Interesting for star gazers

[LRRandy]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000349734/article/jadeveon-clowney-khalil-mack-show-recruiting-ranking-disparity?campaign=Twitter_nfl_cb

Shows recruiting grade of all first round draft picks.

[Pork Twain]

There are usually right at 30 5* players per year and about 50% of them are drafted.  That is a pretty good evaluation system in my mind.  It is actually a pretty simple to see that 5* are generally better than unranked if you stop and think about it.

Fill a football field full of players randomly mixed together.

5* - 27
4* - 395
3* - 1644
2* - 2434

Now begin launching 32 large water balloons into the mix and look at the probability of hit a player of a specific ranking.

This guys says it better.

Each year, roughly 4,500 football players sign Division I scholarships. In 2010, the year from which most of the prospects in the 2014 draft came, 27 were rated as five-stars by Rivals.com. Five-stars are considered no-doubt, superstar-type players. There were 395 four-stars, a designation for very good players, and 1,644 three-stars, or good players. And 2,434 were rated as two-stars or not rated at all, meaning they are at the lowest levels of FBS (85-scholarship level) or FCS players (63-scholarship level).

If, as many columnists maintain, the chances of a two-/three-star being drafted in the first round are "just about as good as those guys who receive all the attention," we would expect the following results in the first round, based on the distribution of players:

•Five-stars: Zero or one
•Four-stars: Three
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars/unranked: 17
But nobody, not even writers, would expect that result.

The actual breakdown:

•Five-stars: Four
•Four-stars: 13
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars: Three
That's not close to the same.

Four- and five-star recruits were 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than their lesser-ranked counterparts.

Here's the breakdown of the draft:

Total recruits in 2010          2014 first-rounders        Total 2014 draftees
Five-star 27 (0.6%)                  4 (12.5%)                     16 (6.3%)
Four-star 395 (8.8%)               13 (40.6%)                    77 (20%)
Three-star 1644 (36.5%)          12 (37.5%)                    92 (35.9%)
Two-star/unrated 2434 (54.1%)  3 (9.3%)                      71 (27.7%)


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/5/12/5696710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars

[hogwild210]

I saw the thread title and was about to refer the OP to this exact post in the recruiting forum. Thanks for posting!

[jkstock04]

There are usually right at 30 5* players per year and about 50% of them are drafted.  That is a pretty good evaluation system in my mind.  It is actually a pretty simple to see that 5* are generally better than unranked if you stop and think about it.

Fill a football field full of players randomly mixed together.

5* - 27
4* - 395
3* - 1644
2* - 2434

Now begin launching 32 large water balloons into the mix and look at the probability of hit a player of a specific ranking.

This guys says it better.

Each year, roughly 4,500 football players sign Division I scholarships. In 2010, the year from which most of the prospects in the 2014 draft came, 27 were rated as five-stars by Rivals.com. Five-stars are considered no-doubt, superstar-type players. There were 395 four-stars, a designation for very good players, and 1,644 three-stars, or good players. And 2,434 were rated as two-stars or not rated at all, meaning they are at the lowest levels of FBS (85-scholarship level) or FCS players (63-scholarship level).

If, as many columnists maintain, the chances of a two-/three-star being drafted in the first round are "just about as good as those guys who receive all the attention," we would expect the following results in the first round, based on the distribution of players:

•Five-stars: Zero or one
•Four-stars: Three
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars/unranked: 17
But nobody, not even writers, would expect that result.

The actual breakdown:

•Five-stars: Four
•Four-stars: 13
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars: Three
That's not close to the same.

Four- and five-star recruits were 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than their lesser-ranked counterparts.

Here's the breakdown of the draft:

Total recruits in 2010          2014 first-rounders        Total 2014 draftees
Five-star 27 (0.6%)                  4 (12.5%)                     16 (6.3%)
Four-star 395 (8.8%)               13 (40.6%)                    77 (20%)
Three-star 1644 (36.5%)          12 (37.5%)                    92 (35.9%)
Two-star/unrated 2434 (54.1%)  3 (9.3%)                      71 (27.7%)


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/5/12/5696710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars

Nice breakdown here. Goes to show you these recruiting services really do know their stuff...it's easy to see as long as you don't look at it with a narrow mind.

I don't really see why it's so hard to believe these recruiting services may actually be good at what they do....I mean this is their job and all they do for 365 days of the year. They actually have much more time to research these players than the coaches do.

[Tick Hog]

Nice breakdown here. Goes to show you these recruiting services really do know their stuff...it's easy to see as long as you don't look at it with a narrow mind.

I don't really see why it's so hard to believe these recruiting services may actually be good at what they do....I mean this is their job and all they do for 365 days of the year. They actually have much more time to research these players than the coaches do.

Don't bring reality with stats to back it up to this board please. Everyone knows that all coaches need to win on a big stage are players that fit their system.

[HogFanatic]

Don't bring reality with stats to back it up to this board please. Everyone knows that all coaches need to win on a big stage are players that fit their system.

Funny you should say that. On the Please Explain thread someone just recently posted Stanford and Oregon's recruiting classes.

Both those schools do pretty well for themselves despite their rankings. Generally speaking the recruiting services do a pretty good job, but coaches can and DO find the so called "diamonds in the ruff". Not only that, but coaches CAN achieve more with less because of a certain system they run.

Not everything is black and white as most here would like it to be so they can score cool points on a discussion board.

[Pork Twain]

Funny you should say that. On the Please Explain thread someone just recently posted Stanford and Oregon's recruiting classes.

Both those schools do pretty well for themselves despite their rankings. Generally speaking the recruiting services do a pretty good job, but coaches can and DO find the so called "diamonds in the ruff". Not only that, but coaches CAN achieve more with less because of a certain system they run.

Not everything is black and white as most here would like it to be so they can score cool points on a discussion board.

I agree and it is impossible for recruiting services to see all the recruits or give them all the attention they deserve.

[Pork Twain]

Nice breakdown here. Goes to show you these recruiting services really do know their stuff...it's easy to see as long as you don't look at it with a narrow mind.

I don't really see why it's so hard to believe these recruiting services may actually be good at what they do....I mean this is their job and all they do for 365 days of the year. They actually have much more time to research these players than the coaches do.

I am just going to keep this and post it every time this comes up

[Pork Twain]

Funny you should say that. On the Please Explain thread someone just recently posted Stanford and Oregon's recruiting classes.

Both those schools do pretty well for themselves despite their rankings. Generally speaking the recruiting services do a pretty good job, but coaches can and DO find the so called "diamonds in the ruff". Not only that, but coaches CAN achieve more with less because of a certain system they run.

Not everything is black and white as most here would like it to be so they can score cool points on a discussion board.

This was a pretty good response.

Oregon is an example of throwing hundreds of millions at a problem to find a solution.  It has not helped them win championships or big games.

Stanford?  Please tell me you looked at their recruiting rankings (24/7 ranks):
2014:  13th
2013:  51st
2012:  7th
2011:  22nd
2010:  27th
2009:  19th
2008:  34th

Should I keep going?  Nowhere in there is your vaunted "consistent top 10 recruiting rankings".  And 24/7 was the kindest to them, Scout was even worse.

And let's look at Oregon since you brought them up:
2014:  21st
2013:  19th
2012:  13th
2011:  11th
2010:  14th
2009:  30th
2008:  20th

So it has taken them spending hundreds of millions on facilities, recruiting, coaches, and branding and they still have NOT cracked the Top 10 in recruiting.  Which is the measure of success, according to you.

It seems to me that you are actually advocating that we recruit hard, find diamonds in the rough, develop players with good coaching, and win games that way.  Because you want to win the way Stanford and Oregon are doing it.

[gmarv]

the thing i noticed is that there was 422 4 and 5 star players.
it seems to me if we can get say 10 of those were still looking
at 15 3 stars or lower so our coaches better be able to evaluate.
i know some would not be happy with 25  5 stars.

[rude1]

There are usually right at 30 5* players per year and about 50% of them are drafted.  That is a pretty good evaluation system in my mind.  It is actually a pretty simple to see that 5* are generally better than unranked if you stop and think about it.

Fill a football field full of players randomly mixed together.

5* - 27
4* - 395
3* - 1644
2* - 2434

Now begin launching 32 large water balloons into the mix and look at the probability of hit a player of a specific ranking.

This guys says it better.

Each year, roughly 4,500 football players sign Division I scholarships. In 2010, the year from which most of the prospects in the 2014 draft came, 27 were rated as five-stars by Rivals.com. Five-stars are considered no-doubt, superstar-type players. There were 395 four-stars, a designation for very good players, and 1,644 three-stars, or good players. And 2,434 were rated as two-stars or not rated at all, meaning they are at the lowest levels of FBS (85-scholarship level) or FCS players (63-scholarship level).

If, as many columnists maintain, the chances of a two-/three-star being drafted in the first round are "just about as good as those guys who receive all the attention," we would expect the following results in the first round, based on the distribution of players:

•Five-stars: Zero or one
•Four-stars: Three
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars/unranked: 17
But nobody, not even writers, would expect that result.

The actual breakdown:

•Five-stars: Four
•Four-stars: 13
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars: Three
That's not close to the same.

Four- and five-star recruits were 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than their lesser-ranked counterparts.

Here's the breakdown of the draft:

Total recruits in 2010          2014 first-rounders        Total 2014 draftees
Five-star 27 (0.6%)                  4 (12.5%)                     16 (6.3%)
Four-star 395 (8.8%)               13 (40.6%)                    77 (20%)
Three-star 1644 (36.5%)          12 (37.5%)                    92 (35.9%)
Two-star/unrated 2434 (54.1%)  3 (9.3%)                      71 (27.7%)


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/5/12/5696710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars

So you are saying stars do matter? Never ceases to amaze me that people look at the numbers for each star catagorey drafted and think it proves stars don't matter when in fact it's proving the opposite.

[Pork Twain]

So you are saying stars do matter? Never ceases to amaze me that people look at the numbers for each star catagorey drafted and think it proves stars don't matter when in fact it's proving the opposite.

I thought I had been very clear for several years now that I 100% think there is a direct correlation between recruiting and success on the field and I am unsure how anyone could take my post for anything other than what it is.  Star definately matter.  The purpose of my post is showing that it is pretty accurate.  Razorhog made me see the light many moons ago

[Deep Shoat]

I find it amusing that we see a system with a below 50% hit rate as a "good system".

You know why Nick Saban wins so much?  Because he identifies the best football players and coaches the hell out of them.

You know why Mack Brown doesn't win so much?  Because he doesn't identify the best football players and he doesn't coach the hell out of them.

Yet there recruiting rankings have been consistently close, right?  You know why?  Because someone decided they are both good recruiters and interest from either would bump a player up in the recruiting standings.  Oh, and Texas and Alabama are full of fans who will pay for subscriptions to the services.

Stars don't matter, talented football players do.

[Pork Twain]

I find it amusing that we see a system with a below 50% hit rate as a "good system".

You know why Nick Saban wins so much?  Because he identifies the best football players and coaches the hell out of them.

You know why Mack Brown doesn't win so much?  Because he doesn't identify the best football players and he doesn't coach the hell out of them.

Yet there recruiting rankings have been consistently close, right?  You know why?  Because someone decided they are both good recruiters and interest from either would bump a player up in the recruiting standings.  Oh, and Texas and Alabama are full of fans who will pay for subscriptions to the services.

Stars don't matter, talented football players do.

That 50% hit rate is just for getting drafted into the NFL.  A 4 or 5 star player could still be really good in college and not be drafted or could have gotten hurt or failed with grades or drugs.

Talented football players are often highly ranked.  I bet many fortune 500 companies would like to employ headhunters that could bat well north of .500 in scouting future employs.

[Deep Shoat]

 

That 50% hit rate is just for getting drafted into the NFL.  A 4 or 5 star player could still be really good in college and not be drafted or could have gotten hurt or failed with grades or drugs.

Talented football players are often highly ranked.

And yet many highly ranked players turn out to be crappy football players, either through a misjudgement of ability or poor character or weak mental makeup. 

Funny how Saban doesn't seem to have problems with any of those.  You know why?  Because he is very good at finding good football players.

The ranking services are good at identifying highly sought players and really good athletes.  They are hit or miss on good football players.

[Pork Twain]

And yet many highly ranked players turn out to be crappy football players, either through a misjudgement of ability or poor character or weak mental makeup. 

Funny how Saban doesn't seem to have problems with any of those.  You know why?  Because he is very good at finding good football players.

The ranking services are good at identifying highly sought players and really good athletes.  They are hit or miss on good football players.

You name the ones that didn't pan out, I will name the ones that did.

I bet Saban is good because he is an amazing coach that has an eye for talent, but just because he does, does not mean that recruiting services do not.  Every single coach, scout and recruiting service is hit or miss at every single level.  That is why there are so many draft busts and so many high ranked players that don't pan out at certain schools...gasp...even Bama.

[Pork Twain]

https://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1240142

https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1318214

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000320664/article/yearbyyear-look-at-fivestar-college-football-recruits

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1151944.html

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Sounds to me like we should just continue recruiting as we always have since all those 2 and 3 stars are getting drafted.  Our problem has always been coaching, not talent. 

[LRRandy]

https://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1240142

https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1318214

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000320664/article/yearbyyear-look-at-fivestar-college-football-recruits

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1151944.html

the list from rivals about how the 5 stars panned out was an old list but still an interesting look back. Thanks for posting.

[rude1]

I thought I had been very clear for several years now that I 100% think there is a direct correlation between recruiting and success on the field and I am unsure how anyone could take my post for anything other than what it is.  Star definately matter.  The purpose of my post is showing that it is pretty accurate.  Razorhog made me see the light many moons ago

I guess I forgot the sarcasm button. I have been saying this all along. Clearly the teams that predominately do well with the "stars" are the teams found at or near the top of the rankings. And before anyone jumps in to point to a team that hasn't had on field success that equals to their rankings, I already know this, you have to have good coaching and development to take that talent to the top.

[redeye]

I thought I had been very clear for several years now that I 100% think there is a direct correlation between recruiting and success on the field and I am unsure how anyone could take my post for anything other than what it is.  Star definately matter.  The purpose of my post is showing that it is pretty accurate.  Razorhog made me see the light many moons ago

I think he was agreeing with you.

Btw, I don't think anyone doesn't believe that recruiting services are incapable of identifying talent.  But would you want a head coach who recruits merely off their rankings?

[Pork Twain]

I guess I forgot the sarcasm button. I have been saying this all along. Clearly the teams that predominately do well with the "stars" are the teams found at or near the top of the rankings. And before anyone jumps in to point to a team that hasn't had on field success that equals to their rankings, I already know this, you have to have good coaching and development to take that talent to the top.

Dammit...  I am so used to get called out in threads like this by people who are unwilling to actually read.  My bad.

[Pork Twain]

I think he was agreeing with you.

Btw, I don't think anyone doesn't believe that recruiting services are incapable of identifying talent.  But would you want a head coach who recruits merely off their rankings?

I hope no coach does recruit off of what they say.  I look at them as more of an independent contractor that might swayed by certain schools.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I find it amusing that we see a system with a below 50% hit rate as a "good system".

You know why Nick Saban wins so much?  Because he identifies the best football players and coaches the hell out of them.

You know why Mack Brown doesn't win so much?  Because he doesn't identify the best football players and he doesn't coach the hell out of them.

Yet there recruiting rankings have been consistently close, right?  You know why?  Because someone decided they are both good recruiters and interest from either would bump a player up in the recruiting standings.  Oh, and Texas and Alabama are full of fans who will pay for subscriptions to the services.

Stars don't matter, talented football players do.

I think this is true. Just as an example, 1998 through the 2006 NFL Drafts, Alabama averaged producing .33 first round draft picks per year. From the 2007 NFL draft through the 2014 draft, that average has jumped to 2 per year with a high of 4 per year in each of the 2011 and 2012 drafts.

Spread that out over 3 or 4 years and that is a lot of first round picks on the field at the same time. 6 to 8 over three or four years based on their average of 2 per year? And that doesn't include the 28 other players that have been taken anywhere from the 2nd through the 7th rounds since 2007.