How the Chiefs and 49ers starters rated as high school recruits

[RaleighPittFan]

"The Chiefs' starters hold a slight 2.64-2.43 star-ranking advantage over the 49ers' starters heading into Sunday night's showdown. What's the overall takeaway here? Chiefs coach Andy Reid and 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan have done a great job with players who have developed nicely since going to prom as high school seniors."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...49ers-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

 

[JokePa]

Pretty interesting huh

 

[Saboteur]

"The Chiefs' starters hold a slight 2.64-2.43 star-ranking advantage over the 49ers' starters heading into Sunday night's showdown. What's the overall takeaway here? Chiefs coach Andy Reid and 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan have done a great job with players who have developed nicely since going to prom as high school seniors."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...49ers-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

Don't tell the 4 star hero worshipping gang. They will start a civil war.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Here's where it takes a little bit of intelligence to process this kind of information:

Star rankings are very closely correlated to college team success. Every study has shown this. Look at Clemson and LSU's rosters.

Now, because there are FAR FAR FAR more 3 star players, all NFL teams are going to have lesser-rated players (based on HS ranking) than teams like Clemson, OSU, Alabama, etc. The reason for this is because due to the sheer volume of 3 star players, the NFL has had the luxury of picking the best of thousands of the 2 and 3 star players scattered throughout the FBS and FCS.

You just need the ability to process this stuff. Star rankings are pretty much the only thing that matters for college team success.

 

[Las Panteras]

I have no interest in their rankings relative to The NFL.

Give me more 4 stars than anyone else and I'm winning 10+ games a year.

 

[revampedpanthers]

Here's where it takes a little bit of intelligence to process this kind of information:

Star rankings are very closely correlated to college team success. Every study has shown this. Look at Clemson and LSU's rosters.

Now, because there are FAR FAR FAR more 3 star players, all NFL teams are going to have lesser-rated players (based on HS ranking) than teams like Clemson, OSU, Alabama, etc. The reason for this is because due to the sheer volume of 3 star players, the NFL has had the luxury of picking the best of thousands of the 2 and 3 star players scattered throughout the FBS and FCS.

You just need the ability to process this stuff. Star rankings are pretty much the only thing that matters for college team success.

Exactly it's anumbers thing. If 5 stars develope into NFL players at 40 percent and you have 50 of them a year that's 20 NFL players. If three star players hit at 5 percent and there is 1000 you get 50 NFL players. More three star NFL guys but the chances are much much lower. If you could go back in time you could build a cfp team out of kids who are 2 star and below but try doing that before the fact and it's nearly impossible.

 

[cruzer]

Exactly it's anumbers thing. If 5 stars develope into NFL players at 40 percent and you have 50 of them a year that's 20 NFL players. If three star players hit at 5 percent and there is 1000 you get 50 NFL players. More three star NFL guys but the chances are much much lower. If you could go back in time you could build a cfp team out of kids who are 2 star and below but try doing that before the fact and it's nearly impossible.

I think we should implement a new rule on the board....if you haven't taken (and passed) at least one stats class, you can't post anything about star rankings.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Being that we are trying to win the ACC and get into the college playoffs, I would rather follow that formula that what makes up NFL rosters.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think we should implement a new rule on the board....if you haven't taken (and passed) at least one stats class, you can't post anything about star rankings.

If we arent going to mandate IQ tests which these boards sorely need, then yes, passing a stats class should be required for posting about star rankings. BTW, I had Sheryl May for Statistics. Worst professor I ever had. Anyone else have her?

 

[Panther_in_Kentucky]

"The Chiefs' starters hold a slight 2.64-2.43 star-ranking advantage over the 49ers' starters heading into Sunday night's showdown. What's the overall takeaway here? Chiefs coach Andy Reid and 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan have done a great job with players who have developed nicely since going to prom as high school seniors."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...49ers-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

What is neglected by the recruiting gurus on this site is that the star system is designed to make money for the services that issue them. They want to sell subscriptions. Period. Yes, there is a correlation but not as much as the gurus want you to believe. Statistics don't lie. 2.64 vs. 2.43 for the average rank for the biggest game in the sport.

Too many variables: Kids develop differently, work ethic ( Rushel Shell 5* vs. James Conner 2* is the perfect example of this ), kids not noticed in high school, level of coaching they receive, character and finally "want to". So that's why guys like Hafley are so important.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Recruit athletic players and coach them.....brilliant whether in position or not!

 

[wbrpanther]

Here's where it takes a little bit of intelligence to process this kind of information:

Star rankings are very closely correlated to college team success. Every study has shown this. Look at Clemson and LSU's rosters.

Now, because there are FAR FAR FAR more 3 star players, all NFL teams are going to have lesser-rated players (based on HS ranking) than teams like Clemson, OSU, Alabama, etc. The reason for this is because due to the sheer volume of 3 star players, the NFL has had the luxury of picking the best of thousands of the 2 and 3 star players scattered throughout the FBS and FCS.

You just need the ability to process this stuff. Star rankings are pretty much the only thing that matters for college team success.

And SMF definitely has a little bit of intelligence.

 

[Ski11585]

Don't tell the 4 star hero worshipping gang. They will start a civil war.

Sigh.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Here's where it takes a little bit of intelligence to process this kind of information:

Don't even try. This comes up every year and people here still don't get it.

"Aaron Donald was only a 2 star, so that's all we need, or something."

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

If we arent going to mandate IQ tests which these boards sorely need

If these boards mandated an IQ test for people to post, what on earth would you do with all your free time?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

What is neglected by the recruiting gurus on this site is that the star system is designed to make money for the services that issue them. They want to sell subscriptions. Period. Yes, there is a correlation but not as much as the gurus want you to believe. Statistics don't lie. 2.64 vs. 2.43 for the average rank for the biggest game in the sport.

Too many variables: Kids develop differently, work ethic ( Rushel Shell 5* vs. James Conner 2* is the perfect example of this ), kids not noticed in high school, level of coaching they receive, character and finally "want to". So that's why guys like Hafley as so important.

Oh geez. I thought I explained it in clear enough English. Maybe I should try a different language next time?

 

[thebadby2]

Don't tell the 4 star hero worshipping gang. They will start a civil war.

Somebody had better tell the staffs at Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, UGA, Oklahoma, etc. They really don’t need all those 4 and 5 star kids with all the big time offers to be the best teams in college football. They can do it with the same personnel Pitt has. That article proves it.

 

[SouthSidePanther]

"The Chiefs' starters hold a slight 2.64-2.43 star-ranking advantage over the 49ers' starters heading into Sunday night's showdown. What's the overall takeaway here? Chiefs coach Andy Reid and 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan have done a great job with players who have developed nicely since going to prom as high school seniors."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...49ers-starters-rated-as-high-school-recruits/

If you're posting this as some argument that recruiting rankings don't matter, you're wasting your time. The teams that dominate the recruiting rankings also tend to be in the mix for the playoff every year. No one can reasonably dispute that.

 

[pittdan77]

You can copy this thread from last year and it looks exactly the same.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

You can copy this thread from last year and it looks exactly the same.

This is exactly why I posted the link. There are quite a few posters who didn't disappoint me. Well done.

 

[BFo8]

This is exactly why I posted the link. There are quite a few posters who didn't disappoint me. Well done.

It’s just math. SMF is spot on with this one.

 

[srpst23]

What's a little crazy with all of the variance in recruiting that all 4 DT starters are 4 or 5 star recruits. I guess there are only so many folks that can do it at a high level, and they might be able to be identified early.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It’s just math. SMF is spot on with this one.

There's more 2 and 3 star players in the NFL because there are more 2 and 3 star players, period. "Hit rates" for 2 and 3 star players are much lower than 4 and 5 star players but you will get your Donald's and Mahomes's. The mass volume of 3 star players assures that some of them (but a very small percentage) will become big-time.

Its just numbers. If Team A brought in 25 4 and 5 star players every class, they will almost always beat a Team who brings in 25 2 and 3 star players. Now, if Team B was allowed to bring in 100 2 and 3 star players every year, they could compete well with the 4 and 5 star team because of those 100 annual 2 and 3 start recruits, you are going to have 10-20 of them that outperform their star ranking. That's what it would take though.

 

[wicker]

There's a related stat that shows 57% of all NFL'ers were drafted 4th round or later

 

[thebadby2]

There's a related stat that shows 57% of all NFL'ers were drafted 4th round or later

I wonder what that percentage is as applied to NFL non-injury starters.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

Exactly it's anumbers thing. If 5 stars develope into NFL players at 40 percent and you have 50 of them a year that's 20 NFL players. If three star players hit at 5 percent and there is 1000 you get 50 NFL players. More three star NFL guys but the chances are much much lower. If you could go back in time you could build a cfp team out of kids who are 2 star and below but try doing that before the fact and it's nearly impossible.

I think you hit on a very good point - that the star rating is very subjective. It's what the recruiting gurus think a player's potential is while in HS.

The assumption by quite a few on this site is that the recruiting sites opinion is a valid reason to discount a kid's value before he even gets a chance to prove them wrong.

Would a class of all 4 and 5 star players be ideal? Absolutely! But when we see the average star rating of the Super Bowl teams around 2.5 every year, we should at least give the guys Pitt signs a chance to prove the recruiting sites wrong.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Would a class of all 4 and 5 star players be ideal? Absolutely! But when we see the average star rating of the Super Bowl teams around 2.5 every year, we should at least give the guys Pitt signs a chance to prove the recruiting sites wrong.

Come on, man. Really?

Can Pitt win 9 or 10 games with 3 star players? Yea, once in awhile. Can it make a CFP? No. Too many players would have to outperform their star ranking. Its not statistically possible. There's only 10-12 teams that can make the CFP.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

Come on, man. Really?

Can Pitt win 9 or 10 games with 3 star players? Yea, once in awhile. Can it make a CFP? No. Too many players would have to outperform their star ranking. Its not statistically possible. There's only 10-12 teams that can make the CFP.

You're reading things that I didn't write.

But, that's not different from a lot of your posts.

 

[pittdan77]

I think you hit on a very good point - that the star rating is very subjective. It's what the recruiting gurus think a player's potential is while in HS.

The assumption by quite a few on this site is that the recruiting sites opinion is a valid reason to discount a kid's value before he even gets a chance to prove them wrong.

Would a class of all 4 and 5 star players be ideal? Absolutely! But when we see the average star rating of the Super Bowl teams around 2.5 every year, we should at least give the guys Pitt signs a chance to prove the recruiting sites wrong.

The subjectivity is always debatable, and it certainly isn't as flawed as some people claim, but the rating applies to HS kids. Once he enrolls, it's just a milepost you can look back at. If a guy ends up a superstar in the pros, it doesn't mean his ranking was wrong. All it means is that some kids peak later. Some kids didn't have the benefit of a decent weight room or a HS coach that knew what the heck he was doing. He got to college and figured it out and made himself a better football player. That's all this means.

 

[TFBaum]

Here's where it takes a little bit of intelligence to process this kind of information:

Star rankings are very closely correlated to college team success. Every study has shown this. Look at Clemson and LSU's rosters.

Now, because there are FAR FAR FAR more 3 star players, all NFL teams are going to have lesser-rated players (based on HS ranking) than teams like Clemson, OSU, Alabama, etc. The reason for this is because due to the sheer volume of 3 star players, the NFL has had the luxury of picking the best of thousands of the 2 and 3 star players scattered throughout the FBS and FCS.

You just need the ability to process this stuff. Star rankings are pretty much the only thing that matters for college team success.

 

[thebadby2]

I think you hit on a very good point - that the star rating is very subjective. It's what the recruiting gurus think a player's potential is while in HS.

The assumption by quite a few on this site is that the recruiting sites opinion is a valid reason to discount a kid's value before he even gets a chance to prove them wrong.

Would a class of all 4 and 5 star players be ideal? Absolutely! But when we see the average star rating of the Super Bowl teams around 2.5 every year, we should at least give the guys Pitt signs a chance to prove the recruiting sites wrong.

They get their chance every single season, and have for the past 30 years. How has that worked out?

meanwhile the teams with the most elite level recruits are dominating college football every single year.

For every diamond in the rough, there are 10 who don't belong at the P5 level.

How is this even a debate, honestly?

Again, though, I differentiate between stars and offer sheets. Not all 3 stars are created equal. The ones with multiple offers from big time programs tend to be a lot better players than the ones with a couple of low P5s and a bunch of mid-majors.

 

[TFBaum]

The article is discussing the 44 starters. I will not dispute that I would rather have a team composed of 4 and 5 star players. But the correlation between the two are meaningless because the population (incoming HS players versus graduating college players) is different. Two distinct events occur simultaneously, one event is player attrition and the second is the 2 and 3 star players have developed into NFL prospects.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I wished I saved the link or article but a few years ago based on Rivals rankings it broke down (don't quote me as exact numbers) but:

60% of 5 stars make the NFL
18% of 4 stars make the NFL
5% of 3 stars make the NFL
0.2% of 2 stars or below make the NFL.

So...in a 4 year span......if there are 100 5 stars, 60 of them make NFL rosters.

If there are 10000 3 stars, 500 of them make NFL rosters.

We go through this exercise every year. Why? I have no idea. Because we have yet to see a team that is primarily 2-3 stars make the CFP playoffs.

 

[crharris8892]

Once you make the NFL camps and scrap your way into the field, your college star ranking is irrelevant. There is a marked difference in some players coming to college to what they are leaving college with experience and physical growth and mental maturity. Also NFL is littered with Hall of Famers that came from small colleges or Podunk SWE Central State U that were not ranked or overlooked. Once you are in, that stuff is out the window. For college success, stars matter and I’ll stick by that.

 

[Upg bobcat]

We go through this exercise every year. Why? I have no idea. Because we have yet to see a team that is primarily 2-3 stars make the CFP playoffs.

What was the average star ranking of the 2015 MSU Spartans? I'm sure they averaged above 2-3 stars, but probably averaged in the mid 3's if I had to guess. Of course, they made the playoffs but got shellacked by Bama.

The bigger problem is that the playoff committee seems to favor teams with high star rated rosters. Without the high stars, you are really behind the eightball and have to prove a lot on the field -- moreso than the star studded teams.

 

[TFBaum]

I wished I saved the link or article but a few years ago based on Rivals rankings it broke down (don't quote me as exact numbers) but:

60% of 5 stars make the NFL
18% of 4 stars make the NFL
5% of 3 stars make the NFL
0.2% of 2 stars or below make the NFL.

So...in a 4 year span......if there are 100 5 stars, 60 of them make NFL rosters.

If there are 10000 3 stars, 500 of them make NFL rosters.

We go through this exercise every year. Why? I have no idea. Because we have yet to see a team that is primarily 2-3 stars make the CFP playoffs.

The article is about starters not total rosters. The only conclusion I can reach is that the individuals worked very hard and for the most part were injury free and stayed on the teams.

 

[thebadby2]

I wished I saved the link or article but a few years ago based on Rivals rankings it broke down (don't quote me as exact numbers) but:

60% of 5 stars make the NFL
18% of 4 stars make the NFL
5% of 3 stars make the NFL
0.2% of 2 stars or below make the NFL.

So...in a 4 year span......if there are 100 5 stars, 60 of them make NFL rosters.

If there are 10000 3 stars, 500 of them make NFL rosters.

We go through this exercise every year. Why? I have no idea. Because we have yet to see a team that is primarily 2-3 stars make the CFP playoffs.

The official NCAA stat from last year is that 1.6% of NCAA football players get drafted by a NFL team. 1 in like 4200 high school players go on to play college football at any level. So by the time players go from H.S. to college and become eligible for the NFL draft, the talent pool has been distilled down to the absolute best 255 players in the overall field of about 16,500 draft eligible college players. At that point I would certainly say "stars don't matter", as the best individual talent from all levels of college football--all 132 D1 teams and all of the D2 teams--has been distilled down to its essence over at least 3 years of performance at the college level. That distillation of individual talent has absolutely nothing to do with what overall team talent level is necessary for a college team to have high level success. That's why a team like Pitt can have an individual 2 or 3 star player that turns into a high draft pick like Aaron Donald on it and still go 6-6, while a team like Alabama, OSU or Clemson that's loaded with 4 and 5 star players has 8 or 9 picks in one draft, ends up in the CFP and/or NC.