Interesting

[utisdabomb12]

I posted a while back about Ole Miss and Miss State consisting of mostly 3 star, 2 star and even unranked recruits out of high school. I'm not sure if this year is just an outlier, but 3 of the 4 best teams in the SEC consist mostly of 3 star players (Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Missouri). There's another thread where I break down Ole Miss and Miss. State, but here's Missouri's starting roster. 

Offfense-

Sasser-Not ranked per 247
White-4 star
Hunt-not ranked
Morse-not ranked
Mcnulty-3 star
Boehm-4 star
McGovern-3 star
Chappell-3 star
Mauk- 3 star
Murphy-not ranked
Culkin-not ranked

Defense-

Golden-4 star
Hoch-not ranked
Brantley-3 star
Ray- 3 star
Newsom-3 star
Scherer-3 star
Brothers-3 star
Dennis-3 star
Webb-not ranked
Simon-3 star
Penton- 3 star

Of course Bama dominates in recruiting and is the number 1 team in the SEC, so to a point that disproves the argument that stars don't matter. However, I'm really starting to devalue recruiting rankings more and more based on recent data points over the past couple years. For some reason I find this interesting. I wish there was some type of objective way to determine whether star rankings truly matter (from what I've seen the success of programs is hit or miss based on these rankings). 

 

[HornEsch]

High star rankings can most certainly be a big part of winning a championship or being a great team. However it is only part of the equation. You have to have good to great coaching as well.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

It's all about how the talent is developed.

Player development is where Mack and staff really fell off the last 5 years.  I trust CFS to get the most out of his players, even QB.  

 

[echeese]

It's all about how the talent is developed.

Player development is where Mack and staff really fell off the last 5 years.  I trust CFS to get the most out of his players, even QB.

This. . .

but I would also speculate that the quality of our recruiting services/evaluators is much higher here than it is in Miss and some of the areas of the SE.

Also, don't both Ole Miss and Miss St recruit the juco ranks heavily?

Finally, some of those 3 stars are super talented but to JB's point, poorly developed. . .so you have some big upsides.

I think 2 things work against Texas kids, many hit college virtually peaked out development wise and their is a human bias to slightly overrate Texas kids. . . .

 

[HornEsch]

Yep, agree echeese. The toughest part in this state is to separate those that are great in highschool, but have peaked and those that have room to grow. It is easy to get enamoured with a player that is great in highschool, only for them to be a jag in college.

In the end you have to have talent on the field, there is no way to get around that. However, in college it is all about the development no matter if they are a 5 star or a 3 star.

 

[Matt Cotcher]

The bit in Burnt Ends on Jefferson & McNeal speaks to this. Yes, that's 5* vs 4*, but the point is that a good talent evaluator and solid relationships with HS coaches can deliver talent that is better than it appears on the surface.

 

[streettopeschel]

talent matters. development matters. how many stars subjectively doled out by somebody like Ketchum and others who do this are hit and miss.

Paid professionals miss all the time in the NFL trying to project a 22-year old who has played big time football for 3 or 4 years. How are some guys running websites going to project how a 16-yr old who has played anywhere from 1A to 6a is going to fare against D1 competition ?

Sure, they'res the no-brainers like VY or AP, but not many in that category. Many, if not most are projects.

In short, i don't spend much time on star rankings.

 

[Hiphopopotamos]

talent matters. development matters. how many stars subjectively doled out by somebody like Ketchum and others who do this are hit and miss.

Paid professionals miss all the time in the NFL trying to project a 22-year old who has played big time football for 3 or 4 years. How are some guys running websites going to project how a 16-yr old who has played anywhere from 1A to 6a is going to fare against D1 competition ?

Sure, they'res the no-brainers like VY or AP, but not many in that category. Many, if not most are projects.

In short, i don't spend much time on star rankings.

About the only star rankings that seem to really matter are the legit 5 star recruits - and they still flame out at about a 50% rate.  

Like you said, how in the hell can anyone really have a good idea whether some kid in Nowhere, Kansas is actually a two-star or a three-star.

We have to trust Strong's staff and the high school coaches they work with - and stop worrying about whether some kid is ranked as a three or a four star.  It always cracks me up when a see a kid with a low three-star ranking and he has offers from every major program in the country.

Here is a pretty good article that talks about 5 star high school recruits over the last decade and where they got drafted by the NFL (if at all).  Of the 2500 players who sign on NSD, approx 30 are 5-star - a little over 1%.

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

 

[echeese]

About 50% (maybe a tad more) of 5 star guys get drafted by the NFL

Less than 30% of 4 stars

And from there it REALLY drops off.. . .

There is also (and it stands up historically) a strong correlation between consistent Top 10 and Top 20 recruiting classes with wins and losses. . .

Many good points made here, star rankings are less relevant in the hands of good evaluators and developers. . . which is the pro of Coach Strong and one of the reasons I was on his bandwagon long before we hired him. . . . .

But you do not reach the pinnacle without big time studs. . . .I dare you to name the last national title without at least one Heisman caliber player ..  .oh yeah, and a great defense. . . 

 

[Hiphopopotamos]

About 50% (maybe a tad more) of 5 star guys get drafted by the NFL

Less than 30% of 4 stars

And from there it REALLY drops off.. . .

There is also (and it stands up historically) a strong correlation between consistent Top 10 and Top 20 recruiting classes with wins and losses. . .

Many good points made here, star rankings are less relevant in the hands of good evaluators and developers. . . which is the pro of Coach Strong and one of the reasons I was on his bandwagon long before we hired him. . . . .

But you do not reach the pinnacle without big time studs. . . .I dare you to name the last national title without at least one Heisman caliber player ..  .oh yeah, and a great defense. . . 

 

LSU 2007?

 

But yes - my point was that the top end recruits are easy to spot and there isn't as much question as to who they are.  Teams need them to win championships.  But after them, its pretty much a crap shoot as to who is a 2-3 star or who is a 3-4 star.

 

 

[HornEsch]

It is one thing to find that "true" 5 star, because they are truly elite and absolutely make a huge difference. The coaches that can find the 2,3,or 4 star guys that just haven't peaked and turn those guys into solid 4/5 stars are great coaches.

In my opinion, you have to do at least these 3 things to field a championship caliber team.

1. Find a few true 5 stars.

2. Find the players that have the 5 star potential and develop them.

3. Find the 3 and 4 star players that can fill the gaps. Just because they may not be NFL caliber, it does not mean they can't be good/great college players.

 

[Hiphopopotamos]

It is one thing to find that "true" 5 star, because they are truly elite and absolutely make a huge difference. The coaches that can find the 2,3,or 4 star guys that just haven't peaked and turn those guys into 5 stars are great coaches.

In my opinion, you have to do at least these 3 things to field a championship caliber team.

1. Find a few true 5 stars.

2. Find the players that have the 5 star potential and develop them.

3. Find the 3 and 4 star players that can fill the gaps. Just because they may not be NFL caliber, it does not mean they can't be good/great college players.

Kansas State is a good example of a program that isn't able to attract 5 stars, but has been able to keep themselves very competitive by doing #2 and #3 on your list.  Great coaching and good player development has allowed them to somewhat compensate for an inability to attract true 5 star prospects.  Unfortunately, they'll likely never be a championship contender without being able to attract those 5 stars (#1).

 

[HornEsch]

Exactly! Kansas State is a really good program and outside of getting a true hidden get it will be really difficult to get that elusive championship.

 

[TheContractor]

LSU 2007?

But yes - my point was that the top end recruits are easy to spot and there isn't as much question as to who they are.  Teams need them to win championships.  But after them, its pretty much a crap shoot as to who is a 2-3 star or who is a 3-4 star.

the highest drafted player on that team was Glenn Dorsey DT. it had talent but agree no Heisman caliber payer, unless of course you count Ryan "Holla" Perriloux. Least talented and worst title team of BCS era. this team winning a title make me want to puke. 

Matt Flinn, Doresy,  Jacob Hester(best O player), Brandon Lafell, D. Byrd, T. Tolliver, Early Doucet. Not the most talented team for sure. But Bo Pelini was DC so that counts for some anger management points. 

 

[Coleman Feeley]

I've always been weary of the Star System.... A lot of these recruiting sites change their rankings as players are recruited or after they are committed. A college coaching staff will never and should never worry about what a website says about a recruit.

Of course there are "true 5 star" recruits, but the issues with recruiting young men who are still growing is just that... they're still growing. Sometimes a 15 year old kid has already been shaving for two years and looks old enough to buy beer, other times... they look like they're twelve. It's really difficult to determine whether a young man is going to turn out to be a great athlete a few years down the road, or if the great high school player will ever get any better.

 

[doc longhorn]

Does anyone believe that Rivals sends its little minions out to evaluate each and every player?

Does anyone believe that Rivals looks at as much film, attends as many games, interviews as many players, does as many in home visits, has as many camps and talks to as many players and families as coaches do?

Does everyone understand that the minute a major college offers a 3 star recruit, Rivals will usually raise that recruits ranking to a 4 star?

Does everyone understand that Rivals will calculate how many offers a recruit has and anoint a rating to him, based solely on that?

Does all of the above sort of put Rivals and its ilk into perspective?

 

[doc longhorn]

Everyone knows that the so called 5 stars are really good players and easy to identify.  But successfully evaluating a 3 or 4 star player as college quality is where a coach wins or loses on the field.

 

[Duke C #11]

Off the field character issues are rarely reflected in the star system.

 

[HornEsch]

Everyone knows that the so called 5 stars are really good players and easy to identify.  But successfully evaluating a 3 or 4 star player as college quality is where a coach wins or loses on the field.

The that was really a big part of my "3 things" above. You have to have some true 5 star talent to win the championships (very few exceptions), but you are not going to fill a team with that rare talent. You must find the solid 2,3, and 4 star talent that can fill all those gaps. There have been some damn fine 3 and 4 star guys come through over the years.