Gophers now ranked #28 on Rivals!!!

Donate To GopherHole
F

froggopher

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
549
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Looking pretty good for 2010!! A few 4Stars and many 3 stars. Also looks like a lot of depth for the upcoming years. Give brew and his staff a round of applause for their efforts. I sure am!

Go Gophers!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap:
 

Nice! It's obvious they put a lot of work into recruiting and it will hopefully pay off.

Just for fun. How high do you think we'd move up in these rankings if a certain 5 star from St. Paul decided he wants to be a gopher?
 

Rivals Ranking!

I think we would possibly hit #25 with Henderson committing. And a couple more 4 stars. Anyway it does look good for the future. Maybe we could get that 5 star RB that just quit at Colorado. Sorry, I don't have his name or what year he is in. Rose Bowl next year?

Go Gophers!!
 

I hadn't heard the story on the Colorado kid. What's his deal, he get caught stealing from Macy's too?
 




WAGopher said:
He's Darrell Scott, rumored to be headed to UCLA.
Click to expand...


Got beat out by a two-star player. Oops. Guess that spoils the star-struck excitement a bit on this thread.
 

If fans want to go by stars rankings then atleast look at average stars per player when comparing programs because the overall team rankings take into account the total number of players taken and we all know that each program takes a different number of players each year depending on their scholarship situation.
 

Scout Rating us at #33 (?)

Scout rated us at #33 with only Gjere listed as a 4 star. Not as many 3 stars and many 2 stars. What a joke that outfit is! Anyone agree?
 



star struck

It amazes me on how so many people get star struck on incoming recruits. When a player recieves a 5 or 4 star from a ranking service it is not a indicator of the future talent level. The number of stars are given based on the opinions of those whose job it is to project how prepared a particular player is as far as the time they feel that player will be able to contribute to a team...

For instance 5 and 4 star recruits should be able to contribute immediately where a 3 or 2 star recruit is projected to have good to great potential but may need a red shirt year or a couple of years in the program. There are even players who play one position in high school but are given stars based on where people believe they will end up playing at the next level even though they have never played that position before..

For the gophers we have several defensive players that played on the offensive side of the ball in high school that were given 2 and 3 stars at a defensive position they never played.

If they had lined up primarily at the defensive position they were projected at instead of the offensive position they played instead of being a 2 or 3 star recruit they very well may have been a 4 or 5 star recruit.

All though Brewster and Cross who are masterful recruiters and are doing a great job with obtaining 4 and 5 star recruits what they really excel at is evaluating talent. Bringing in that kid that nobody has heard of when he gets here but everybody knows before he leaves
 

GopherGod said:
If fans want to go by stars rankings then atleast look at average stars per player when comparing programs because the overall team rankings take into account the total number of players taken and we all know that each program takes a different number of players each year depending on their scholarship situation.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you, but average stars can be misleading as well. Right now we have one player not even ranked, that certainly hurts the average.

I don't really care to much about our overall ranking. More, I look at the fact that we have a lot of good recruits committed right now. We don't have a lot of big time names, but we don't have too many low-end recruits either.
 

gopher pops said:
It amazes me on how so many people get star struck on incoming recruits. When a player recieves a 5 or 4 star from a ranking service it is not a indicator of the future talent level. The number of stars are given based on the opinions of those whose job it is to project how prepared a particular player is as far as the time they feel that player will be able to contribute to a team...

For instance 5 and 4 star recruits should be able to contribute immediately where a 3 or 2 star recruit is projected to have good to great potential but may need a red shirt year or a couple of years in the program. There are even players who play one position in high school but are given stars based on where people believe they will end up playing at the next level even though they have never played that position before..

For the gophers we have several defensive players that played on the offensive side of the ball in high school that were given 2 and 3 stars at a defensive position they never played.

If they had lined up primarily at the defensive position they were projected at instead of the offensive position they played instead of being a 2 or 3 star recruit they very well may have been a 4 or 5 star recruit.

All though Brewster and Cross who are masterful recruiters and are doing a great job with obtaining 4 and 5 star recruits what they really excel at is evaluating talent. Bringing in that kid that nobody has heard of when he gets here but everybody knows before he leaves
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. At least for Rivals they rate players purely based on potential and often take NFL potential into account. Sometimes its hard to determine what guys are already near maxed out physically and therefore are dominating at HS and which guys have a lot of untapped potential but generally 4 and 5 star guys have more natural talent than 2 and 3 star guys. This is evident by the percentages of highly ranked guys that get drafted vs the lower ranked guys. Anybody being honest would rather take a class full of 4 star guys vs a class full of 3 star guys if they had to choose one. Also, I disagree about the rankings based on position argument. The truth is D1 level football players stand out athletically and physically even when they're out of position. Quite often the best athletes in HS play QB, RB or DE. This is true across the board and also for highly ranked players. Guys change position all the time and to think that a guy would all of a sudden go from oa 2 star at RB to a 4 star FS isn't realistic. Sure there are times when a guy is clearly better at another position but that guy still has the same measureables.
 




gopher pops said:
It amazes me on how so many people get star struck on incoming recruits. When a player recieves a 5 or 4 star from a ranking service it is not a indicator of the future talent level. The number of stars are given based on the opinions of those whose job it is to project how prepared a particular player is as far as the time they feel that player will be able to contribute to a team...

For instance 5 and 4 star recruits should be able to contribute immediately where a 3 or 2 star recruit is projected to have good to great potential but may need a red shirt year or a couple of years in the program. There are even players who play one position in high school but are given stars based on where people believe they will end up playing at the next level even though they have never played that position before..

For the gophers we have several defensive players that played on the offensive side of the ball in high school that were given 2 and 3 stars at a defensive position they never played.

If they had lined up primarily at the defensive position they were projected at instead of the offensive position they played instead of being a 2 or 3 star recruit they very well may have been a 4 or 5 star recruit.

All though Brewster and Cross who are masterful recruiters and are doing a great job with obtaining 4 and 5 star recruits what they really excel at is evaluating talent. Bringing in that kid that nobody has heard of when he gets here but everybody knows before he leaves
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound snarky and I agree with some of what you are saying, but the Ohio State game is a good example of what star-ratings mean. The Buckeyes have athletes all over the field. Tressel is a good coach, but he's not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear down there in Columbus.
 

Anyone who doesn't believe that the "star system" is an accurate predictor for a potential athlete is only kidding themselves. How do you think that all the top programs (LSU, Ohio State, Florida, etc.) put great teams on the field while at the same time recruiting a plethora of 5/4 star recruits? Although Brewster has done better in the rankings in previous years, I applaud this effort being put forth by him and his staff. We're in the Big Ten, we have a responsibility to get good athletes!
 

50PoundHead said:
I don't want to sound snarky and I agree with some of what you are saying, but the Ohio State game is a good example of what star-ratings mean. The Buckeyes have athletes all over the field. Tressel is a good coach, but he's not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear down there in Columbus.
Click to expand...

we dropped 4 touch down passes at oho state and was down 7 to 0 at half time i was at the Ohio state game and we beat them all over the field turn overs killed us we gave them the ball 5 times inside the 20 had nothing to do with their athletes being better than ours had more to do with they had more seniors than we did
 

oleboy41 said:
I have to disagree. At least for Rivals they rate players purely based on potential and often take NFL potential into account. Sometimes its hard to determine what guys are already near maxed out physically and therefore are dominating at HS and which guys have a lot of untapped potential but generally 4 and 5 star guys have more natural talent than 2 and 3 star guys. This is evident by the percentages of highly ranked guys that get drafted vs the lower ranked guys. Anybody being honest would rather take a class full of 4 star guys vs a class full of 3 star guys if they had to choose one. Also, I disagree about the rankings based on position argument. The truth is D1 level football players stand out athletically and physically even when they're out of position. Quite often the best athletes in HS play QB, RB or DE. This is true across the board and also for highly ranked players. Guys change position all the time and to think that a guy would all of a sudden go from oa 2 star at RB to a 4 star FS isn't realistic. Sure there are times when a guy is clearly better at another position but that guy still has the same measureables.
Click to expand...

you are totally wrong rivals can not gage a kids n f l potential in high school to many variables.. will they flunk out will they get injured will they have to leave because of a family emergency.. rivals and espn and the other ranking services tell you themselves they rank kids based on their readiness to contribute as a freshman...

teams who have good recruiting classes have kids who a ready to contribute on the shelf so it is the next man up in case of injury our suspension or whatever... so they dont have a drop off

if you have a bunch of 2 star and 3 star kids your program is always in a developement stage

to say that stars equal nfl potential is just wrong

and for your final point if a kid gets a three star rating for a position he has never played that he is projected to play.... then yes it is a reasonable assumption that if he had played that position then his learning curb would be different he would not have to start over and learn that position he would have familiarity in that position and that would translate to a higher star ranking.... and there are different measurables between a kid who plays running back in high school and switches to d end on a d 1 level.....
 

Sorry Gopher Pops but you are dead wrong here. I am not arguing that it isn't sort of a crap shoot on determining who will be an NFL level talent or not, but Rivals is certainly attempting to gauge the players potential....

Here is the verbatim explanation of the rankings from rivals....
6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about



The deciding factor is not whether or not those kids are going to be ready to play right away the deciding factor is how good those prospects will end up being. Often those things coincide because the most talented kids are often (but not always) the most ready to contribute immedietly.


As for your point about tOSU game, well lets assume you are right. Lets assume that Minnesota did really outplay them in the first half. The point that these posters are making is that the succesful programs year in and year out have star studded recruiting classes. Are there games/teams that buck that trend? Obviously. However, there is a definitie correlation between star studded recruiting classes and success on the football field.
 

The reason people get so 'star-struck' (clever phrase) is because we've never seen these players play. It is all we have to go on...plus it's fun to get excited about the future. As soon as they step on the field, the stars go away. We can now evaluate Brandon Green, Dajon McKnight and Troy Staudemire without remembering that Green was a 4-star and the other two were 2-stars (I believe). All the negative people should just lay off the star-fu**ers(I'm included...not insulting anyone), and we can all meet in the middle in a couple years. I think everyone agrees that star rating does not guarantee success but it does give you an idea of how highly thought of a recruit is by people who are paid to predict these things. We don't always dismiss Belinda Jenson because she is occasionally wrong.
 

gopher pops said:
had nothing to do with their athletes being better than ours had more to do with they had more seniors than we did
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow.

I agree that we would've had a chance with OSU if we didn't repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot, but this is a candidate for preposterous statement of the year.

Not only does Ohio St. have better (and many more) athletes than us, they don't even start/play that many seniors.

In the current 2-deeps, OSU starts 8 seniors and has another 5 not starting. Meanwhile, considering Decker was still playing at that time, we started 11 seniors and had at least another 4 in the rotation. Oops!

I know you're D.L. Wilhite's dad, so you're supporting your son's team, but the statement that OSU doesn't have better athletes than us is really just absurd.
 

first of all i am not d. l wilhites dad all though i hear good things about him and have met his family but good guess
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Sorry Gopher Pops but you are dead wrong here. I am not arguing that it isn't sort of a crap shoot on determining who will be an NFL level talent or not, but Rivals is certainly attempting to gauge the players potential....

Here is the verbatim explanation of the rankings from rivals....
6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about



The deciding factor is not whether or not those kids are going to be ready to play right away the deciding factor is how good those prospects will end up being. Often those things coincide because the most talented kids are often (but not always) the most ready to contribute immedietly.


As for your point about tOSU game, well lets assume you are right. Lets assume that Minnesota did really outplay them in the first half. The point that these posters are making is that the succesful programs year in and year out have star studded recruiting classes. Are there games/teams that buck that trend? Obviously. However, there is a definitie correlation between star studded recruiting classes and success on the football field.
Click to expand...

thanks for making my point how they will impact a college team
 

dpodoll68 said:
Wow. Just wow.

I agree that we would've had a chance with OSU if we didn't repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot, but this is a candidate for preposterous statement of the year.

Not only does Ohio St. have better (and many more) athletes than us, they don't even start/play that many seniors.

In the current 2-deeps, OSU starts 8 seniors and has another 5 not starting. Meanwhile, considering Decker was still playing at that time, we started 11 seniors and had at least another 4 in the rotation. Oops!

I know you're D.L. Wilhite's dad, so you're supporting your son's team, but the statement that OSU doesn't have better athletes than us is really just absurd.
Click to expand...

oh by the way see you in 2010 and 2011 wonder what the excuses will be when the gophers are 10 and 1 or 11 and 2 i guess it will be we were lucky or we didnt play anybody or usc had a down year not we evaluated talent and recruited well ....
 

gopher pops said:
we dropped 4 touch down passes at oho state and was down 7 to 0 at half time i was at the Ohio state game and we beat them all over the field turn overs killed us we gave them the ball 5 times inside the 20 had nothing to do with their athletes being better than ours had more to do with they had more seniors than we did
Click to expand...

We saw the game from different angles, (but I'll defer to you on some perspectives as you were at the game and are obvious a very interested and knowledgeable viewer). I watched their lines handle our lines and their DBs beat the living crap out of our WRs. Further, Pryor showed why he was the top recruit in the country in 2008.

The game was closer than the score indicated because OSU got a couple of late scores when our defense was worn down. We were in the game and we made a ton of mistakes, but Ohio State's athletic ability showed they don't have to play that well to win against an inexperienced team that is a notch below them in the raw athleticism department. Part of that is experience, but part of it is talent. I hope we can agree to disagree on the star-system, because I do agree with you on the value of good coaching.

For the record, I am optimistic about the future (and not at all discouraged by the present). We are getting better athletes and I think once a total team approach (identity) is established and maintained by the coaching staff, the trend line is going to be moving steadily in the right direction.
 

gopher pops said:
oh by the way see you in 2010 and 2011 wonder what the excuses will be when the gophers are 10 and 1 or 11 and 2 i guess it will be we were lucky or we didnt play anybody or usc had a down year not we evaluated talent and recruited well ....
Click to expand...

If you're insinuating that I'm some kind of Gopher pessimist, you couldn't be further from the truth. I never make excuses for why we play well or don't play well. In general, we beat the teams we should and lose to the teams we should. That is how most teams operate.

And if we are 10-2 or 11-1 in the next two years, it won't be because we have better talent than OSU, USC, etc. It will be because we outprepared, outexecuted, and outperformed the better talent they will bring to the field. We could have a top-10 recruiting class for the next 3 years in a row and still be out-talented by USC, OSU, Texas, Florida, etc., etc.

I know you want to think that we field a team of great athletes because your son plays for the team, but that is just not the reality. We have better athletes now than we have in decades, but we're still not even close to the level of those schools mentioned above in the talent department. And that is why we got pantsed by 5 scores at OSU.
 

2008 Draft (First 3 rounds) vs. Rivals Ratings

5 star recruits-
25-30 per class
12 drafted
40% drafted

4 star recruits-
275-325 per class
30 drafted
9.2% drafted

3 star recruits-
700-800 per class
29 drafted
3.6% drafted

2-star recruits-
1600-1800 per class
17 drafted
0.9% drafted.
 

While I agree that OSU has more talented athletes than us, I disagree that that is the reason we lost so badly to OSU. We lost because of turnovers deep in our territory and a couple of blown coverages where Pryor just had to lob a pass out and hope that he didn't screw it up.
 

DiehardGopher said:
While I agree that OSU has more talented athletes than us, I disagree that that is the reason we lost so badly to OSU. We lost because of turnovers deep in our territory and a couple of blown coverages where Pryor just had to lob a pass out and hope that he didn't screw it up.
Click to expand...

You could make the argument that more talented athletes wouldn't have turned the ball over or have blown coverages.

All their superior athlete had to do was lob a pass out because our inferior athletes had messed up.
 

gopher pops said:
we dropped 4 touch down passes at oho state and was down 7 to 0 at half time i was at the Ohio state game and we beat them all over the field turn overs killed us we gave them the ball 5 times inside the 20 had nothing to do with their athletes being better than ours had more to do with they had more seniors than we did
Click to expand...

That's why games are played in 4 quarters & not 2.......

We lost 38-7.......
 

Gold Vision said:
2008 Draft (First 3 rounds) vs. Rivals Ratings

5 star recruits-
25-30 per class
12 drafted
40% drafted

4 star recruits-
275-325 per class
30 drafted
9.2% drafted

3 star recruits-
700-800 per class
29 drafted
3.6% drafted

2-star recruits-
1600-1800 per class
17 drafted
0.9% drafted.
Click to expand...

Interesting numbers, but the 3 star recruits according to rivals, are around 450 players. The 4 star are around 275 players.

The difference on the number drafted between the 3 and 4 stars is very close.

Finding players that you think fit what you want to do and developing them is the most important thing for a program to have if they want to have sustained success. How an internet recruting service ranks those players, not so much.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom