I'm not a recruiting guru so I really don't know much about the "star" system. You hear about and see small clips of local high school talent but how are these kids rated and who does the rating. Are there only so many 5 stars given in a year? How much of a difference is there between a 2 and 3 or a 3 and 4 and who decides what moves a player up? Just curious.
Star system
- Thread starter pbrad
- Start date
As I have written many times in the past, the star system in and of itself is not the problem. It's obviously an inherently flawed process but it is also a great way for college football fans to stay engaged with their favorite sport when the games are not being played.
That's honestly a wonderful thing for college football fanatics like us and something I fully support.
The problems arise when people can't discern that it is merely entertainment. It's a lot like when your favorite radio station lists the 100 greatest rock songs of all time. It's for fun, nothing more.
Such lists are NOT meant to represent a real ranking of the greatest rock songs of all time and it would be ridiculous to take it as such. Music is art, which is by its very nature subjective. You can't rank art because beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Rather, it is a celebration of rock music as a whole and a general appraisal of who has gifted us with some of the most beautiful songs in that genre.
Just because "Stairway to Heaven" was ranked No. 3 and "Hotel California" was ranked No. 1 doesn't necessarily mean that the latter is a better song than the former. It's just that this year at this time that is the opinion of whomever made that list.
Also, on next year's list of the "greatest rock songs of all time," the order could be reversed when a new program director is compiling his or her list or when the program director who put together this year's list has a change of heart for whatever reason.
It doesn't matter, it's all in fun. The songs were released 40-50 some years ago and it would be beyond idiotic for anyone to complain about the rankings or to point to the list as definitive "proof" that Hotel California is indeed "the greatest song ever written."
It's a lot like when a player who hasn't played in months gets bumped up two stars. How does that happen? I think we know how that happens. Also, it doesn't matter because it's all in fun.
When people take this stuff seriously and literally is when the convo ends up in all sorts of goofy places that have no real relationship with reality.
BTW, for whatever reason this opinion – which is unquestionably true – really pisses off a lot of people. I suspect that's because it's a little too close to the bone for some.
Whatever. It's the truth.
From my perspective, the stars represent a loose thumbnail sketch of a player's relative athleticism – nothing more, nothing less.
That is honestly not a bad way to go because it stands to reason that the teams with the most quality athletes will typically be the best teams. However, as a meaningful and nuanced evaluation metric, it's incredibly poor because it can't possibly be accurate without the benefit of context (what system will a player be in, what position will he play, how will he fit in culturally, how will he fit in schematically, how will he do academically, how will he fit into the university's overall culture, etc.).
These are all considerations that the people who are actually recruiting these athletes have to consider. However, they are not considered when the players are being assigned star rankings – almost always by guys who have no real credentials whatsoever to evaluate players in the first place.
Crowing because your team has the 27th "best" class versus your rival, which has the 32nd "best" class is beyond stupid because after the top 5–10 teams, everything else is roughly a scientific as guessing how many jellybeans are in the jar?
Also, it is incredibly dumb to whine about a star being taken away or failing to be added to one of your recruits.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
At all.
All that matters is how those players play for your program. That will change perception, not Mike Farrell's projection of how a player may perform one day in a system and at a position to be determined.
That's honestly a wonderful thing for college football fanatics like us and something I fully support.
The problems arise when people can't discern that it is merely entertainment. It's a lot like when your favorite radio station lists the 100 greatest rock songs of all time. It's for fun, nothing more.
Such lists are NOT meant to represent a real ranking of the greatest rock songs of all time and it would be ridiculous to take it as such. Music is art, which is by its very nature subjective. You can't rank art because beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Rather, it is a celebration of rock music as a whole and a general appraisal of who has gifted us with some of the most beautiful songs in that genre.
Just because "Stairway to Heaven" was ranked No. 3 and "Hotel California" was ranked No. 1 doesn't necessarily mean that the latter is a better song than the former. It's just that this year at this time that is the opinion of whomever made that list.
Also, on next year's list of the "greatest rock songs of all time," the order could be reversed when a new program director is compiling his or her list or when the program director who put together this year's list has a change of heart for whatever reason.
It doesn't matter, it's all in fun. The songs were released 40-50 some years ago and it would be beyond idiotic for anyone to complain about the rankings or to point to the list as definitive "proof" that Hotel California is indeed "the greatest song ever written."
It's a lot like when a player who hasn't played in months gets bumped up two stars. How does that happen? I think we know how that happens. Also, it doesn't matter because it's all in fun.
When people take this stuff seriously and literally is when the convo ends up in all sorts of goofy places that have no real relationship with reality.
BTW, for whatever reason this opinion – which is unquestionably true – really pisses off a lot of people. I suspect that's because it's a little too close to the bone for some.
Whatever. It's the truth.
From my perspective, the stars represent a loose thumbnail sketch of a player's relative athleticism – nothing more, nothing less.
That is honestly not a bad way to go because it stands to reason that the teams with the most quality athletes will typically be the best teams. However, as a meaningful and nuanced evaluation metric, it's incredibly poor because it can't possibly be accurate without the benefit of context (what system will a player be in, what position will he play, how will he fit in culturally, how will he fit in schematically, how will he do academically, how will he fit into the university's overall culture, etc.).
These are all considerations that the people who are actually recruiting these athletes have to consider. However, they are not considered when the players are being assigned star rankings – almost always by guys who have no real credentials whatsoever to evaluate players in the first place.
Crowing because your team has the 27th "best" class versus your rival, which has the 32nd "best" class is beyond stupid because after the top 5–10 teams, everything else is roughly a scientific as guessing how many jellybeans are in the jar?
Also, it is incredibly dumb to whine about a star being taken away or failing to be added to one of your recruits.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
At all.
All that matters is how those players play for your program. That will change perception, not Mike Farrell's projection of how a player may perform one day in a system and at a position to be determined.
Last edited:
Doc is right. Most people inside of football locker rooms understand that talent is a big deal but it's not worth an ounce of spit if the player doesn't have the work ethic to spend time in the film room and weight room. In other words, what is a kid's true ceiling? Up to the coaches to help him find it but the kid ultimately has to figure it out himself.
Clowney is the best recent example. Number one kid in the country coming out of HS. Peaked early based on talent but it was getting pretty obvious that there was something missing. Yes, he's in the NFL and was a high pick but by all accounts, he was seriously behind the curve because of his work ethic and still doesn't quite "get it". His teammate, JJ Watt, was a two star coming out of HS. That's really all you need to know.
Clowney is the best recent example. Number one kid in the country coming out of HS. Peaked early based on talent but it was getting pretty obvious that there was something missing. Yes, he's in the NFL and was a high pick but by all accounts, he was seriously behind the curve because of his work ethic and still doesn't quite "get it". His teammate, JJ Watt, was a two star coming out of HS. That's really all you need to know.
From the above mentioned article:
Rivals
Not everyone does it that way. Rivals rates players based on the impact they are expected to have at their new school and their stars are a little more flexible -- and more generous -- than Scout:
Does not make sense, how can you predict the impact until you know what school the player is going to. A player (even a 5 star) may sit the bench and/or get redshirted at one school that is loaded with talent at that spot, but at another school he could start from day 1.
Rivals
Not everyone does it that way. Rivals rates players based on the impact they are expected to have at their new school and their stars are a little more flexible -- and more generous -- than Scout:
Does not make sense, how can you predict the impact until you know what school the player is going to. A player (even a 5 star) may sit the bench and/or get redshirted at one school that is loaded with talent at that spot, but at another school he could start from day 1.
Well, Joe Lunardi can brag that he gets 66 of the 68 teams right when naming the tournament field. But that is based on his prediction the day before selection day, not what he is projecting in January. As has been said, the day before, anyone could name 64 of the teams, that what Lunardi is really doing is guessing who the last four in will be. With 66 right, he got 2 of the last 4 right, and 2 were wrong. Nothing to brag about.
And so it goes with the star system. There are only a small handful of 5 star guys. But anyone can pick them. I'll use my youth basketball coaching experience as an analogy, which is a really good fit.
I've coached about 40 teams, and its the same thing every time. There is a player assessment, followed by a draft. We'll say there are 100 kids. Within the first ten minutes of the assessment, every coach in the gym can name the 5 best players. If your grandmother was there, she could pick these kids out too. These are the 5-star guys. It takes no skill to ID them.
Then there are another 15 kids are a notch below the 5-stars, but better than the rest. These are the 4 stars. Unlike with the 5 stars, not everyone agrees with who belongs in this group. Ala the rating services, some kids are 4 stars with one service, but not in another.
Then there another 60 kids who the consensus would regard as decent; these are the 3 stars.
Below them, the last 20 are comprised of 10 kids who are mediocre (2 stars) and 10 who are weak (no stars).
Now if I were to miss the assessment and you handed me a list of players with stars next to their names, based on the above breakouts, I'd be screwed in the draft. That's because I think I can assess talent better than the other coaches, and I know the difference between a good 3 star and bad one. But the general 3 star designation, which applies to 60% of the kids, tells me nothing. I need my list, where I have kids ranked 21 through 80.
I've won a few championships, and while I think I'm a good coach, I know I'm an even better talent assessor. So on my 2nd or 3rd pick, when I'm selecting with, say the 28th pick, the 5 star and 4 star players in the top 20 should all be gone, but I typically get a kid who was in my top 20, and when I have the 80th pick, I often get a kid who I had ranked the 50s. With my last pick, I may get a kid I had ranked #80. The consensus rating would have had all 3 kids as 3 star picks, while I ranked them very differently.
The point is, some people support the rating services by showing that proportionally, more 5* guys play in the NFL than 3* guys, but so what, that's a no brainer; its like Lunardi's brag above. The real skill for coaches is figuring which 3 stars are going to be studs, which won't be, because most teams will be made up of 3 star guys. So, no need to be disappointed when your team gets a commitment from a 3 star guy. Go look at his film and make your own judgment.
Kurt Hinish from Central Catholic has been kind of an under the radar 3 star guy. Suddenly he's getting a bunch of big time offers. Its just a matter of time until one of these services gives him a 4th star. But why? Will they have decided that he got a lot better in the last few weeks? LOL, no. They are just piggy backing on the opinions of the coaches who are making the offers. Its like Lunardi moving a team from his first 4 out to last 4 in after they win 6 in a row....doesn't take a genius to make that move.
And so it goes with the star system. There are only a small handful of 5 star guys. But anyone can pick them. I'll use my youth basketball coaching experience as an analogy, which is a really good fit.
I've coached about 40 teams, and its the same thing every time. There is a player assessment, followed by a draft. We'll say there are 100 kids. Within the first ten minutes of the assessment, every coach in the gym can name the 5 best players. If your grandmother was there, she could pick these kids out too. These are the 5-star guys. It takes no skill to ID them.
Then there are another 15 kids are a notch below the 5-stars, but better than the rest. These are the 4 stars. Unlike with the 5 stars, not everyone agrees with who belongs in this group. Ala the rating services, some kids are 4 stars with one service, but not in another.
Then there another 60 kids who the consensus would regard as decent; these are the 3 stars.
Below them, the last 20 are comprised of 10 kids who are mediocre (2 stars) and 10 who are weak (no stars).
Now if I were to miss the assessment and you handed me a list of players with stars next to their names, based on the above breakouts, I'd be screwed in the draft. That's because I think I can assess talent better than the other coaches, and I know the difference between a good 3 star and bad one. But the general 3 star designation, which applies to 60% of the kids, tells me nothing. I need my list, where I have kids ranked 21 through 80.
I've won a few championships, and while I think I'm a good coach, I know I'm an even better talent assessor. So on my 2nd or 3rd pick, when I'm selecting with, say the 28th pick, the 5 star and 4 star players in the top 20 should all be gone, but I typically get a kid who was in my top 20, and when I have the 80th pick, I often get a kid who I had ranked the 50s. With my last pick, I may get a kid I had ranked #80. The consensus rating would have had all 3 kids as 3 star picks, while I ranked them very differently.
The point is, some people support the rating services by showing that proportionally, more 5* guys play in the NFL than 3* guys, but so what, that's a no brainer; its like Lunardi's brag above. The real skill for coaches is figuring which 3 stars are going to be studs, which won't be, because most teams will be made up of 3 star guys. So, no need to be disappointed when your team gets a commitment from a 3 star guy. Go look at his film and make your own judgment.
Kurt Hinish from Central Catholic has been kind of an under the radar 3 star guy. Suddenly he's getting a bunch of big time offers. Its just a matter of time until one of these services gives him a 4th star. But why? Will they have decided that he got a lot better in the last few weeks? LOL, no. They are just piggy backing on the opinions of the coaches who are making the offers. Its like Lunardi moving a team from his first 4 out to last 4 in after they win 6 in a row....doesn't take a genius to make that move.
^^^Not Correct^^^
Stars/ratings do matter and are a very good predictor of individual and team success. There are articles about it (individual and team ratings) and supporting it every year. Anyone that just refuses to acknowledge the evidence is absolutely biased and pushing an agenda.
Listen to our (or any) head coach and SID release when they ink a highly rated kid and/or class.
LOL! Yeah, right!
What agenda could I possibly have other than to spread some good old fashioned common sense?
I am all ears... Please tell me what my agenda would be? I would love to know how I benefit from my position because I can absolutely tell you how Rivals, Scout, 24/7, etc. benefit from spreading their propaganda the other way...
If you don't know what system guys are going to play in college or even what position they're going to play, and you're not even defining if you are rating players based on their current ability levels or how you project them in the future (or even how far in the future) when you were evaluating the player, how accurate could these ratings possibly be other than for the elite athletes?
Don't give me, "Because Rivals tells us so." Explain that to me.
Let's use this area as an example – because this is an area with which we are all familiar. Last year Baldwin had an OL, whose name escapes me, that went to Penn State. He was rated the top OL in PA by Rivals but failed to make his all-section team. How does that happen?
This year North Allegheny had a very similar situation with a kid who went to Michigan or Notre Dame or some place like that. He was like the number 16 OT in the country but he wasn't even all Quad North.
How can you be rated as one of the top players in the entire country whenever the coaches who actually compete against you don't even think you're one of the top players at your position in your own section?
Can anyone explain that to me?
And if we're saying these are projections, that's fine, I can buy that. However, what exactly are they projecting if they don't know how a kid is going to fit into a system or even what position he's going to play?
Also, how far out are they projecting? Are they projecting how good these kids will be as freshmen?
As sophomores?
As juniors?
As seniors?
I am just looking for some parameters. And when I say parameters I mean bona fide parameters, not propaganda put out by people who financially benefit from enough people believing in this obvious nonsense.
I sincerely would like an answer to that because no one's ever been able to provide me one - which I don't think is remotely coincidental.
Honestly, arguing against that common sense point of view is just plain ridiculous. I can't even fathom what those people are even arguing?
It really is beyond embarrassing. I hate even engaging in it because it's impossible to talk about it without pointing out how dumb the whole system is from toe to tip.
Unfortunately, people then take that to mean that I am calling them dumb, which is not my intent. I don't think those people are dumb necessarily but I do believe they are buying healthy dose of snake oil....or more likely just misapplying it in the first place.
They treat this garbage like some sort of a scientific assessment rather than a list akin to the top 25 Hollywood Hotties or the top 10 Coolest Cars on the Road - which is what this really is.
...and yet they persist. I almost admire it in a weird sort of way. They sort of remind me of the Penn State fans who think that Joe couldn't possibly have known what was going on whenever all of the common sense evidence points in the exact opposite direction.
But good luck in convincing them of that - regardless of what anyone's common sense would tell them.
These services are rating athletes, not players. Some people understand that nuance and others do not.
As RaleighPanther correctly asserted earlier in this thread, anyone of us could walk into a camp and watch kids perform and pick out the best athletes. There's no skill to that whatsoever. Also, anyone of us could see that a bunch of schools are offering scholarships to this DL from Central Catholic and deduce that he must be a really good player.
LOL! Again, where is the skill in that? Here, in the newly formulated DVY ratings, the kid from Central just went from a 5* prospect to an 8* prospect on a 10* scale - all based on the past few days. I have really liked his stride as he walks to class each day (and the fact that every major program in the north and a few in the south have all offered him scholarships). What can I say, I have a hell of an eye for talent.
Of course if Alabama gets the majority of the elite athletes Alabama's going to win. No shit, Sherlock. Everyone gets that. The question is how do you separate the boatload of 3* athletes and 3* teams – which constitute the vast majority of the pool?
The only honest answer is that you can't. I think most of these snake oil salesmen would even acknowledge that. They would say what I am saying and that is that these ratings are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Anyone who takes them literally is a fool.
What agenda could I possibly have other than to spread some good old fashioned common sense?
I am all ears... Please tell me what my agenda would be? I would love to know how I benefit from my position because I can absolutely tell you how Rivals, Scout, 24/7, etc. benefit from spreading their propaganda the other way...
If you don't know what system guys are going to play in college or even what position they're going to play, and you're not even defining if you are rating players based on their current ability levels or how you project them in the future (or even how far in the future) when you were evaluating the player, how accurate could these ratings possibly be other than for the elite athletes?
Don't give me, "Because Rivals tells us so." Explain that to me.
Let's use this area as an example – because this is an area with which we are all familiar. Last year Baldwin had an OL, whose name escapes me, that went to Penn State. He was rated the top OL in PA by Rivals but failed to make his all-section team. How does that happen?
This year North Allegheny had a very similar situation with a kid who went to Michigan or Notre Dame or some place like that. He was like the number 16 OT in the country but he wasn't even all Quad North.
How can you be rated as one of the top players in the entire country whenever the coaches who actually compete against you don't even think you're one of the top players at your position in your own section?
Can anyone explain that to me?
And if we're saying these are projections, that's fine, I can buy that. However, what exactly are they projecting if they don't know how a kid is going to fit into a system or even what position he's going to play?
Also, how far out are they projecting? Are they projecting how good these kids will be as freshmen?
As sophomores?
As juniors?
As seniors?
I am just looking for some parameters. And when I say parameters I mean bona fide parameters, not propaganda put out by people who financially benefit from enough people believing in this obvious nonsense.
I sincerely would like an answer to that because no one's ever been able to provide me one - which I don't think is remotely coincidental.
Honestly, arguing against that common sense point of view is just plain ridiculous. I can't even fathom what those people are even arguing?
It really is beyond embarrassing. I hate even engaging in it because it's impossible to talk about it without pointing out how dumb the whole system is from toe to tip.
Unfortunately, people then take that to mean that I am calling them dumb, which is not my intent. I don't think those people are dumb necessarily but I do believe they are buying healthy dose of snake oil....or more likely just misapplying it in the first place.
They treat this garbage like some sort of a scientific assessment rather than a list akin to the top 25 Hollywood Hotties or the top 10 Coolest Cars on the Road - which is what this really is.
...and yet they persist. I almost admire it in a weird sort of way. They sort of remind me of the Penn State fans who think that Joe couldn't possibly have known what was going on whenever all of the common sense evidence points in the exact opposite direction.
But good luck in convincing them of that - regardless of what anyone's common sense would tell them.
These services are rating athletes, not players. Some people understand that nuance and others do not.
As RaleighPanther correctly asserted earlier in this thread, anyone of us could walk into a camp and watch kids perform and pick out the best athletes. There's no skill to that whatsoever. Also, anyone of us could see that a bunch of schools are offering scholarships to this DL from Central Catholic and deduce that he must be a really good player.
LOL! Again, where is the skill in that? Here, in the newly formulated DVY ratings, the kid from Central just went from a 5* prospect to an 8* prospect on a 10* scale - all based on the past few days. I have really liked his stride as he walks to class each day (and the fact that every major program in the north and a few in the south have all offered him scholarships). What can I say, I have a hell of an eye for talent.
Of course if Alabama gets the majority of the elite athletes Alabama's going to win. No shit, Sherlock. Everyone gets that. The question is how do you separate the boatload of 3* athletes and 3* teams – which constitute the vast majority of the pool?
The only honest answer is that you can't. I think most of these snake oil salesmen would even acknowledge that. They would say what I am saying and that is that these ratings are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Anyone who takes them literally is a fool.
Last edited:
Oh, for Christ's sake. That's your point? Dear god that's naive. That's a bit like watching a political ad and assuming that the claims being made in it must be legitimate because the candidate approves the message at the end.
LOL! Let me assure you almost every single political ad you see is full of lies and distortions – on both sides of the aisle.
Look, I've worked in public relations for a long time and I constantly put out statistics and awards for people/organizations that I know mean nothing in reality but will impress the gullible public.
Have you ever read about someone being put in the Who's Who of American (pick a career)? I always put that into people's bios and the public always find it impressive. Did you know that people pay to be included in those publications? It literally means nothing other than you were willing to pay to be included in it. Yet attorneys always want that included in their profiles and so too do doctors, engineers, educators, etc.
Why? Because they know it means something to people even though it doesn't really mean anything in practical terms.
Anyone who's worked in education will tell you that the PSSA test scores are just one of many metrics you should use to judge the effectiveness of your school district. However, to the public, the state test scores are the be-all/end-all. So guess what schools promote if their scores are good? You guessed it: the PSSA's. That's just good business.
With companies it's the same thing. You can't go 10 feet without running into some group which is willing to certify you as being an environmentally friendly company.
Why?
Because they know that sells to the public, that's why. If you just slap the word "green" on anything nowadays it sounds official and legitimate. However, what does that actually mean in practical terms?
Who is following up on all of these certifications to make sure they're legit? No one, that's who.
Most of these certifications are completely made up bullshit - they really are. Don't give me wrong, they are perfectly legal companies. They take great pains to not break the law with any of their claims. However, their claims don't really mean anything – they just sound impressive to people who don't understand how it actually works.
National Signing Day is an excellent opportunity for college football programs everywhere to jumpstart their season ticket sales and you do that by selling whatever you can.
If that means you have a highly rated player and/or class then by all means sell it. If you don't have a highly rated player and/or class talk about the kid's character or his GPA or how many undervalued players the coach has recruited in the past and had great success with. It's all part of the same process.
That doesn't mean it really means anything though. Come on, man! This is a ridiculous argument.
Last edited:
No, that isn't a point to defend or tear down stars. My point is Narduzzi's comments on it mean absolutely nothing. He signed a good class, but if it was great according to the rating systems and our competition, he would pub it.
The poster I responded to (not you) was making the point that because Narduzzi said he doesn't pay attention to stars or thinks they are silly means that they have no merit. My point, like yours in this response, is that is really, really bad logic.
Holy block of text, Batman. The star and rating system is a very accurate predictor of individual and team success. It has been for many years. Does that mean every 5 star will end up better than every 2, 3, and 4 star? Absolutely not. Especially when the 4 and 5 stars generally stack up at the same schools battling for the same playing time.
The services certainly rate the players (on field ability) and not just the best athletes, but more often than not those groups will crossover. They cannot judge work ethic or adjustment to adversity. It is impossible to.
So, does that mean a program consistently in the top 10 is always going to have better results than the next 10-15 programs? No. Does it mean a player in the top 100 is always going to be better than the next 500 kids? No. However, it sure as heck does show out that the odds are far, far in favor of the programs and kids who are rated closer to the top. There is absolutely, positively no argument about that.
Good post Raleigh.
Over the last 5 years, both Pitt and PSU have signed 64 three-star players, based on Rivals. That is the vast majority of both team's players. I agree with Raleigh that there is a vast range of player skills/ability/attitude/aptitude covered by the 3-star rating and I have always thought it ridiculous to think that these amateur "evaluators" can differentiate between the high 3s and the low 4s, or the high 2s and the low 3s...
And how can anyone rate HS offensive linemen, except based on their size and how well they appear to move, because they are so often playing against kids who are so much smaller than them.
Finally, there are just so many HS football players that there is no way that you can expect them to be reasonably rated - there have to be many who fall thru the cracks and just get a obligatory 2-star because there isn't much information about them.
(But the coaches know. Remember how Coach Chryst was always so stoic as an interviewee - well go back and look at the day Pitt signed Tyler Boyd. Coach C. got a little giddy and was grinning from ear to ear that day every time he talked about Boyd.)
Go Pitt.
Over the last 5 years, both Pitt and PSU have signed 64 three-star players, based on Rivals. That is the vast majority of both team's players. I agree with Raleigh that there is a vast range of player skills/ability/attitude/aptitude covered by the 3-star rating and I have always thought it ridiculous to think that these amateur "evaluators" can differentiate between the high 3s and the low 4s, or the high 2s and the low 3s...
And how can anyone rate HS offensive linemen, except based on their size and how well they appear to move, because they are so often playing against kids who are so much smaller than them.
Finally, there are just so many HS football players that there is no way that you can expect them to be reasonably rated - there have to be many who fall thru the cracks and just get a obligatory 2-star because there isn't much information about them.
(But the coaches know. Remember how Coach Chryst was always so stoic as an interviewee - well go back and look at the day Pitt signed Tyler Boyd. Coach C. got a little giddy and was grinning from ear to ear that day every time he talked about Boyd.)
Go Pitt.
Wow! that was...like all over the place. You contradict yourself like crazy! One example; Rivals ratings system don't mean anything yet, a kid who isn't thought of highly by coaches he competes against is highly rated by at least 2 major CFB powers! So high school coaches don't like him, but colleges agree with Rivals...hmmm...I can only conclude that Rivals knows what it's doing and your high school coaches don't recognize jack...
I published a post that sites the success rates of teams that recruiting well based on Rivals rating system. I can show the same success rates for kids drafted by the NFL. If you get off of your high horse, compose yourself and actually research the matter, star ranking are 100% an accurate way, on average, to predict future success.
Last edited:
He has improved but I think it's more about how he prepares now. I think some pros spent some time teaching him.
pay attention to what coaches are doing....especially the ones who have a track record of winning.
the same idiots that give "Starship Troopers" one or two stars when it is obviously one of the greatest films in the history of cinema....
Lol.........well!
Considering teams who consistently finish in the top 10 in recruiting every year. Nine times out of ten......Finish in the top 10 every 2 or 3 years. Tells me recruiting rankings tell a whole lot.
Anyone who tries and spin it that they don't matter is kidding themselves
Considering teams who consistently finish in the top 10 in recruiting every year. Nine times out of ten......Finish in the top 10 every 2 or 3 years. Tells me recruiting rankings tell a whole lot.
Anyone who tries and spin it that they don't matter is kidding themselves
Last edited:
If we are recruiting good football players, I don't care what some internet slobs think he's ranked
Recruiting is demonstrated with wins and losses, nothing else
Recruiting is demonstrated with wins and losses, nothing else
which oddly enough corresponds with recruiting 4 or 5 star guys....you cannot recruit 75 two star James Conner types as most two star guys are in fact two star guys. Even internet slobs can figure that out. Rule > Exception every day of the week.
Sorry but this last sentence blew my mind a bit... and FYI, I have no pony in this race. So if on average, it is 100% accurate, does that mean it is a 50% accurate way, 75%, or perhaps 92.6%?
Personally, I think the star system is over-hyped and people (fans) spend way too much time worrying about it. Coaches offer players they identify as "good fits" for their programs. They aren't tracking stars on Rivals or Scout and saying, "we gotta have this kid." They already identified that kid by camp, video, referral, etc. Sure star ratings tend to have a correlation between perception and reality (what they do in college and potentially the pros) but there are sooooo many mis-evaluated rankings by all these sites, that you simply cant put too much stock in the number of stars by a kids name.
Point is, debate away all you guys want, but at the end of the day, coaches dont give a rats ass about what Rivals or Scout evals say. I'll take Pitt coaches assessments 7 days a week and twice on Sunday over some Quantitative Mathematics degree holder working for Rivals who won a few fantasy drafts and now considers himself an expert in player evaluation.
Admittedly I am here and sucked into this thread ... but these "stars don't matter" threads are sad.
Some 4 and 5 star guys flop. Some 1 and 2 star guys blossom into AA's (the good kind of AA, not the Alex Bookser kind).
But more players with higher stars overwhelmingly mean a better team. And every coach given their choice would take em.
They will never talk down (aloud) who they do get, of course, but you know every HC (and especially former HCs) short of Saban and Meyer have careers paved with crushed dreams of the high-star players they couldn't land.
It's a brutal system in college sports for sure. No wonder coaches usually yearn for NFL and NBA jobs.
Some 4 and 5 star guys flop. Some 1 and 2 star guys blossom into AA's (the good kind of AA, not the Alex Bookser kind).
But more players with higher stars overwhelmingly mean a better team. And every coach given their choice would take em.
They will never talk down (aloud) who they do get, of course, but you know every HC (and especially former HCs) short of Saban and Meyer have careers paved with crushed dreams of the high-star players they couldn't land.
It's a brutal system in college sports for sure. No wonder coaches usually yearn for NFL and NBA jobs.
Is the star system perfect, no but it is a pretty good indicator of future success. There is a reason that most of the teams that finish in the top 10 usually have high ranked classes a couple of years prior.
Well the staff likely used less gas to recruit Palmer as opposed to some kid in VA or FL, so can we at least certify him as a "green-friendly" recruit?
This is a big part of it. On the flip side, kids who DO camp rise up the ranks with the 'gurus". Do you really think James Conner or Antonio Bryant would have been a 2-stars if they were going to Nike camps?
If you're a very productive high school player who is also a very good athlete, you're likely going to get a higher "star" rating. So typically, the higher the star value the better the prospect is.
It's not set in stone, it doesn't mean a highly rated player won't flop, and it doesn't mean a 2 star can't become a great player. It means that generally the higher rated players are better prospects.
There are a few hundred 4* & 5*, and literally thousands of unranked, 2* & 3* star players to sort through. Of course some are going to be missed, but on average (and this is indisputable) you're more likely to find good players in the top group. Hard to make a living separating the wheat from the chaff when you only have so many ships to give.
It's not set in stone, it doesn't mean a highly rated player won't flop, and it doesn't mean a 2 star can't become a great player. It means that generally the higher rated players are better prospects.
There are a few hundred 4* & 5*, and literally thousands of unranked, 2* & 3* star players to sort through. Of course some are going to be missed, but on average (and this is indisputable) you're more likely to find good players in the top group. Hard to make a living separating the wheat from the chaff when you only have so many ships to give.
I have nothing against the 4* & 5* kids. They are many times fully matured athletes that have had great Soph/Jr seasons, and get high levels of exposure via camps, etc... They have a high probability of being successful P5 players..
With that said, there are many low rated 3*'s and or 2 STAR's that may not have matured physically, but are equally athletic/talented, also may not have had opportunities to camp, and get the exposure. Some of these kids don't excel until their Senior year and have the ability to be P5 impact players.... I would use Michael Smith, one of our in-coming WR recruits. He exploded his Senior season, in a talent Rich Florida area. Many accolades as a Senior, but did not have the great Soph/Jr exposure... We ended up with a very under-rated player at a 3 Star 5.6 rating. These are the types that can be difference makers in a program, and it takes a good eye to find the kids with that talent and up-side to compete with or even do better than a 4* type.....
But regardless of Star ratings, you never know what you have until 3 years down the road...
I would take a 3* DE like James Conner any day over some of the 4* busts that are out there......
I'm not sold on the STAR system. Many kids get left out that could be good productive players... It takes a good Coach/recruiter to find the talent & develop it...
With that said, there are many low rated 3*'s and or 2 STAR's that may not have matured physically, but are equally athletic/talented, also may not have had opportunities to camp, and get the exposure. Some of these kids don't excel until their Senior year and have the ability to be P5 impact players.... I would use Michael Smith, one of our in-coming WR recruits. He exploded his Senior season, in a talent Rich Florida area. Many accolades as a Senior, but did not have the great Soph/Jr exposure... We ended up with a very under-rated player at a 3 Star 5.6 rating. These are the types that can be difference makers in a program, and it takes a good eye to find the kids with that talent and up-side to compete with or even do better than a 4* type.....
But regardless of Star ratings, you never know what you have until 3 years down the road...
I would take a 3* DE like James Conner any day over some of the 4* busts that are out there......
I'm not sold on the STAR system. Many kids get left out that could be good productive players... It takes a good Coach/recruiter to find the talent & develop it...
The strategy is clearly to try to identify rough diamonds before they emerge to the general college football world as great prospects, and if they do, pray they have the integrity to stick with us when bigger programs try to poach them. Or if they never rise to that level as hs seniors, pray that they'll finally bloom at Pitt. If too many of them flop outright, well ... it'll resemble what happened with the hoops team.
You guys do realize that the top 100 or so ranked players are pretty much a matter of consensus among college coaches and recruiters, and the ratings services just coattail their analysis, right? When you get into the rest, by by and large the services rank the kids based on what the interest levels of the major programs is. Naturally it's a very inexact science, but you can generally rely on the fact that the more high-level offers a kid has, the more highly rated he should be. The people that evaluate and recruit players for a living, and whose livelihoods depend on signing the best players they can get, are the best barometer of a HS player's likelihood to be a productive college player. The ratings services for the most part just regurgitate the work of the coaches. It's not the other way around.
As for your last sentence, you're right. And it's no accident that the teams that win the most are virtually always the teams that have the top-rated recruiting classes year in year out.
A fatal flaw in your argument is that Smith hasn't proven anything at the college level yet. You have no idea whether he's underrated or not. Do you really think Pitt happened to be the only P5 program that noticed or evaluated him after the numbers he put up in the most heavily recruited area in the country?
Offer sheets are the best indicators-not perfect by any means, but as reliable a measure as we have. Ranking systems are based on offers and the amount of interest HS players are receiving from the top P5 schools. The tail does not wag the dog. It's the other way around.
Great post. A tad long but a great post. These ratings are to appease fans like us who have turned recruiting into another season, almost desperate of the actual football season. It's fun, not a math equation or a scientific study.
It cracks me up when someone points out a contradiction in these evaluations, like they discovered a flaw in a computer program. Stars and numbers boys, it's not rocket science
Last edited:
Not so fast. Recruiting stars are also validated by the NFL draft. See, with W's and L's, there is also this thing called coaching. Coaching matters.
