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

[Bob_Loblaw]

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.

You can't be serious.

You really can't connect the dots from the "5 v 4 v 3 argument" to the class rankings argument? Not even if you try really hard?

Ok...

The class rankings are formulated by plugging those star rankings (5 star, 4 star, 3 star) into a mathematical formula. The 5 star / 4 star / 3 star thing is the same argument. For instance, USC had a lot more 5 and 4 stars than the Gophers, THAT is the reason their class was ranked higher.

 

[Trojan Princess]

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?

Why would you have to consider having to chose one or the other? You want both scenarios in #1 and 2. That's how you build dynasties.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

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?

Everybody would choose winning, but here is the catch *reread this portion if you have to* on average, teams with higher ranked recruiting classes win more games than teams with lower ranked recruiting classes and that is because (for the most part) they have better players.

We are arguing that you win more with better recruits and that has been proven, statistically.

We all have the same end goal, winning (charlie sheen).

 

[BisonGopher]

Everybody would choose winning, but here is the catch *reread this portion if you have to* on average, teams with higher ranked recruiting classes win more games than teams with lower ranked recruiting classes and that is because (for the most part) they have better players.

We are arguing that you win more with better recruits and that has been proven, statistically.

We all have the same end goal, winning (charlie sheen).

Forgive me for being a newcomer, but I either missed the post or I just haven't seen anyone posing data that suggest correlation between recruiting class rank and winning games.

About the only data anyone can seem to post is data regarding recruit rankings and NFL draft results. While very interesting data and discussion, I fail to see what this has to do with winning college football games (as you so aptly put, winning is the end goal).


Now don't get huffy over these comments - I don't doubt that such correlation suggesting data exists and I don't even doubt that the correlation itself exists.

But then we come to that old, lovable proverb: "correlation does not prove causation".


If it weren't for all those other darn factors: coaching talent, support staffs, facilities, booster clubs, budgets, fan attendance, etc. etc. etc. - it might be more clear cut!

 

[Kuato Lives!]

Nick Mertens was a 5 star who shunned a who's who of elite programs to QB the mighty Bison of North Dakota State. More players need to follow in his footsteps.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Just to play devil's advocate for the moment.

The OP tries to correlate College Recruiting rankings with teams that had high # of NFL draft choices.

I would argue that the two are not always linked. We could all come up with lists of players who were not high-ranked players coming out of HS who went on to become successful NFL players - or a list of players who were 4* and 5* recruits who didn't make it in the NFL.

Bottom line - college FB is not the same as Pro FB. Someone may be a very effective college player, but not suited for the pros. Another player may not be a star in college, but his game is better suited for a pro-style attack. That's especially true with the rise of the spread-option offense in college, making it much harder for NFL teams to evaluate college QB's.

I could give a rat's behind how many players get drafted by the NFL. The goal of college FB is to win college FB games, not to prepare players for the NFL. If a team wins a conference title, or wins a major bowl game, but they don't produce a lot of NFL draft picks, is that team a failure? of course not.

 

[Iceland12]

Forgive me for being a newcomer, but I either missed the post or I just haven't seen anyone posing data that suggest correlation between recruiting class rank and winning games.

About the only data anyone can seem to post is data regarding recruit rankings and NFL draft results. While very interesting data and discussion, I fail to see what this has to do with winning college football games (as you so aptly put, winning is the end goal).


Now don't get huffy over these comments - I don't doubt that such correlation suggesting data exists and I don't even doubt that the correlation itself exists.

But then we come to that old, lovable proverb: "correlation does not prove causation".


If it weren't for all those other darn factors: coaching talent, support staffs, facilities, booster clubs, budgets, fan attendance, etc. etc. etc. - it might be more clear cut!

The data has been posted here two or three times. People forget about it, are new to the board or, as often happens on the off topic board, just ignore the facts and get on with their agenda. Then the topic reappears much like "sit or stand", "media coverage" and "why you can't win in Minnesota".

The difference is this subject ain't very subjective.

It was very exhaustive, extensive, conclusive and certainly not done by me! If I remember correctly, about the only thing it didn't answer completely, for me at least, was why the teams who play an overall weak schedule, TCU, Utah, Boise State etc. but win consistently, why they don't have a lot of hi star players.

It might be length of time, none of those schools have been consistent national contenders for a 15- 20 year period yet. It may simply be that the factors you refer to are more then enough to overcome a schedule where they are favorites in 9-10 games every year. Just winning isn't going to get a lot of highly recruited players to forgo a solid BCS offer to go to Idaho or Utah. Over the next 10 years we'll see what happens to Utah and TCU now that they're heading to a BCS conference.

That aside, teams that win over a long period of time, get a lot more high "star" ratings then those that don't.

Go back and search for it if you like, or stick around, it will come back again and again and again..

 

[BisonGopher]

The data has been posted here two or three times. People forget about it, are new to the board or, as often happens on the off topic board, just ignore the facts and get on with their agenda. Then the topic reappears much like "sit or stand", "media coverage" and "why you can't win in Minnesota".

The difference is this subject ain't very subjective.

It was very exhaustive, extensive, conclusive and certainly not done by me! If I remember correctly, about the only thing it didn't answer completely, for me at least, was why the teams who play an overall weak schedule, TCU, Utah, Boise State etc. but win consistently, why they don't have a lot of hi star players.

It might be length of time, none of those schools have been consistent national contenders for a 15- 20 year period yet. It may simply be that the factors you refer to are more then enough to overcome a schedule where they are favorites in 9-10 games every year. Just winning isn't going to get a lot of highly recruited players to forgo a solid BCS offer to go to Idaho or Utah. Over the next 10 years we'll see what happens to Utah and TCU now that they're heading to a BCS conference.

That aside, teams that win over a long period of time, get a lot more high "star" ratings then those that don't.

Go back and search for it if you like, or stick around, it will come back again and again and again..

Thanks - I guess. Your post is a comforting assurance that the data is out there...somewhere.


Honestly guys - how hard is it to wait until the top college football programs offer kids and then slap a 5-star label on them? Who can't do that? I could do that!

The ultimate fallacy of the whole system is that the entire credibility of the whole thing is based on the success of these 5-star players. Well...duh! They're obviously good players or else the top schools wouldn't have offered them. SO, obviously, they're going to help the best teams keep winning (the rich get richer) and they're going to be drafted at the top by the NFL.

But why does that imply that it's acceptable to assume that because they "got it right" on the top players they must be correct on all of their rankings?

Sorry, but just because you say that a junior in high school with offers from Georgia, Florida and Alabama is a 5-star player doesn't mean you have any credibility to say that this player is a 2-star player and that player is a 3-star player.

 

[Word]

BisonGopher - let me ask you this. Would you like Jerry Kill's chances of building a winning program with mostly 4 star players or with 2 star players? Which one would more likely be successful? Obviously the 4 star players. Now, I'm not saying take any old 4 star player for the sake of getting the stars - the player would still need to fit into coach Kill's system/philosophy. Assuming you an get Jerry Kill type players as 4 star players, I'd think you'd gladly take them over 2 star players.

 

[BisonGopher]

BisonGopher - let me ask you this. Would you like Jerry Kill's chances of building a winning program with mostly 4 star players or with 2 star players? Which one would more likely be successful? Obviously the 4 star players. Now, I'm not saying take any old 4 star player for the sake of getting the stars - the player would still need to fit into coach Kill's system/philosophy. Assuming you an get Jerry Kill type players as 4 star players, I'd think you'd gladly take them over 2 star players.

Your question can be correctly re-worded as follows:

"would you like Jerry Kill's chances of building a winning program with mostly players who got many other offers from BCS schools or players who only got offered by Minnesota and MAC schools?"

That being the case, the credibility lies completely with Kill and staff's evaluation of recruits. If they think a young man has the right abilities to help the team win, then that's the end o the story. At that point, all other factors become irrelevant. I could care less what other schools offer.

You and the crowd you belong to want every recruit that comes to Minnesota to be "won at auction" versus every other Big 10 school and ideally all the other BCS schools. In your minds, that would prove something relevant to Minnesota's chances of winning games with the new players.


I on the other hand, just want Kill to get the kids that he thinks will help us win. Here is what I'd like to see:

1) ideally, every year the top 10 players in the Twin Cities go to the U of Minn. If that alone happened, that's enough raw talent to win the Rose bowl. Not a single doubt. But...that's unlikely to happen for a number of reasons. So...
2) every year get the top 5-10 players in Minn outside the Twin Cities. While not usually as talented, there are certainly gems out there every year.
3) prospects in nearby states (drivable) that have grown up and can deal with the cold/snow and general upper midwest culture: Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, Northern Ill, Wisconsin
4) everything outside this are "National prospects". At this point, there's no guarantee that the kids have even heard of Minnesota or know anything of the traditions, climate or culture here. But if you ignore national prospects entirely, you'll probably just end up pissing a bunch of donors off that think the U should have a permanent recruiting office in Florida, Texas, California, etc. because those are the only legitimate places that real DI players come from. Etc. So get a few of these players a year to appease them, knowing in the back of your head that you can't count of them to stick around if they get home sick, don't like the cold/snow, get into trouble, don't go to class, etc. until they prove themselves by not leaving for a couple seasons.

 

[Kuato Lives!]

1) ideally, every year the top 10 players in the Twin Cities go to the U of Minn. If that alone happened, that's enough raw talent to win the Rose bowl. Not a single doubt. But...that's unlikely to happen for a number of reasons. So...
2) every year get the top 5-10 players in Minn outside the Twin Cities. While not usually as talented, there are certainly gems out there every year.
3) prospects in nearby states (drivable) that have grown up and can deal with the cold/snow and general upper midwest culture: Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, Northern Ill, Wisconsin
4) everything outside this are "National prospects". At this point, there's no guarantee that the kids have even heard of Minnesota or know anything of the traditions, climate or culture here. But if you ignore national prospects entirely, you'll probably just end up pissing a bunch of donors off that think the U should have a permanent recruiting office in Florida, Texas, California, etc. because those are the only legitimate places that real DI players come from. Etc. So get a few of these players a year to appease them, knowing in the back of your head that you can't count of them to stick around if they get home sick, don't like the cold/snow, get into trouble, don't go to class, etc. until they prove themselves by not leaving for a couple seasons.

Are we talking about NDSU?

 

[dpodoll68]

I had been wondering if he was being purposefully obtuse to get a rise out of people, or whether he simply doesn't understand how statistics and data work. I'm beginning to lean strongly toward the latter.

 

[Killjoy]

dpodoll68

I had been wondering if he was being purposefully obtuse to get a rise out of people, or whether he simply doesn't understand how statistics and data work. I'm beginning to lean strongly toward the latter.

Finally somebody is asking the right question. It is time for a class on statistics. Just maybe, we could end some of the foolish discussions here, but most likely not.

 

[hyaluronic]

Without stars, heavy elements would not exist, nor would football.

 

[Saluki_Kill_Fan]

Ever since Kill left SIU, I've pretty much followed him wherever he's gone... he just has that much of an effect on fans.

Kill was able to recruit 3 eventual NFL draftees at a school as small as SIU.

Brandon Jacobs (RB 2005 New York Giants. 4th round 110 overall)
Deji Karim (RB/KR 2010 Jacksonville Jaguars. 6th round 180 overall)
Korey Lindsey-Woods (CB 2011 Cincinnati Bengals. 7th round 207 overall)

And while that is only 3 players (in later rounds) over his 7 years with SIU, obviously more big names would go to a big school like Minnesota. Have faith, good things and players will come eventually.

 

[Word]

Your question can be correctly re-worded as follows:

That wasn't part of the deal. Just answer my question as I asked it, please.

Assuming they are "Jerry Kill type players", wouldn't you like Minnesota's chances of success with 4* instead of 2* players? Think of it this way - two players are equal in terms of how they fit the team, character, etc. - and Jerry Kill is down to one last scholarship. He can get a 4* player or a 2* player. Which one should he take?

 

[BisonGopher]

That wasn't part of the deal. Just answer my question as I asked it, please.

Assuming they are "Jerry Kill type players", wouldn't you like Minnesota's chances of success with 4* instead of 2* players? Think of it this way - two players are equal in terms of how they fit the team, character, etc. - and Jerry Kill is down to one last scholarship. He can get a 4* player or a 2* player. Which one should he take?

There was nothing lost in the transformation. You're asking that if Kill has a choice between a player with other BCS offers or a player with no other BCS offers, which would I rather he pick.

I've told you the correct answer: since the true credibility starts with Kill and his staff's evaluation, then it doesn't matter which one he picks - he's getting a player that he wanted in either choice - and I'll equally approve either pick.

 

[BisonGopher]

Are we talking about NDSU?

NDSU will never have the opportunity to pull the top 10 players in the Twin Cities. Obviously it's a guideline for the U of Minn.

I can't believe there's a Minnesota fan that thinks the best from MN aren't good enough to win. That's too bad. Oh wait - I know why: because they don't have enough stars. Duh - silly me.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

NDSU will never have the opportunity to pull the top 10 players in the Twin Cities. Obviously it's a guideline for the U of Minn.

I can't believe there's a Minnesota fan that thinks the best from MN aren't good enough to win. That's too bad. Oh wait - I know why: because they don't have enough stars. Duh - silly me.

How would you rate the top 10 players from MN? Simply the guys that we offer?

I think there is a place on our team for 5-10 MN kids a season (depending on the year). This year, I can think of 15 guys from the state of MN that in my (really novice but I do follow) opinion, can play division 1 football.

 

[Trojan Princess]

This was interesting....BIG-10 superiority in preparing players for the next level.

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/...ollege-programs-and-conferences-at-developing

 

[Word]

There was nothing lost in the transformation. You're asking that if Kill has a choice between a player with other BCS offers or a player with no other BCS offers, which would I rather he pick.

I've told you the correct answer: since the true credibility starts with Kill and his staff's evaluation, then it doesn't matter which one he picks - he's getting a player that he wanted in either choice - and I'll equally approve either pick.

I'll agree with you that it's ultimately up to the coaches and their collective opinion. I'll disagree with you that stars are solely based on offers (although I'm sure it has some influence). I'm pretty sure coach Kill has been on record saying that now that he's at a Big Ten school that there's a different caliber of player they're going after. He's not going to just settle for the same players he would have recruited at NIU.

 

[dpodoll68]

You're asking that if Kill has a choice between a player with other BCS offers or a player with no other BCS offers, which would I rather he pick.

No, that's not what he's asking. Much like all the other things you are wrong about, you are wrong in your misinformed supposition that ratings are based on offers alone.

 

[Killjoy]

dpodoll68

No, that's not what he's asking. Much like all the other things you are wrong about, you are wrong in your misinformed supposition that ratings are based on offers alone.

First I thought the problem was that people didn't understand statistics but now appears it could be a reading problem. It is truly amazing how some people just are not able to comprehend what is being written. Both Bison and wren need to go to a remedial reading class.

 

[BisonGopher]

How would you rate the top 10 players from MN? Simply the guys that we offer?

I think there is a place on our team for 5-10 MN kids a season (depending on the year). This year, I can think of 15 guys from the state of MN that in my (really novice but I do follow) opinion, can play division 1 football.

I don't know how to rate them, but I do think every year there are at least 10 MN high school seniors who are top level BCS players.

If Kills gets all of those players every year, that's the perfect foundation for a Rose Bowl winner.

But we all know that some of these kids go to Wisconsin, Iowa and other programs.

 

[BisonGopher]

I'll agree with you that it's ultimately up to the coaches and their collective opinion. I'll disagree with you that stars are solely based on offers (although I'm sure it has some influence). I'm pretty sure coach Kill has been on record saying that now that he's at a Big Ten school that there's a different caliber of player they're going after. He's not going to just settle for the same players he would have recruited at NIU.

That's well and good. Point still standing is that it's who Kill wants that matters. That's the ultimate source of credibility for determining the "worthyness" of a prospect for playing at Minnesota.

No other source is legitimate.

 

[calminnfan]

I do think that the eval services (stars) have a point. Also look at the top schools and they normally have a lot of stars accompany their recruits. That said, it is not the only issue in the mix.

Among the other things, quality coaching. If you do not have good coaching, all the stars do not matter. The OL the Gophers had when Hamilton and some of the other linemen were creating holes using the zone blocking for the likes of Barber and Maroney. I will also point out, the blocking did not get the job done against the likes of OS.

System. This ties into coaching. Some players respond better to certain systems. I think that is a reason why Weber had so much trouble, they kept changing the system. When Alex Smith was first starting in SF, Norv Turner was OC and he played great. After Turner left, Smith went downhill. Makes a big difference.

Players heart- As a Gophers fan, I think Eric Decker is the immediate candidate for that.

Players developing. The period between 18 and 22 is a major change and developing time for many recruits. With proper discipline and training, they can develop and be successful.

Things that cannot be taught or to a point can be...
Speed - Though it may be developed to a degree adding a second or so by proper training, at the same time, a person can only increase his speed so much.

height and build - Think Willis- Though he was projected by some to be a latter round pick, and will likely sign a UDFA contract, among the things that cannot be taught is his size which is what made him appealing in the first place.

Do stars matter, I believe they do, but how a player is coached and how the player responds is yet to be determined and has about a big an impact as natural talent.

 

[BisonGopher]

No, that's not what he's asking. Much like all the other things you are wrong about, you are wrong in your misinformed supposition that ratings are based on offers alone.

What else are they based off of and, what's actually important, who is creating the basis?

Combine numbers? I don't see many players doing straight line 40 yard sprints with no football in their hands and no pads/helmet on. Nor do I see many players doing vertical jumps or bench presses on the field.
"Expert" review of game film? Who are these experts - high school equivalents of John Clayton and Mel Kiper. Nothing more than accountants who've never played or coached a down of football in their lives.

I'll pass on that and trust our coaching staff's evaluation as the source of credibility.


The only true value these services provide is news. They let subscribers know which recruits have visited, been offered and signed with which schools. That's it. Anything more than that is a scam.

 

[btowngopher]

These are the final bcs standings from 2 yrs ago. 7 of these teams, Cinci, TCU, Boise, BYU, Oregon St., Wisconsin, and Utah did not recruit a top 25 class (rivals) in the 5 years before this poll. Keep in mind that 4 of these play in conferences where top 25 classes are rare (I dunno if there has ever been one in the mountain west much less from the wac.) I think this data shows pretty clearly that there is a strong correlation between recruiting and winning especially in bcs conferences, cinci is kind of an anomaly.
1 Alabama 13-0
2 Texas 13-0
3 Cincinnati 12-0
4 TCU 12-0
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0
7 Oregon 10-2
8 Ohio State 10-2
9 Georgia Tech 11-2
10 Iowa 10-2
11 Virginia Tech 9-3
12 LSU 9-3
13 Penn State 10-2
14 BYU 10-2
15 Miami (Fla.) 9-3
16 West Virginia 9-3
17 Pittsburgh 9-3
18 Oregon State 8-4
19 Oklahoma State 9-3
20 Arizona 8-4
21 Stanford 8-4
22 Nebraska 9-4
23 Utah 9-3
24 USC 8-4
25 Wisconsin 9-3
Here are the final standings from last year. Once again 7 teams made it without a top25 class on the roster. TCU, Wisconsin, Utah, Boise, Nevada, Hawaii, UCF are the 7. 4 of those also made it the previous year. Wisconsin being the only repeat from a bcs conference, and this time being the only bcs conference team. Also note that 2 of these teams are ranked 24th and 25th. Clearly top 25 classes arent nearly as important for non bcs teams since their competition also lacks top 25 classes.
1 Auburn 13-0
2 Oregon 12-0
3 TCU 12-0
4 Stanford 11-1
5 Wisconsin 11-1
6 Ohio State 11-1
7 Oklahoma 11-2
8 Arkansas 10-2
9 Michigan State 11-1
10 Boise State 11-1
11 LSU 10-2
12 Missouri 10-2
13 Virginia Tech 11-2
14 Oklahoma State 10-2
15 Nevada 12-1
16 Alabama 9-3
17 Texas A&M 9-3
18 Nebraska 10-3
19 Utah 10-2
20 South Carolina 9-4
21 Mississippi State 8-4
22 West Virginia 9-3
23 Florida State 9-4
24 Hawaii 10-3
25 UCF 10-3

So in the past 2 years only ten programs have finished in the top25 without at least one top25 recruiting class on their roster. Of these ten programs only 3 play in bcs conferences.

 

[dpodoll68]

Misinformed, ill-founded rant

Just answer a question for all of us. Why should anyone take care to engage in discourse with you? Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, you have ignored anything anyone has said that doesn't fit into your agenda, and keep espousing the same false abortive thoughts. I was going to formulate a response to this post, but realized that I may as well be talking to the wall. Congratulations - you have now entered Wayne Rendahl territory.

 

[hyaluronic]

Bison

Let's play a game. We're going to select 20 random people I've known throughout my life, who I have seen play basketball. Then, I am going to get the first ten picks to make a basketball team. You will get the last ten picks. In four years, our two squads will play against each other. I am so confident that the team I select is going to be better than your team, that I probably won't do a thing until a month before our match-up. And my team will win.