How reliable are recruits' *star ratings. What are they based on? Speed? Strength?

Donate To GopherHole
OldBob53

OldBob53

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
336
Points
83
Do recruiters conduct their own physical performance tests? How significant is the monkey-see, monkey-do factor, i.e. Notre Dame and Michigan and etc want them, so we want them too -- they must be 4*s at least.
 







DEGopher said:
Take a look at this. It’s the top 50 teams ranked solely on composite (multiple ranking services) recruiting rankings.

I think it will answer your question.

http://https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

No surprise, based off of recruiting rankings alone, top 5 are:
1) Bama
2) OhSt
3) Georgia
4) USC
5) LSU.
Click to expand...

We have been over this before.

1. You are looking at talent rankings. Not the same as recruiting rankings. 247 started them solely to hide the biggest flaws with recruiting rankings.

2. Nailing the top 5 proves nothing. Of course 5* kids are better than 3*. We did some analysis here a bit back and between 20-50 it was trending toward a coin-flip.

This is the only post I will make in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

It's based upon whomever has the fastest hand timed 40.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 






Glad to finally see a discussion of this topic.
 

The major flaw is reporting the 247 numbers in four significant figures which is math malpractice but the recruitniks who pay for the info love.
You cannot report an average in more significant figures in an average than the smallest item used in determining the average.
There are some who get a lot of comfort from the numbers like people believe in myths and magic and religion but it does no harm so why fight it.
 



OldBob53 said:
Do recruiters conduct their own physical performance tests? How significant is the monkey-see, monkey-do factor, i.e. Notre Dame and Michigan and etc want them, so we want them too -- they must be 4*s at least.
Click to expand...

They're based almost exclusively on what teams make offers to the recruit.
 

Jeshurun said:
Glad to finally see a discussion of this topic.
Click to expand...
I know. Hard to believe we haven't ever discussed this before.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
 


The very upper tier, yeah. Perennial cast of characters in the CFP picture. It doesn't matter whether you are looking at talent level or recruiting ranking. They don't necessarily need to recruit as hard. They pick and choose.

Then again top 20's recruiting or talent ranking doesn't translate well for neither Nebraska nor Maryland.

That is all I have to say.
 

Spoofin said:
We have been over this before.

1. You are looking at talent rankings. Not the same as recruiting rankings. 247 started them solely to hide the biggest flaws with recruiting rankings.

2. Nailing the top 5 proves nothing. Of course 5* kids are better than 3*. We did some analysis here a bit back and between 20-50 it was trending toward a coin-flip.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1) Talent rankings are just recruiting rankings across multiple years. They don’t hide anything. You clearly have ‘t read what they did.

2) I am glad you acknowledged there success in ranking the top 5, not sure why the rest of the proof eludes you.
 

hungan1 said:
They don't necessarily need to recruit as hard. They pick and choose.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. They have to recruit just as hard (if not harder), not to mention they're going up against much stronger competition.
 

Plato said:
The major flaw is reporting the 247 numbers in four significant figures which is math malpractice but the recruitniks who pay for the info love.
You cannot report an average in more significant figures in an average than the smallest item used in determining the average.
There are some who get a lot of comfort from the numbers like people believe in myths and magic and religion but it does no harm so why fight it.
Click to expand...

You are technically correct. For the reason you stated, you can’t really discern between a ranking of 13 and 17, it’s meaningless. That being said, comparing 13 to 30 is pretty reliable indication for who the better team will be. Of course, the more you climb up above 20, the more “compression” of rankings goes on as it’s difficult to evaluate all 3*s consistently and to know which ones are actually better than the others.
 
Last edited:

Lot of bitter, bitter posters on GH. And they feel necessary to make their bitterness known.

Really sad.
 

OldBob53 said:
Do recruiters conduct their own physical performance tests? How significant is the monkey-see, monkey-do factor, i.e. Notre Dame and Michigan and etc want them, so we want them too -- they must be 4*s at least.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the questions.

The first question: first of all, when you say “recruiters”, it’s not clear to me if you mean actual coaching staffs or if you mean websites like rivals.com or 247sports.com. The latter offer college sports recruiting information to the public. I’ll assume you meant the latter.

My understanding is that these websites employ teams of evaluators who perform their own evaluations of a particular recruit. I imagine they use game film, testing results from combines, and interviews to conduct their evaluations. They might also consider which schools have offered or are interested in a particular recruit.

That might explain what a few other posters have brought up in terms of talent rankings vs recruiting rankings, I don’t know what the difference is myself.


The second question: it depends on who “we” is. Fleck and staff I’m sure have their own evaluations and own criteria on who they are going to focus on. If a kid is getting offers or serious attention from Mich and ND, and he had no ties to Minnesota or the coaching staff, maybe they decide not to bother spending too much effort on him.


Does that help?
 

They definitely mean something. But they are strictly based on talent.

As with any bell curve, the best is further separated from the 20th percentile than the 20th percentile is separated from the 80th percentile. That’s why the 5 stars retain separation from the pack.

Some HS players are over or underrated to some degree due to injury concerns, misuse, scheme fit, etc. However, a coach that can motivate his players to work harder, or can teach better can move the needle (more easily in the middle of the bell curve) to become better than some of the players that were ahead of them. I think PJ is masterful at finding kids willing to put in the effort, cultivating that trait, and it turns out is much better schematically than I initially gave him credit for. Seems to me he is helping our student athletes pass many that were rated ahead of them.
 

Spoofin said:
This is the only post I will make in this thread.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 

DEGopher said:
1) Talent rankings are just recruiting rankings across multiple years. They don’t hide anything. You clearly have ‘t read what they did.
Click to expand...

I have pledged to not post more in this thread so I am not going to debate you. I do feel the need to inform you, however, that your above statement is factually incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom