How important are recruiting 'stars'

Donate To GopherHole
station19

station19

Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
22,605
Reaction score
1
Points
36
2002
Despite his record-setting statistics, Rodgers, who measured at 5-foot-10 and weighed 165 pounds as a senior,[10] both undersized for a Division I quarterbacks, garnered little interest from programs with only one offer, that of a walk-on from Illinois. He declined the invitation and attended Butte Community College in Oroville, about 30 miles (50 km) southeast of Chico. In his freshman season, he threw 28 touchdowns while leading Butte to a 10–1 record, a NorCal Conference championship, and a No. 2 national ranking. While there, Rodgers was discovered by California head coach Jeff Tedford, who was recruiting Butte tight end Garrett Cross. Because he had a 3.6 grade point average and SAT score of 1300 out of high school, Rodgers was eligible to transfer after one year of junior college instead of the typical two.[11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Rodgers
 


Speaking of Packers, I believe Clay Matthews walked on at USC and was a zero star recruit.
 




Players slip through the cracks yes. But in general, more highly regarded recruits do better than more lowly regarded recruits. It just shows that coaches have to do their own scouting, and not rely solely on what other people think.
 

To add onto RodentRampage's comments, scouting services rank prospects based on athleticism, production, and perceived potential. They can't effectively measure things such as an individual player's drive, character issues, or how the college coaches will develop the player. There are so many unknown factors, but the recruiting services are right more often than not.
 

This is so tiresome. It gets old watching people point out random outliers and thinking it means anything at all. No one ever said recruiting rankings are infallible. There is a high positive correlation between rankings and athletic success in both college and the pros, with several years' worth of data to back it up. Period. This cannot be argued against.

So the next time any of you is thinking something along the lines of, "Danny Woodhead wasn't recruited by any DI schools, went to Chadron St., and is now tearing up the NFL!!! I've found a crack in the device!!!!!!1!1!one1!!!" And then you sprint over to your keyboard to tell GopherHole about your amazing discovery...just don't. For the love of Chryst, and for the sanity of us all, please...just don't.
 




dpodoll68 said:
This is so tiresome. It gets old watching people point out random outliers and thinking it means anything at all. No one ever said recruiting rankings are infallible. There is a high positive correlation between rankings and athletic success in both college and the pros, with several years' worth of data to back it up. Period. This cannot be argued against.

So the next time any of you is thinking something along the lines of, "Danny Woodhead wasn't recruited by any DI schools, went to Chadron St., and is now tearing up the NFL!!! I've found a crack in the device!!!!!!1!1!one1!!!" And then you sprint over to your keyboard to tell GopherHole about your amazing discovery...just don't. For the love of Chryst, and for the sanity of us all, please...just don't.
Click to expand...

:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

Just found this new emoticon so I sprinted over......Amazing isn't it.
 

RodentRampage said:
Players slip through the cracks yes. But in general, more highly regarded recruits do better than more lowly regarded recruits. It just shows that coaches have to do their own scouting, and not rely solely on what other people think.
Click to expand...

basically agree...Given that players when recruited are still developing/maturing, good coaching can always strengthen classes, but in general, the helmet schools, along with top coaches, always seem to be leading the way in stars as well. Occasionally there are exceptions, such as Wisconsin, but even then those schools are very rarely playing for the national title.
 







If I had a choice to have nothing but 5 stars or nothing but 3 stars there is no question I would take the team with nothing but 5 stars. That being said, any individual player can be over/under rated. A lot of factors go into it - size, speed, what they accomplished, and other things like what school, how many good players have come from that program. And you have to remember many of these kids are big fish in little ponds. They may be the best player in their conference, but what does that mean compared to the rest of the US?

Not to mention these kids are 17-18 years old and some are done growing while others...

Danny Woodhead is probably the best example for the next point - a low rated player that fits into a team's system can be more successful than a highly rated player that isn't a good fit. A really good run blocking o-lineman may not do well for a spread team. That's part of why some people don't regard the ratings as that meaningful. But I agree somewhat with dpodoll and think overall 9 of 10 five star atheletes will outperform 9 of 10 three star atheletes.
 

dpodoll68 said:
This is so tiresome. It gets old watching people point out random outliers and thinking it means anything at all. No one ever said recruiting rankings are infallible. There is a high positive correlation between rankings and athletic success in both college and the pros, with several years' worth of data to back it up. Period. This cannot be argued against.

So the next time any of you is thinking something along the lines of, "Danny Woodhead wasn't recruited by any DI schools, went to Chadron St., and is now tearing up the NFL!!! I've found a crack in the device!!!!!!1!1!one1!!!" And then you sprint over to your keyboard to tell GopherHole about your amazing discovery...just don't. For the love of Chryst, and for the sanity of us all, please...just don't.
Click to expand...

Thanks, dpodoll. I couldn't agree more.

This should be made into a sticky. I love Eric Decker, but his success has been a mite of evidence that everyone uses to dispel the rankings system.

I think the answer is requiring anyone posting on this board to have taken Statistics 101.
 

I used to think recruiting rankings were important because of all the statistical evidence to suggest that higher rated recruits had a much better chance to become All Americans, NFL prospects, and All Conference, etc. However, now that I found out that Aaron Rodgers wasn't well recruited and that he is one of the best players in the NFL, I completely disregard the overwhelming evidence (and common sense) that suggests this.
 

The Final Word

Per dpodoll68 "It gets old watching people point out random outliers and thinking it means anything at all. No one ever said recruiting rankings are infallible. There is a high positive correlation between rankings and athletic success in both college and the pros, with several years' worth of data to back it up. Period. This cannot be argued against."

This is the one fact that nobody should be disputing but there are still several people here who are still arguing that the world is flat.

Sorry wren but that is reality. Also, if you believe that Christopher Columbus discovered the new world that is a discussion for a new thread.
 

In regard to my OP. I found it interesting that A Rodgers had such little interest coming out of hs and thought I would pass it along to those that were not aware(such as myself). Maybe my title was misleading(not intentional), but I see no reason for some people getting their undies in a bunch and standing on a soapbox blabbing what shouldn't be posted.

For the love of Chryst, and for the sanity of us all, please...just don't.

Edit: BTW I made no mention of ratings having no meaning.
 

I agree with dpodoll, eker0016, and Bob_Loblaw. Stars are not an "iron law," but the correlation between stars and level of later contribution is pretty strong. There will always be outliers and players who mature in their late- as opposed to mid-teens.

Lakeville Goldy also makes good points about systems and the fact that there gets to be some gray areas when looking at players who might be "low 4s" or "high 3s" or "low 3s" or "high 2s." Stars are inexact, but helpful in that they give a basic picture of either ability or physical characteristics that can be honed into applicable ability.
 



Recruiting stars don't matter. But they do provide a pretty good general comparison for classes and players.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom