Stars don't matter...or do they?

Donate To GopherHole
Kuato Lives!

Kuato Lives!

Delvin, MN
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Saw this interesting research on recruiting rankings and NFL draft picks from 2002 to 2008. This paragraph is quite telling when it comes to the whole "stars" debate on HS prospects:

"Good recruiting data started in 2002 and with kids having to wait 3 years to be NFL eligible, I ran the recruiting numbers from 2002 through 2008 to determine the overall composite recruiting ranking. To compare, I used the draft picks from 2002-2010 (’08 recruits were eligible last year). In that time period the USC Trojans had the #1 ranked class and produced 61 draft picks, also ranked #1 (tied). The #3 recruiting rank, Miami, was #3 producing NFL draft picks, Alabama was the #15 recruiting rank and #14 for number of draft picks. In fact, of the top 25 of producing NFL draft picks from 2002-2010, all but 5 were in the top 25 for recruiting."

http://collegefootballmatrix.wordpr...rst-of-recruiting-developing-nfl-draft-picks/

Sure Iowa and Sconnie have definitely got more out of their players than the recruiting rankings would indicate, but I tend to agree with the author when he says this, "While you can choose to draw any conclusion of your liking to the CFBMatrix numbers modeled out and ranked below, I feel that it is a good indicator that the recruiting rankings as a whole are very good and that some teams get more or less from their players versus the norm."
 


Of course stars matter. Not because of the stars but because most halfway decent evaluators can pick the top, cream of the crop players like the top 5 at each position and those are largely the studs with NFL potential
 

I agree but Kill and his longtime staff can, and will "coach up" their players.. Iowa and UW are living proof You can build a program without "glamor" recruits year in and year out.
 

popeyoung5 said:
I agree but Kill and his longtime staff can, and will "coach up" their players.. Iowa and UW are living proof You can build a program without "glamor" recruits year in and year out.
Click to expand...

Kill himself has said that you don't win games without players. Iowa and UW have not shown that at all. They have had above average recruiting and they are above average teams. Sure, they may overachieve, but they aren't playing with MAC level talent. And they aren't competing on the level of OSU, USC, FLA, Tex, etc.
 


The 12th Man said:
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
Click to expand...

:clap:

Most pointless discussion ever. (and just for the record: the star rankings are 100% for entertainment and the dopes who buy into the marketing pitch hook-line-sinker waste their money)
 

BisonGopher said:
:clap:

Most pointless discussion ever. (and just for the record: the star rankings are 100% for entertainment and the dopes who buy into the marketing pitch hook-line-sinker waste their money)
Click to expand...

Did you even click the link? :eek:
 

Kuato Lives! said:
Did you even click the link? :eek:
Click to expand...

The difference between the number of players drafted and the recruiting class ranking does not seem to be a compelling research topic without further constraints placed on the input data.

I can think of a few seemingly exogenous factors off the top of my head that could negatively affect the output in an unfair way.

For example, say OK St had ten 5-star players in a class that decided they didn't like the overly Baptist setting of the university and left for a more progressive setting. then you've not taken into account the fact that the school has lost ten likely draft picks but gets the negative effect of the high recruiting class ranking into consideration when computing the result.

Etc.
 

It's pointless to try to convince Bison of this fact. It is statistically proven, over and over again, that in the longhaul the recruiting rankings matter. Are they everything? Nope. But that is where he can't seem to wrap his head around this discussion.

They are not the holy grail end all be all of college football, but statistically, they absolutely DO matter, in the big picture.
 



BisonGopher said:
The difference between the number of players drafted and the recruiting class ranking does not seem to be a compelling research topic without further constraints placed on the input data.

I can think of a few seemingly exogenous factors off the top of my head that could negatively affect the output in an unfair way.

For example, say OK St had ten 5-star players in a class that decided they didn't like the overly Baptist setting of the university and left for a more progressive setting. then you've not taken into account the fact that the school has lost ten likely draft picks but gets the negative effect of the high recruiting class ranking into consideration when computing the result.

Etc.
Click to expand...

Yet your argument does not at all refute the statistically fact that on average 5 star players outproduce 4 star players, 4 star players outproduce 3 star players, and so on.

Again, it's not the only thing that matters (attrition, coaching, developing players), but it certainly is a key element.
 


So am I to take form this that NFL Scouts only look at a players college offer sheet? I was told that was how stars were assigned.
I'm sure BisonGopher is ready to tell us how NDSU overcame this star system to become the dynamic force they are.
 

BisonGopher said:
The difference between the number of players drafted and the recruiting class ranking does not seem to be a compelling research topic without further constraints placed on the input data.

I can think of a few seemingly exogenous factors off the top of my head that could negatively affect the output in an unfair way.

For example, say OK St had ten 5-star players in a class that decided they didn't like the overly Baptist setting of the university and left for a more progressive setting. then you've not taken into account the fact that the school has lost ten likely draft picks but gets the negative effect of the high recruiting class ranking into consideration when computing the result.

Etc.
Click to expand...

No, it is overwhelmingly compelling evidence. Even if there was a school that had 10 5-star recruits leave, that would only skew things for one school. For bizarre events to skew the whole system to create over time an appearance that more highly regarded recruits were more likely to be drafted than less highly regarded recruits, that would be an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. The odds of such random events skewing data over a prolonged period of time are vanishingly small.
 



UW has been to the rose bowl 4 times in the last 17 years, and won 3 with non descript recruiting classes every year. They have also done just fine vs. OSU during that time. The big ten besides OSU will hardly ever get a top 5 recruiting class. Warm weather, glamor programs due. You have to work with who wants to be on campus and coach. You also need to be able to red shirt and fill the pipe for consistent performance every year.
 

popeyoung5 said:
UW has been to the rose bowl 4 times in the last 17 years, and won 3 with non descript recruiting classes every year. They have also done just fine vs. OSU during that time. The big ten besides OSU will hardly ever get a top 5 recruiting class. Warm weather, glamor programs due. You have to work with who wants to be on campus and coach. You also need to be able to red shirt and fill the pipe for consistent performance every year.
Click to expand...

That isn't entirely accurate. UW knows what they want to do and recruit highly ranked/scouted/stared players for those positions. While their overall recruiting classes would hardly be non descript (nor would they extremely highly rated) if you were to look at their recruiting for positions such as OL, RB, and Various defensive positions you would see that they consistently recruit very well. Once Michigan gets turned around they will once again join OSU is getting top 10 recruiting classes. OSU doesn't get a top five class nearly as often as you think (it certainly isn't yearly). UW doesn't have consist performance every year. They ebb and flow from the middle of the BigTen to the top.
 

Imagine the question was whether or not height mattered in basketball. You could point to some short players like Muggsy Bogues who played in the NBA despite being 5'3". You could also point to players well over 7 feet tall who were NBA busts. Would anyone then proceed to say that NBA players aren't any taller than the average person?

Yes, there are 5-star busts and 1-star players who go on to do well in the NFL. But on average, the 5-star player is going to do better than the 1-star player.
 

Rodent,
I completely agree. My only point is UW and Minnesota are only getting a home grown 5 star if they can keep them in state. Reality says you have to coach up what you can get on campus. It's hard to recruit against warm weather football factories.
 

Every program in the country has players who were overlooked by everyone else, yet find great success in college or the NFL.

For us, Troy Polamalu, Lofa Tatupu and Clay Matthews III might give us a good argument about how worthless the *ranking CAN be. Those players were not offered by one single Division I university (save for Clay, who had one offer, from Idaho).

I tend to like those stories better.
 

Trojan Princess said:
Every program in the country has players who were overlooked by everyone else, yet find great success in college or the NFL.

For us, Troy Polamalu, Lofa Tatupu and Clay Matthews III might give us a good argument about how worthless the *ranking CAN be. Those players were not offered by one single Division I university (save for Clay, who had one offer, from Idaho).

I tend to like those stories better.
Click to expand...

No, they do not show how worthless the system can be. To not be infallible is not even remotely comparable to "worthless". Yes, there are busts, yes, there are players who fall through the cracks. It's like saying that seatbelts are worthless.
 

Trojan Princess said:
Every program in the country has players who were overlooked by everyone else, yet find great success in college or the NFL.

For us, Troy Polamalu, Lofa Tatupu and Clay Matthews III might give us a good argument about how worthless the *ranking CAN be. Those players were not offered by one single Division I university (save for Clay, who had one offer, from Idaho).

I tend to like those stories better.
Click to expand...

Clay Matthews III probably has his development helped by the fact that in college he played alongside two other linebackers who were also drafted basically in the first round. I would bet that Clay probably grew and developed a lot from HS until he started for USC. Also depending on when a player commits that can have an impact on the number of offers they have, but it doesn't mean they were overlooked necessarily.
 

Silvio said:
Clay Matthews III probably has his development helped by the fact that in college he played alongside two other linebackers who were also drafted basically in the first round. I would bet that Clay probably grew and developed a lot from HS until he started for USC. Also depending on when a player commits that can have an impact on the number of offers they have, but it doesn't mean they were overlooked necessarily.
Click to expand...

No it was all because of Muscle Milk or whatever that crap he sells is called.

Trojan Princess said:
Every program in the country has players who were overlooked by everyone else, yet find great success in college or the NFL.

For us, Troy Polamalu, Lofa Tatupu and Clay Matthews III might give us a good argument about how worthless the *ranking CAN be. Those players were not offered by one single Division I university (save for Clay, who had one offer, from Idaho).

I tend to like those stories better.
Click to expand...

Let's see how well USC does with an entire team, hell, even 1/2 of a team of these "stories".
 

There are people out there that believe star rankings don't matter? Are they also still on that "the world is flat" tip?
 

EG#9 said:
There are people out there that believe star rankings don't matter? Are they also still on that "the world is flat" tip?
Click to expand...

Ranking don't matter, if a coach doesn't know how to utilize the talent he recruits...case in point, the hippies, Cal.

Also, the list is long of 4 & 5* that don't pan out at the college level, and those that have zero stars and turn out to be studs...it evens out - somewhat.
 

Trojan Princess said:
Ranking don't matter, if a coach doesn't know how to utilize the talent he recruits...case in point, the hippies, Cal.

Also, the list is long of 4 & 5* that don't pan out at the college level, and those that have zero stars and turn out to be studs...it evens out - somewhat.
Click to expand...

Even if the coach doesn't know how to utilize the talent, ranking still matters: even a poor coach can do better with better recruits than with poorer recruits.

And yes, there are 5 star busts, and no star players that do well. That's like saying that because there are some short NBA players that NBA players are on average not tall. It really doesn't even out.
 

Trojan Princess said:
Ranking don't matter, if a coach doesn't know how to utilize the talent he recruits...case in point, the hippies, Cal.

Also, the list is long of 4 & 5* that don't pan out at the college level, and those that have zero stars and turn out to be studs...it evens out - somewhat.
Click to expand...


It doesn't even out. There are obviously going to be examples of guys who weren't "ranked" real high coming out of HS turning into amazing football players. There are going to be examples of 5 star "can't miss" guys who turned out to be duds.

It's like seeing Drew Butera hit a double and Albert Pujols strike out and coming to the conclusion that "batting average" doesn't matter.

However, in the big picture, when you are looking at the trend, there is much more success amongst 5 star players than there is amongst 3 star players.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
It's pointless to try to convince Bison of this fact. It is statistically proven, over and over again, that in the longhaul the recruiting rankings matter. Are they everything? Nope. But that is where he can't seem to wrap his head around this discussion.

They are not the holy grail end all be all of college football, but statistically, they absolutely DO matter, in the big picture.
Click to expand...

Ok fine they matter.

Wait...what do they matter to? :)
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yet your argument does not at all refute the statistically fact that on average 5 star players outproduce 4 star players, 4 star players outproduce 3 star players, and so on.

Again, it's not the only thing that matters (attrition, coaching, developing players), but it certainly is a key element.
Click to expand...

Wait just a second here... at what point did "5 star vs. 4 star vs. 3 star" become a relevant part of the discussion?

The research presented in the OP was talking about sorting the BCS teams by the difference in recruiting class ranking and draft ranking. That has nothing to do with 5 v 4 v 3.

Please explain what your comment has to do with the research.
 

RodentRampage said:
No, it is overwhelmingly compelling evidence. Even if there was a school that had 10 5-star recruits leave, that would only skew things for one school. For bizarre events to skew the whole system to create over time an appearance that more highly regarded recruits were more likely to be drafted than less highly regarded recruits, that would be an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. The odds of such random events skewing data over a prolonged period of time are vanishingly small.
Click to expand...

In what way is it compelling?

Does seeing that Utah had 24 NFL draftees since 2002 and from 2002-2008 their recruiting classes were ranked 64th out of 68 BCS teams compel you to believe that this is the best recruiting team in the nation?

If anything, I would say that it's an interesting discussion point and nothing more. Of the data presented, I would argue that the absolute number of NFL draftees since 2002 is the most compelling indication of how well the schools recruited.


Or are you satisfied that USC, having 61 NFL draftees since 2002, is correctly ranked 30th out of 68 due to the fact that they had the top ranked recruiting classes from 2002-2008 and the most NFL draftees since 2002?
 

Two questions to anyone that wants to have the discussion:

1) If given the following choice, which would you choose? The highest ranked recruiting class in the B10 or winning the B10 conference championship.
2) If given the following choice, which would you choose? The most NFL draftees of any school in the nation or winning a BCS bowl.

Is the point I'm making clear?


My $0.02: you guys are so gosh darn hellbent on making sure that we're planting the absolutely, positively, scientifically proven best seeds in our farm that you're losing sight of the ultimate point of having a farm. Harvest! Guys...give me players that will WIN GAMES. Isn't that the most important statistic?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom