What are star rankings based upon, recruiting-wise?

Donate To GopherHole
OldBob53

OldBob53

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
336
Points
83
Do the ranking services, like 247.com have access to players physical stats in HS? Their 40 yd dash times, bench lifts, other measures? Or is it based on more superficial parameters, like whose recruiting them, i.e,, if Alabama is after them, they must be good
 

It seems like there are two components in terms measuring college prospects - rankings and ratings. I would speculate all those HS measurables are taken into consideration. For the majority, the preferred evaluation method is game films. The downside is they wade through tons of highlight tapes and can miss on intangibles. Simply, you are at the mercy of talent evaluators sitting in front of a computer. It is possible to miss or under evaluate a player's potential. What about those players who simply don't have a good set of game films submitted? Others rely on in-person evaluations like in combines and camps. Yet, others like PJ Fleck & Co. rely on a combination.

Thus, it is an inexact science and explains how there are differences in evaluation by the different services. All these project the value of a prospect into the future as a collegiate player.

Here are two articles on the subject:
How are recruiting rankings determined? ESPN, Rivals, Scout and 247 break out the process

Seeing stars: 247Sports, Rivals, and ESPN star-rating systems explained
 
Last edited:


Bateman and Morgan and Winfield are 3 examples showing those ratings are not precise. They were all 3 stars.
 

OldBob53 said:
Bateman and Morgan and Winfield are 3 examples showing those ratings are not precise. They were all 3 stars.
Click to expand...

Bateman was a 4 star.

The 3 stars for the other two probably have as much to do with physical traits as anything else. The NFL is littered with 3 star players, and even some 2 and 0 star guys.
 


PitinoFan said:
Bateman was a 4 star.

The 3 stars for the other two probably have as much to do with physical traits as anything else. The NFL is littered with 3 star players, and even some 2 and 0 star guys.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's interesting.
 

OldBob53 said:
Bateman and Morgan and Winfield are 3 examples showing those ratings are not precise. They were all 3 stars.
Click to expand...
It’s impossible to perfectly predict how a 17-18 year old will pan out in college and then the pros.

I think 5* are guys projected to be first round draft picks and 4* 2nd-3rd round picks. So I think it is safe to say that all 4* and 5* guys go to P5 teams and most go to the top P5. Most college players therefore will be 3* or lower.

But right there you can see some cracks in the system because it is not always true that all the guys in the top 3 rounds are from P5 teams, let alone the top P5 teams.
 

OldBob53 said:
Bateman and Morgan and Winfield are 3 examples showing those ratings are not precise. They were all 3 stars.
Click to expand...

Clemson, Oklahom, OSU, and LSU are examples of the ratings being accurate enough if the sample size is 85 players.
 

Obviously the rankings aren’t 100 percent accurate. It’s impossible to have perfectly accurate system. I don’t know why people continue to point this out. Obviously the system has some degree of accuracy, if you look at the teams having the most success they are the same ones that are recruiting well as reflected by the ratings.
 



Those big name schools are the beneficiary of players that are as advertised. Simply put, they get players within the top 5%. If they have a dud, they have a roster full of four star and even some five stars players that can dampen the blow.

If a middling program like the Gophers have a four star who is a dud, the impact to the program is greater. The Gophers need to develop three star players into four stars in the program. That is why PJ Fleck is avoiding burning red shirts unless there is a position shortage and a player can start and have an immediate impact.

A three star is within the top 10% of HS players. For high three stars, I often wonder if some of them are under evaluated. So, in the case of 247SPorts composite ratings Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota in the 2020 class are just within just a few total recruiting points and average ratings of one another.
 

btowngopher said:
Obviously the rankings aren’t 100 percent accurate. It’s impossible to have perfectly accurate system. I don’t know why people continue to point this out.
Click to expand...
I guess because people keep pointing out examples where the system didn’t predict that a 3* player would become a star in college and go on to the pros?
 


MplsGopher said:
I guess because people keep pointing out examples where the system didn’t predict that a 3* player would become a star in college and go on to the pros?
Click to expand...

There’s only like 30 five star players each year. Even if every five star got drafted there is still tons of openings for three star guys to make it. The fact that a lot of three stars get drafted does not make the ratings worthless.
 



btowngopher said:
There’s only like 30 five star players each year. Even if every five star got drafted there is still tons of openings for three star guys to make it. The fact that a lot of three stars get drafted does not make the ratings worthless.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%.

I gave an answer for your question. If people didn’t point that same issue out again and again, then other people would need to point out again and again that the system isn’t perfect.
 



It's primarily based on their hudl film but they also put on and attend camps and combines like the Nike Opening, Elite 11, Rivals camp series as well as all the top all star games and practices.

They will also attend HS games and practices as well.

Also when they don't get or haven't yet had the chance to evaluate a specific prospect in person, they prefer for go more conservative on their rating.
 


PitinoFan said:
Bateman was a 4 star.

The 3 stars for the other two probably have as much to do with physical traits as anything else. The NFL is littered with 3 star players, and even some 2 and 0 star guys.
Click to expand...

Bateman was a 3* when he was offered and committed to the Gophers , before his senior season. Anyone can see a 4* after this senior season. Imo coach’s are the real evaluators not 247.
 

btowngopher said:
Clemson, Oklahom, OSU, and LSU are examples of the ratings being accurate enough if the sample size is 85 players.
Click to expand...
btowngopher said:
Obviously the rankings aren’t 100 percent accurate. It’s impossible to have perfectly accurate system. I don’t know why people continue to point this out. Obviously the system has some degree of accuracy, if you look at the teams having the most success they are the same ones that are recruiting well as reflected by the ratings.
Click to expand...
Dude - you can’t use the teams that get the top rated players as proof rankings work. Of course a team of 4* and 5* players is going to outperform one of 2* and 3* players. Does tOSU beating Akron prove anything? This isn’t rocket science.

It is when you start trying to separate those teams in the 20-50 range where you are comparing 3* players out to 4 decimal places that shows the crapshoot that rankings are. We have done limited comparisons on here for teams in that range and the rankings don’t mean much.
 


MplsGopher said:
You did nothing to indicate light-heartedness. It came across as mean spirited and talking down to others. That’s on you
Click to expand...
The lens you choose to read things through and react based on is on you. Grow up.

PS: This is me being mean spirited.
 


If there was only one source doing all the ratings, then it would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

But, as we know, there are multiple sites each doing their own evaluations and issuing their own ratings. ESPN, Rivals, Scout, 247.

So, we get into these endless discussions/arguments. is a 3* from ESPN the same as a 3* from Rivals?
Are the numeric ratings comparable? If a player is a .8547 from 247, how does that compare to a player with an .8600 from a different service?

I look at all of it like the old sticker they used to put on pinball machines: "for amusement value only."

In the end, coaches will recruit players they like. I have yet to hear of a coach who said "I was going to sign Player X, because I really liked him, but when he got a 2* rating from Rivals, I decided I couldn't give him a scholarship."
 

At the signing social Coach Fleck talked about the 4 and 5 star players being more physically developed and ready to compete at the college level. A 3 star may have just as much potential but likely needs some time to develop.
 


rugger14 said:
At the signing social Coach Fleck talked about the 4 and 5 star players being more physically developed and ready to compete at the college level. A 3 star may have just as much potential but likely needs some time to develop.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. And again, most players on P5 teams (except the very top teams) are going to be 3* players. They are guys who, through high school at least, haven't shown yet that they can be first round draft picks (5*) or 2nd-3rd round picks (4*).
 

Although the star ratings is imprecise in determining how recruits perform in college or for that matter, which ones will get drafted. Those who are ranked as Five Stars as a group have a higher probability of being drafted. There are more Three Star and Four Star players getting drafted in each class, but by lower percentages. There are only 30-33 Five Star players in each class deemed as "can't miss" stars. Chris Hummer of 247Sports.com laid out How recruiting rankings fare projecting future NFL Draft picks in his article on April 30, 2018.



T
 

Spoofin said:
Dude - you can’t use the teams that get the top rated players as proof rankings work. Of course a team of 4* and 5* players is going to outperform one of 2* and 3* players. Does tOSU beating Akron prove anything? This isn’t rocket science.

It is when you start trying to separate those teams in the 20-50 range where you are comparing 3* players out to 4 decimal places that shows the crapshoot that rankings are. We have done limited comparisons on here for teams in that range and the rankings don’t mean much.
Click to expand...

You just said of course a team of four and five stars will beat a team of two and three stars. Thus the ratings do work. The draft rates for each star level also prove they ratings work. Are they so accurate that a 5.6 three star more often then not is more successful than the 5.5 three stars? I don’t know, I’d be pretty impressed if they were that precise.
 

btowngopher said:
You just said of course a team of four and five stars will beat a team of two and three stars. Thus the ratings do work. The draft rates for each star level also prove they ratings work. Are they so accurate that a 5.6 three star more often then not is more successful than the 5.5 three stars? I don’t know, I’d be pretty impressed if they were that precise.
Click to expand...
You missed my point completely. If you think being able to identify 5-Star player over a 3-star player and that tOSU beating Akron proves rankings work then there really is nothing left to discuss. Buy a subscription to 247 and you know all that needs to be known.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom