time I ever read the phrase "stars don't matter" is from someone accusing other posters of saying it.

That is the most over-used false accusation on this board.

NO ONE ON HERE THINKS OR POSTS THAT STARS "DON'T MATTER"

When I typed that I thought about "Arkansas Fan" because I thought he might have been the one legitimate poster that really had said that before and tried to defend it and so I started to type "only one" instead of "no one", but I thought what are the odds he comes in right behind this post to refute my statement?

100% obviously