*****STARS*****

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/high-school/mick-mccabe/2015/02/12/underwear-olympics-recruiting/23325505/

I'm sure some of you guys have seen this. I can't recall who is really dogging the star ratings, but this article is spot-on for your position. Also seems insightful. Interesting that Shane feels he got burned out on the quest for stars.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

has it really been that long? is it time for another bitch-fest thread over recruiting stars already?

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

has it really been that long? is it time for another bitch-fest thread over recruiting stars already?

Yep....Hoke recruited well with Stars. How'd that work out?

The study I linked is pretty irrefutable. I'm not surprised some will try, though. There are always exceptions and anecdotal evidence, but, in general, teams that's recruit better have better on field results. See: the study I linked.

I'm not denying that at all, but to go simply on star ratings alone doesn't cut it. You need other intangibles, plus the ability to b coached (that includes having an actual coach and not a bulimic cheerleader).

TheNewBlueOrder wrote:

I'm not denying that at all, but to go simply on star ratings alone doesn't cut it.  You need other intangibles, plus the ability to b coached (that includes having an actual coach and not a bulimic cheerleader).

I don't think that anyone is saying or has ever said that star ratings are the only thing that matters or are 100% accurate.

my first reply was lost because I forgot to plug in my laptop. this one will have to suffice.


I have two problems with the article against star ratings...

1. If these recruiting gurus are so good at their jobs, why wasn't there a five-star recruit starting in the Super Bowl? Why were there only seven four-star recruit Super Bowl starters?

first off that is only two teams. The NFL has more than two teams right? I wonder how many 4-5 star kids are starting across the NFL as opposed to the NR-3 star kids. But still, the question shouldn't be about that starters of one particular game, the question should really be, how many 4-5 star kids make it to the NFL compared to the number of NR-3 star kids that make it.


2. In other words, after seeing Lewerke play a season full of actual football games, they thought he was a four-star recruit, but after seeing him in the Underwear Olympics and in seven-on-sevens where no one is rushing the quarterback, no receiver is being hit off the line of scrimmage and no scrambling is required, he lost a star.


not all kids get to play against "elite" talent at the high school level (as is the case for Lewerke). IMO putting them in a 7on7 against environment against kids that they will play with/against at the college level is a damn good way of evaluating were they are on the star ranking totem pole. Let's face it, most of these kids play against teams in high school that are comprised of 98% inferior talent so individual deficiencies can easily be masked. but your poor footwork/mechanics/timing/etc are going to get exposed real quick when you're playing against a D line like MSU and O$U has.


just ask yourself the question..... where do you suppose the lower tier teams rank in the star ratings every NSD, and what are the winning percetages of those lower tier teams against the teams that finish near the top of the recruiting rankings on NSD?


Look, we get it, higher stars doesn't equal automatic win (see app st 2007) but they sure hell don't hurt. in fact I'll be willing to bet anyone on this forum that statistics show that they help quite a bit.


this argument is NOT about an individual player's ranking out of high school and that individual player being penciled in as a super bowl starter. This argument is about whether or not, a team stacked with higher ranked recruits, has a leg up on the other teams it plays with lower ranked recruits. This is a Michigan football (COLLEGE) forum and I could really care less what the star ranking any of the superbowl starters had.


in terms of COLLEGE FOOTBALL percentages and statistics..... STARS MATTER!

sandy nailed it.

it's a shame that most journalists seemingly avoided statistics 101. imo, a big reason why our country is so ignorant is because journalists are selected and trained based on ignorance, and it's by no accident.

to make an argument using two super bowl teams is not only stupid because it's a small sample, but because stars are not gauged towards the NFL. Stars are supposed to measure immediate playing time and success in college.

We all know the obvious reasons why some five stars don't make it, and why some three stars do make it.

The fact remains, five stars have the highest chances to start and the highest chances to get drafted based on concrete percentages, then four stars, and on down respectively.

Regarding NE and Seattle: There are several reasons why those teams thrive on "lesser stars." The biggest one is NE's example -salary cap management. Belicheck finds players that may have inferior physical talent (so low star,) but play with more passion, will sacrifice their bodies, and are happy to be in the NFL, and will do anything to stay in the league. That goes a long way in the playoffs. He finds fresh meat every year. He also finds players that have been overlooked in college or are peaking after college, but that doesn't negate the star system.

Seattle: Pete Carroll found some diamonds in the rough, but I doubt it continues with that success. Richard Sherman and all those guys were just overlooked by mistake. In Seattle's case it's more of a fluke (and probably HGH as the legion of doom has failed a couple tests.) Seattle's WR situation (all low ranked guys) is still pathetic, and needs to be upgraded.

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

my first reply was lost because I forgot to plug in my laptop. this one will have to suffice.


I have two problems with the article against star ratings...

1. If these recruiting gurus are so good at their jobs, why wasn't there a five-star recruit starting in the Super Bowl? Why were there only seven four-star recruit Super Bowl starters?

first off that is only two teams. The NFL has more than two teams right? I wonder how many 4-5 star kids are starting across the NFL as opposed to the NR-3 star kids. But still, the question shouldn't be about that starters of one particular game, the question should really be, how many 4-5 star kids make it to the NFL compared to the number of NR-3 star kids that make it.


2. In other words, after seeing Lewerke play a season full of actual football games, they thought he was a four-star recruit, but after seeing him in the Underwear Olympics and in seven-on-sevens where no one is rushing the quarterback, no receiver is being hit off the line of scrimmage and no scrambling is required, he lost a star.


not all kids get to play against "elite" talent at the high school level (as is the case for Lewerke). IMO putting them in a 7on7 against environment against kids that they will play with/against at the college level is a damn good way of evaluating were they are on the star ranking totem pole. Let's face it, most of these kids play against teams in high school that are comprised of 98% inferior talent so individual deficiencies can easily be masked. but your poor footwork/mechanics/timing/etc are going to get exposed real quick when you're playing against a D line like MSU and O$U has.


just ask yourself the question..... where do you suppose the lower tier teams rank in the star ratings every NSD, and what are the winning percetages of those lower tier teams against the teams that finish near the top of the recruiting rankings on NSD?


Look, we get it, higher stars doesn't equal automatic win (see app st 2007) but they sure hell don't hurt. in fact I'll be willing to bet anyone on this forum that statistics show that they help quite a bit.


this argument is NOT about an individual player's ranking out of high school and that individual player being penciled in as a super bowl starter. This argument is about whether or not, a team stacked with higher ranked recruits, has a leg up on the other teams it plays with lower ranked recruits. This is a Michigan football (COLLEGE) forum and I could really care less what the star ranking any of the superbowl starters had.


in terms of COLLEGE FOOTBALL percentages and statistics..... STARS MATTER!

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

I wouldn't say stars matter so much as that most of the time the services do a pretty good job of evaluating college potential. All things being equal you would prefer more 5's and more 4's then lesser, and over time and large sample sizes they will do proportionately better. No 5's in the Super Bowl is, as others have noted statistically insignificant. There are very few 5 stars each year, and also many fewer 4 stars than 3 and below, it's not like each year they put an equal number of recruits in each category. You would expect the 3 and below to have higher numbers in the NFL based upon the sheer volumes in the respective categories.

The other complication is the extent to which, some HS'ers get the extra star based upon who is recruiting them. I'd take a 3 star any day that our coaches like and see fitting in, than a random 4 star at the same position, who they don't like as well. But again, the services do a reasonably good job of evaluating the potential.

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

I wouldn't say stars matter so much as that most of the time the services do a pretty good job of evaluating college potential. All things being equal you would prefer more 5's and more 4's then lesser, and over time and large sample sizes they will do proportionately better. No 5's in the Super Bowl is, as others have noted statistically insignificant. There are very few 5 stars each year, and also many fewer 4 stars than 3 and below, it's not like each year they put an equal number of recruits in each category. You would expect the 3 and below to have higher numbers in the NFL based upon the sheer volumes in the respective categories.

The other complication is the extent to which, some HS'ers get the extra star based upon who is recruiting them. I'd take a 3 star any day that our coaches like and see fitting in, than a random 4 star at the same position, who they don't like as well. But again, the services do a reasonably good job of evaluating the potential.

'shoes

I agree. But Hoke had high-star rankings yet his teams regressed every year as more of his recuits played. Granted, I would like high star rankings but that's not the be all, end all. Hopefully Coach Harbaugh can get high star rankings AND development. That's wanting my cake and eating it too but in Coach Harbaugh I trust.